The Fake Outrage Over Breastgate Shows Why We Must Not Play Liberals’ New Rules Game

The Brooke Baldwin mammary mess is just another example of how liberals leverage their ability to create new rules out of thin air as a means of asserting their power over us normals. What was A-OK yesterday is now forbidden, and what was forbidden yesterday is now mandatory. Their goal is to keep our heads spinning and paralyze us with fear, like nearsighted corporals caught in a minefield and terrified that if we take one wrong step we will detonate a concealed wrongthink booby-trap. They want us living in fear of their fussy wrath, and that is precisely why it is so important for us to keep abreast of pseudo-scandals like this so we can nip these libfascists' schemes in the bud and deny them the ability to rack up yet another victory in the culture war.

To stop them, they be made to hate the new rules they have created. Fredocon conservatives label this "Whataboutism" and demand we unilaterally disarm ourselves by abandoning this powerful weapon for showing normals why liberals are terrible. These goofs never met a battle they didn't think conservatives were morally obligated to lose.

What they call "whataboutism" isn't optional; our application of judgment and our highlighting of prog inconsistency is morally mandatory. Alinksy was right – we must hold our enemies to their own stupid standards, and that's especially true if it's a newly-invented standard designed only to silence and suppress us conservatives. We must take their new rules, roll them up real tight, and ram them down the left's collective collectivist throat, if not elsewhere.

They make it easy for us by being so ridiculous. Are women the strong, powerful equals of men, or fragile flowers who wilt at the mere mention of lady parts? It depends on which one is the most useful to the liberal narrative right then and there. Can you talk about lady parts? Apparently the new rule is that you can't, at least in the normal context of heterosexual men citing the parts that they like. But if you want to wear a gynecological sombrero on your pointy head, apparently that's muy bueno.

Part of the strategy behind the new rules is to not actually have any firm rules, to make you so uncertain and timid that you're unwilling to take any action because anything you do, at any time, can be a violation of a rule that didn't exist 30 seconds before. If you do talk about female body parts, you're wrong because you're insulting womyn, and if you don't talk about female body parts, you're wrong because you are invisibling womyn. Basically, if you don't have any female body parts, you're just wrong all of the time. Unless you have fake female body parts and betrayed your country; then you are America's greatest hero and a martyr to Harvard's infamous legacy of transphobia. Or something.

It's not even hypocrisy, because hypocrites at least believe that what they're doing is wrong. Do you think Bill Clinton believes his chronic and increasingly pathetic bimbo boffing is morally right? Of course not. He just doesn't care, because he is more repelled by Felonia von Pantsuit than he is attracted to morality.

When we call these jerks on their new rules scam it's not about morality. It's about fighting back against people who are attempting to assert power over us by inventing new standards that they've never applied before, and never will again, in order to control us. Showing that they don't actually believe in the stupid standards they apply is key – that’s why it's important to point out that Brooke Baldwin giggled away on CNN as that hideous ogress Kathy Griffin yelled "Nipple nipple nipple!" Baldwin doesn't really care if someone uses a PG-13 vulgarity to describe the best thing about Games of Thrones. She just used some fake outrage to high-hat into silence a conservative guy who was making a powerful conservative point about liberal fascism.

Since they are establishing new rules, there's nothing wrong with applying them to our advantage. Take the example of that drooling moron on ESPN...wait I need to be more specific. I mean that particular drooling moron who recently tweeted about how Trump is a white supremacist because reasons and stuff, and thereby drew demands that she be fired from some conservatives. Smug, dumb libs started tut-tutting that "Oh, conservatives are now for firing people when they didn't used to be." Well, yeah. See, you changed the rules. The rule used to be that you can't be fired for what you say or think. But that's not the rule anymore, thanks to you liberals. Just ask that guy who was at Mozilla or that heretic who thinks men and women are different and got fired from Google. Sure, we were against the new rule, but you used your cultural power through the media, the Democrat party, and your corporate coward allies to impose it. So we are not hypocrites for employing the rule that exists now, thanks to you. And we hope you choke on it.

Hey, if you want to change the rule back, let's do that. Let's all gather together and state, unequivocally, "No, we are not going to fire people for what they say or think." Except you don't really want to do that. You want to have a special rule that applies only to conservatives, but we're not going to allow that to happen. That's why we're going to make the argument to normals for the universal application of the new rules you created. And it's an effective argument, which is why you hate it. Normal people naturally understand that there can't be two sets of rules, one for us normals, and one for you America-hating, alternately perverted and prudish, progressive weirdos.

See, the only way they'll learn is to feel the pain that comes from the consequences of their evil choices. Now, a lot of Never Trump types, when they aren't busy not kissing girls, argue that mean people like me have an ideology based on only upon annoying liberals. Silly rabbits. It's hard to tell whether they can't understand my argument, or they're whether just deliberately misrepresenting it because they can’t argue with it. Maybe it's some combination of the two. But regardless, they refuse to acknowledge that a key component of winning is to start beating the other side. It's hard to understand these kulturkampf appeasers’ strategy – we're supposed to give up every single battle, and if we keep losing enough we’ll somehow win the war. I'm not sure how that works – I must've skipped out on the block of instruction at Fort Benning entitled “Lose Your Way to Victory.”

The fact is we have to win somewhere, at least sometimes, because conservatism is never going to come back if we allow our side’s morale to be crushed by constant defeat. We're never going to rally and get the kind of constitutional republic the Founders promised back in place if we're always letting our followers down. “Oh, we’ll give in here and appease there, but hey, someday we’ll fight. Really!” Passive, prissy George McClellan conservatism is loser conservatism. Morale is important. These fights raise our people's morale, while letting lib abuse slide saps it, and that is critical. No one's going to follow you into battle if you're unwilling to win.

But because some of us are fighting back we cons may actually be winning the cultural war, as Jim Geraghty points out. That delusional freakshow/traitor Bradley Manning got kicked out of Harvard and will no longer be a fellow, which we all thought was what he wanted all along. College man-witch burnings are being banned, and Ben Shapiro has forced the adminofascist university cartel to let him speak. ESPN is now telling its reporters that's not a political channel, which is a giant lie, but at least widespread unplugging of the MSNBC of Sports has compelled the network to try to front neutrality to the normals.

Let’s keep up the momentum and get out front on this current imbroglio. Breastgate is, in itself, unimportant and more than a little silly when our country is literally at risk of splitting apart. But small battles can highlight big principles, and what this heaving, pouting, pert controversy demonstrates is critical. Deliberately imposing new rules has emerged as one of the left’s most effective tactics for silencing normals’ dissent, and the first step toward stopping it is making sure that leftists learn to hate their new rules.

This was a “note” on Facebook. No real link to copy paste (that I saw anyway). Really good write up.

The Emmys, the NFL and Other Addicts

By Nicholas Pierro

We are living in crazy times. Obama has successfully created a country so divided that the bottom line has changed. It used to be money. This is no longer true. It’s all about hate. Institutions where it’s occupants are beyond wealthy now put hate before money. It’s a situation where nobody wins and it will continue to feed itself until there’s nothing left. Like a heroin addict, it continues to feed itself the junk that will eventually kill it.

Sports and entertainment were always an escape from daily problems, bad news and international chaos. The news used to report whatever was going on in a usually fair and balanced manner. If a current war or your bills piling up gave you sleepless evenings in bed, you used to rely on actors and athletes to help you forget those things for a few hours. Unfortunately we no longer have this luxury.

Everyone knows the saying “divide and conquer.” It was eight years of aggressively dividing by the left that brought us here: straight vs gay; religious vs nonreligious; rich vs poor; right vs left; gun advocates vs anti gun; Christians vs Muslims; conservatives vs progressives; pro life vs pro choice; North vs South; cops vs civilians; black vs white; open borders vs closed borders; pro immigration vs regulated immigration, patriots vs globalists; capitalists vs socialists, and I can go on. We’re killing us. There’s no end in sight. It’s not by accident. This is a plan by the globalists. Divide and Conquer.

This is actually more devastating for the left and progressives although if you’re not really paying attention you would think the opposite were true. Allow me to explain: Politics has infiltrated sports. The obvious example is in the NFL and ESPN. Fans on the left, like heroin junkies, can’t ever get enough. More more more... The purveyors of this progressive ideology are congratulated, rewarded, invited to cool parties, and written about with adulation. Like heroin junkies they too want more as they self feed each other. It’s a cycle that never ends because they too never get enough.
You can point out to a junkie that they lost their job, their health is in decline and their family has shunned them, but this all doesn’t matter as long as they get more dope. Nothing matters. Especially when there are enablers. There are always enablers. The enablers in this case are the media. Some people report that ESPN lost 13 million subscribers. The enablers make excuses and feed them more junk. Like a junkie, ESPN will say “it’s not my fault” it’s this or that. The same is true in the NFL. Roger Goodell is like the parent that knows his son is killing himself but doesn’t have the frame of mind to stop the destruction. A pure enabler. Excuse, excuse, excuse.

Have you ever had the unfortunate experience of talking to a loved one a course of self destruction, trying desperately to help them change their ways? Is there anything more frustrating? “We know you’re on (fill in blank); you’re gambling too much; we’re worried about you; you’re drinking way too much; your spouse is going to leave you; your wife thinks you’re addicted to porn; you’re going to die; your doctor is prescribing too much medication; etc.” These inquiries are met with “They’re lying; that’s not true; I have it under control; I need these meds; I’m fine; I didn’t do that; that’s their fault; it would have happened anyway; I hardly drink at all; cocaine? no way” I can go on. Now try that here: “You’re losing viewers; you’re losing fans; you’re really spreading lies; people are hating you; you have the lowest ratings ever; less and less people are buying tickets to games and movies; etc.” This is met with, “There was a hurricane; it was an election season; there are other options now; it’s not our fault; this would happen anyway; they’re lying; I have it under control, etc. Get my drift?
The media enables by turning a blind eye and parroting the enablers’ excuses. There’s no reality anymore. Ratings are low? What? Lost jobs? But it’s not my fault! Entertainers take it to the next level since they have the best parties, the most wealth, and more ass kissers than anyone, so their pool of enablers is infinite.

Take a guy like Tom Cruise. No one knows his politics. He’s probably equally adored or disliked by either party, all genders, and different social classes. If he were to all of a sudden start bashing Donald Trump, more than 50 million people would automatically dislike him and stop seeing his movies. As much as that would hurt him, his peers and colleagues will congratulate and lie to him. He would be discussed on and invited to the View and Kimmel and Colbert. If he gets addicted to the endless stream of praise and invites to the best parties he’ll amp it up. Meanwhile his box office will suffer. Ask Jennifer Lawrence or George Clooney. However, like your average junkie, that’s no longer important. More junk is the priority! Can you imagine?

So you can tell the Emmys that they had the lowest viewership in forever and you can tell the NFL that they’re losing viewers weekly and you can tell actors no one is paying to see their movies anymore. It just doesn’t matter. People are just dismissing this reporting. They don’t care. They’re blinded by this new drug which is fueled by hate. Nothing else matters.
What happened to the people in Elvis Presley’s, Michael Jackson’s or even Anna Nicole Smith’s lives that tried to stop them from self destruction? They were ignored or removed from their lives. Others were willing to step up and feed the monster.

This works out just brilliantly for conservatives. The more Hollywood and Sports continue to drive recklessly into the despair of self destruction, constantly ignoring the signs that this isn’t good for their institutions, the more they are allowed to showcase this behavior. You can watch Whitney Houston tell the world she’s fine while high off her ass, and then watch the actors at the Emmys pat each other on the back and you can see the similarities.

Since the media enable and won’t be truthful they’ll continue. As long as they continue the more there are people that weren’t paying attention will start to catch on. The more that people catch on, the more people will be turned off. The more that people are turned off to their shenanigans, the more that will wonder what is going on. The more that wonders the more this benefits us. If you think watching Stephen Colbert put down our president while a maniac in North Korea is threatening to wipe out an American city; or if you think people watching Michael Bennett raise a black power fist after sacking a quarterback while terror attacks are still happening regularly around the globe; or if you think watching people riot over a dead heroin dealer is going to help elect a democrat president, you’re crazy as hell.

All I can say is ... keep it up!

That is a great article. The first three paragraphs were really spot on with one exception, IMO: "...The news used to report whatever was going on in a usually fair and balanced manner..."

My entire life, and even before it dating back to at least the McCarthy Era in the early 1950's the media has never been fair and balanced. The reason it seemed that way was two-fold: First, there was no counterbalance, so the media could say what they wanted, and spin it how they wanted, and second, we trusted them.

We trusted the NYT to tell the truth about communist infiltration in the US government and Joseph McCarthy's accusations. McCarthy was demonized for all eternity, even though he was nearly 100% spot on.

We trusted Walter Cronkite to tell the truth about the Tet Offensive and Watergate. His deliberate and negative coverage was a major factor in the turning point in the war.

We trusted Ted Koppel to tell us the truth about Ronald Reagan. Instead they made him out to be a senile madman intent on destroying the world.

We trusted Peter Jennings to tell us the truth about Bill Clinton and Clarence Thomas. Instead we got Clinton playing a saxophone and pubic hairs on coke cans.

We trusted Dan Rather to tell us the truth about Bush's National Guard Service. Instead they outright fabricated documents and the public caught him in his lies.

We trusted all these people (or most of us, up until Peter Jennings, when we started to realize they had an agenda. But you get the idea.

Other than that, great article, thanks for posting it!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.