The hypocrisy and myopia of the Media's Anti-Putin propaganda

I remember the media's coverage of Putin before the Iraq war, and if you can believe it, it was so opposite of what it is now.  Back then, he was the savior of Russia and a great ally to the US.  Funny how, the moment he called bullshit on one of our wars, that all changed.  But this blog isn't about that, it's about the way in which the Media lies on Putin, while downplaying our own leaders' similar political moves.  For example:

Khordokhovsky was Russia's Blago

Rod Blagoyavich, for those unaware, is absolutely guilty of the corruption for which he was charged. The problem is, no charges happened until after he badmouthed Barack Obama.  The same is largely true of Khordokhovsky, with some key differences:

-Khordokhovsky's crime was far more serious.  He embezzled a high percentage of Russia's total GDP during the Yeltsin era.  Before this, Russia already had tons of crime and corruption troubles, it got worse after Khordokhovsky's crime.

-Blago was being obnoxious and a bit offensive, but what Mikhail Khordokhovsky said about Putin was very serious, and downright defamatory if wrong (which, to be fair, I am not sure if it is or not).  Not to mention it was rather ironic of him to accuse Putin of accepting bribes after Mikhail himself had embezzled money from the government and participated in countless bribes.

-Putin did EVENTUALLY pardon Mikhail, Blago will have no such mercy from Obama.

And sure, Putin IS wrong for not jailing Mikhail before this point, but it's not the anti-free speech story that you were told by the MSM.

What "Pussy Riot" did is, at best, a class A Misdemeanor in the US, netting you at least as much time here in the states

Quick, go into a church, get on a loud speaker, and disrupt services while refusing to leave.  You'll be VERY lucky if you don't get a felony for that.  It's not only disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct, but it can even be considered trespassing if you are asked to leave but don't.

Well, that's what Cunt Riot did, and if you think that should be legal, well, I disagree, but at least admit that our own laws also prohibit these things and they are far from unenforced.

So no, they weren't jailed for protesting Putin, they were jailed for being obnoxious, disruptive, and refusing to leave.   In fact, this is exactly why church goers protested a Pussy Riot tribute, it's not their love for Mr. Putin, but their hate for obnoxious brats.

Crimea, Ukraine, yadda yadda

Devil is in the details, but this youtube video describes it well, suffice to say, it is pretty much the opposite of what you have heard.

Alleged murders of political enemies

Of course, while none of this has been proven, none of it can be ruled out either.  While, in fairness, proving a negative is difficult, when it isn't impossible, let's just assume it's all true for the sake of argument.

Firstly, Andrew Breitbart, Obama's most notorious critic, suddenly drops dead.  There were others, but Breitbart is the most known example.

And neither Obama nor Putin have a list as long as the infamous Clinton Body Count, which, by the way, DID NOT end with Seth Rich, as a woman investigating a pedo ring in Haiti, that allegedly ties to the Clintons, also recently died.

And sure, this is bad also, but it means Putin, at worst, is ON PAR with our politicians as far as murdering opposition goes.

My own opinion

While Putin is no worse than our politicians, he doesn't appear to be a whole lot better either, he's anti-PC, as are most Russians, so there's that.  But overall, he comes off to me not as a tyrant or a great leader, but as a flawed human being running a country.

No, Hillary's "mistakes" didn't cost her the election, Trump made his own mistakes.

People in the Hitlery Rotten Cunton camp like to say she lost because she ignored Wisconsin, barely campaigned in Michigan, didn't talk policy much, etc.  Don't get me wrong, these were mistakes, and they did hurt her with voters, but it's not as if Trump didn't make his own mistakes.  Here are some examples.

Stop and Frisk

Prior to this, Trump had been polling 18-20% with Black voters for about 2 weeks straight, which is near impossible for a republican to do.  After this, he dropped to 5, and didn't come up much from that.  Sure, the exit polls on the 8th may have underestimated his actual vote, so maybe instead of 8%, he got, say, 10-12%, with a lot of Black Voters staying home because they didn't like Hillary either.  And yeah, that's much better than republicans before him, but it still didn't reach the level it was through most of September, after "Stop and Frisk" this was not possible anymore.

For full context, Stop and Frisk is largely seen as a racial profiling, racist cop tactic.  It may not be, and I'm certain Trump didn't mean it that way, but that is how it was seen.  And expressing intent to use it in minority neighborhoods (even if not exclusively there) was just NOT a good idea.

Muslim Ban

Granted, this spiked his PRIMARY poll numbers, at least in the immediate sense.  However, it was also used as propaganda to paint him as a bigot, even in the primaries.  And in the general election, it had a much more pronounced effect.  Sure, he minimized the damage by pivoting to Extreme Vetting, but if nothing else, it still served as Confirmation Bias about his alleged "racism" and "bigotry", plus, it's kinda hard to NOT see it as Islamophobia.

Sure, there's reason to believe that Islam hasn't ironed out its problems as well as the older religions have, and this no doubt started that conversation, but this is about whether it costed him votes, not whether it started a needed conversation.

Failure to reach out to gamers

Sure, there's that infamous 2012 tweet, but compare it to Hillary's entire anti-gamer history, now add onto that her embrace of Brianna Wu, her endorsing the media narrative that GamerGate/Gamers are misogynists who harass and rape women, and the fact that Anita Sarkeesian endorsed her.  Trump had a MAJOR opportunity to win the youth vote, by a WIDE MARGIN, he failed.  Granted, he still won more of the youth vote than most republicans, but still, 65% is better than 45%, no?

Failure to make a "Regressive Left" Speech

Granted, after Hillary's Alt Right speech, this would have been seen as tit for tat, but that probably wouldn't have mattered much.  Painting Hillary as Regressive Left would have been a LOT easier than painting Trump as Alt Right.  Not to mention, the Regressive Left, unlike the Alt Right, is actually ruining lives and and even getting people killed.  To the former, he could have cited examples of people railroaded by the media's SJW talking points, who lost jobs, and in some cases, went to jail on the "Listen and Believe" mentality for stuff they are NOT guilty of.  How many Gamers and Frat Houses have had their lives ruined over the last 2 years?  To this, he could have persuaded the public on why Opening the Libel Laws would be a good thing.

To the latter, most examples are from Europe, but they are there.  Plus it's NOT like Regressives didn't defend the Mateen family.

So what did cost Hillary the election?

Here are the reasons:

1. She was an SJW.  Sure, Trump didn't exploit this weakness very much, but it's not as if it helped her.  Many, including myself, voted for Trump based on this.

2. Trump didn't tow the party line, Clinton DID.  This made her look like a typical, partisan hack DC insider.  You can simplify this by saying "status quo", but there's more to it than that.  It's not just that this was status quo, eating every day is status quo, but nobody cares about that.  It's because these are the specific aspects of the status quo that people hate, and she went full bore on these.

3. WW3 posturing.  Yes, the average American doesn't like Putin, but it's doubtful that a whole lot of them want war with the guy, Russia isn't some small, 3rd world country that we can just bully, and Americans are well aware of this.

4. She ran a "California" campaign.  And sure, assuming she didn't commit massive voter fraud, which is doubtful, this won her the popular vote.  But, rightly or wrongly, the president isn't elected that way.  Trump countered this with a Rust Belt campaign.  This didn't hurt him much in the red states due to his running as a republican, but allowed him to take blue states from Clinton.  This was likely his plan all along, and she fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

We must fight and not let up #NeverRomney

Apparently, Trump is ONCE AGAIN leaning towards Romney.

Know why?  2 reasons:

1. We keep letting up every time we think Romney is out.
2. Mike Pence and Reince Priebus

So here is what we need to do:

1. DM High Profile Trump supporters who oppose Romney, and have open DMs on twitter.  These include, but are not limited to:

-Mike Cernovich (@cernovich)
-Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet)
-@YoungDems4Trump

2. Aggressively tweet at @realDonaldTrump and @transition2017 that we, the PEOPLE not only oppose Mitt Romney, but will actively work against Trump in 2020 if Mitt is selected (if you don't really mean it, keep it to yourself, they have to at least believe we are serious).

3. Demand the resignation of Mike Pence and Reince Preibus.  This last part may not actually happen, but it will at least send a signal that we are onto them and do not appreciate their establishment style sabotage of our grassroots movement.

This is especially important if you are a gamer and want the libel laws opened.  Think establishment hacks won't try to sabotage that?

My personal opinion on the Trump-Carrier deal.

While the exact number of jobs Trump saved seems to go all over the place, depending on who you ask, everyone pretty much agrees, he saved some, but not all of the jobs.

And beyond that, the details become even less clear.  What IS clear is that Trump saved a number of jobs, while not taking the hard line he promised.  There is indeed legit concern with this, although Trump also campaigned on being a deal maker, willing to make concessions where necessary.

Still, I believe he could have gotten a better deal than he did, but with that said, he also did more for american workers over thanksgiving than Barack Obama has done over the course of 8 years.  It, wasn't spectacular, but it was certainly a massive improvement over the status quo.  I give him a B-.  Still, Obama and Bush got pretty much Straight F's, so, you know, it's a whole lot better, even if it's not where I'd like it to be.

The problem with Tribal Sovereignty

For those unaware, the Dakota Access Pipeline drama is little more than a testament to the failure of Tribal Sovereignty.

What do I mean by this?  See, Tribal Sovereignty is basically what it sounds like, Indian Reservations are basically their own countries, accept that they don't have to print their own money.  But they get to write and enforce their own laws, while developing their own infrastructure.  The main problem is that a lot of tribes, including the Sioux, apparently don't get that with great freedom comes great responsibility.

For instance, when you moved out of your parents' house, you probably ended up paying your own bills, getting your own job, cleaning and maintaining your place (be it through a paid service or not), and many other things that your parents used to do for you.  It seems the Sioux tribe didn't get this memo though, and they're not alone.  Reservations frequently complain when the government does little to nothing for them as a side effect of their Tribal Sovereignty, and this pipeline issue is no different.

See, apparently, the Sioux do not have any idea how to pump, mine, clean, or trade for water.  So when a pipeline came anywhere near any water that may somehow run through their reservation, they had and still have no idea what to do about it.  The concern seems to be that the water may be either evaporated and/or contaminated by the pipeline due to heat or leaks.  And, having little idea how to run a sovereign territory properly (and not much desire to learn), they decided that the only solution is to block it.

There are other options, all of which would be obvious to anyone who's ever run a government with any level of competence, but keep in mind that these people, and many other tribes, think that sovereignty means "independence minus the responsibility", so it should come as no surprise that their proposed solution is so rigid and destructive.

If I, sitting at my keyboard can propose, say, trading for clean water, building a water cleaning facility (creating jobs in the process), pumping water out of the ground, or even, you know, working with the pipeline company to seal and insulate the pipeline itself near the water, then it should be rather simple for a governing body of any level of competence, to come up with a workable solution, probably even a better one than I listed.  But, again, these people have a mentality that the feds screwed them over by giving them the very sovereignty that they asked for.

This could, potentially, change for the better, but it's a mentality that they have held for so long, that I just wouldn't count on it.

And frankly, if their own lack of personal responsibility is going to cause them to screw with our way of life, something has to give, they either need to change their attitudes, or give up the sovereignty that they keep complaining about, and grow up.

But, Muh Heritage, whitey stole our lands

Well, yes, and unfortunately racism only made this problem worse.  But the truth is, take a good look at human history.  From Medieval Europe, to Rome, To Genghis Kahn, the Ghana Empire, and so on.  What do you see?  Endless conquest is what.  And guess what?  It was no different for the Native Americans.

They killed and conquered EACH OTHER for Millennia before the White Man arrived.  In fact, Squanto, one of the most famous, was himself from a conquered tribe.  Some people even think that this is the main reason he allied with the White Settlers (despite white captors mistreating him in the past), and worked with them to undermine Wampanoag influence in what is now New England, because he was mad at his Wampanoag conquerors.  This is far from proven, of course, but what IS established, is that the  Wampanoag had, in fact, conquered many tribes, including the Patuxet, from which Squanto came.

Mostly, the reason you don't hear about this is because a massive plague, circa 1616, wiped out most of their population, and with it, most of their history.  Though, some evidence still lingers, and we can probably blame Political Correctness for downplaying it.

The point is, while the white man did steal their lands and murder a lot of their people, they were doing this to themselves long before white people arrived.  Admittedly, racism played a role in some of this, but looking at human history, it's likely that all the racism did was maybe speed up the process.  We were probably going to take it whether we were against them or not, because that's what human beings have done throughout history.

In fact, I'll close by pointing out that EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IS CONQUERED LAND.  There are zero exceptions to this, we don't have to like it, but if we don't accept it as fact, we will only self-destructively beat ourselves up.  I mean, what are we gonna do, engage in a bloody and destructive war with all the world's governments because centuries and millennia ago, they unfairly overpowered and conquered people?  Yeah..........I'm sure that'll show them..................

A splash of Cold Water

Want to know why I stopped blogging during the election?

Partly, it was because Candace Owens gave me an opportunity with Degree 180.  But she gave up hope and went into hiding. So why didn't I restart my blog?

Well, to be blunt, it was because of:

BLATANT AND FLAGRANT STUPIDITY AND STUBBORNNESS

Take for instance, this reply from one Dagny Delingquint when shown an effective way to swing Black Trump haters:

In 1966, when Don King was arrested, Racial Profiling was perfectly legal.  While we can't say for sure what happened, it is highly likely that Profiling at least played a part in his arrest.  To blow off this reframe with sarcasm, then cry about losing the black vote, is stupid, at BEST.  But the hole goes much deeper than idiots blowing off persuasion wins.

See, I've been on the internet long enough to know that the alt right are, in fact, trolls, and not actual racists.  However, I have no doubt that the poor optics may attract a few actual racists, even if they are a fringe, and disavowed by the rest.  But the poor optics ALSO mean that the Alt-Right LOOKS RACIST.  It's true.

And despite telling this to several people, the response was always the same, "LOL this won't stop Trump"  But here's the thing, it ALMOST DID.

Here's Michigan:

Wisconsin:

Pennsylvania:

And Florida:

Without those VERY CLOSE states, he would be at 231, in other words, a LOSS, and an overwhelming one at that.  So it was electoral landslide, that was very close to being a landslide the OTHER WAY.  Not to mention he narrowly lost New Hampshire:

Minnesota:

And Maine (though he did win a split Elector):

How many people From New Hampshire, Maine, or Minnesota saw some idiot troll post a Hitler meme and voted against him?  Mind you, I'm not saying it was a whole lot, I'm saying it only had to be just a little to have swung one of these states.  That's not even getting into how many people, already believing Trump was a racist with racist supporters, saw this crap and couldn't bring themselves to believe otherwise, in part, because of seeing this stuff.  For many, it might have been JUST ENOUGH to keep them from having an open mind, and a few such people could have easily been in said states.

But of course "No, my poor optics shit posting won't stop Trump" well guess what, it almost did, and people didn't listen, and now, their own God Emporer has disavowed them:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-disavow-groups-new-york-times/index.html

And you know what, they still won't listen:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/alt-right-supporters-donald-trump-backlash-disavow-reddit-4chan

The deal is this, yes, the Alt-Right isn't racist, but they look like it.  They refuse to stop looking it because that would make them cucks or something.

Here's a hint:

-It's NOT just the SJW's and Regressive Left who think Swastikas and Hitler stuff are racist, it's normies and most anti-SJW's too.

Learn it, adapt and move on.  If you can't, you frankly deserve to labelled as a hate group and ostracized, because at this point, you did it to yourselves.  Listen or don't, it's the truth.

Hillary Clinton Will Be a disaster for gamers (mirror)

History of Calling Gamers Violent

And by this, I don't mean she made one stupid tweet, no, she actually has a history of this stuff.  When she was a Senator, she famously promoted a law to ban violent video games, and for full context, here's her statement on the matter:

Far from an isolated incident, she also campaigned against video games when she ran for president in 2008.  And, in fact, the crap started WAY BEFORE she became a senator.  How far back?  Far enough that she pushed her husband Bill to do something about it when he was president, complaining primarily about Mortal Kombat.

And yes, to address the elephant in the room, I'm aware that Trump made a dumbass tweet ONE TIME about video games.  And sure, that's bad, but one tweet, versus Clinton's entire history?  Ask yourself which of those is worse.

Sounds just like Anita Sarkeesian at times

Remember when Hillary famously tweeted that alleged rape victims should be believed without evidence?  Let's look past the hypocrisy, or the fact that if you have any sons or nephews, she will be erasing their futures.  What she said may sound eerily familiar.  A very similar thing has been being pushed by none other than Anita herself.  Sure, it wasn't word for word "Listen and Believe", but contextually, I don't know how else to interpret "You have a right to be heard, you have a right to be believed."

Is rumored to have funded Anita and Zoe

There are rumors going about that say Clinton  has funded these two.  Unfortunately, I was not able to find evidence to back it up, however, the rumor does say a lot by itself.  Why?  Let's put it this way, would any rumor that Trump funded these two have legs?  No?  Exactly.

Now it's possible that Google, M$(Bing) and Yahoo simply censored the evidence out of their search engines, but I'm comfortable leaving you with the fact that a rumor about Hillary doing this is believable, but a rumor about Trump doing so is not.

Is friends with the same Press that continually slanders us

While it is indeed literally true that GamerGate =/= Gamer, that ignores the most basic rule of propaganda - perception.  Perception matters more than reality, at least if you're pushing an agenda, and when they say GamerGate, the audience hears the word "gamer".  So GamerGate is absolutely a proxy with which the MSM wishes to slander us gamers.  That said, here are Hillary's connections, as exposed by Guccifer 2.

That's not even getting into how they ask her softball questions, while trying to ruin Trump over everything he says, even if it's innocuous, her constant SJW talking points, or how Trump has been called a "misogynist" by Hillary and others based on the same flawed logic that they use to call us gamers misogynists.

And sure, none of that directly ties her to the GamerGate nonsense, but if she's friends with these sorts of people, and sounds like them at times, what does that say about her?

Desert Bus - A Video Game made to Mock Hillary's anti-gamer stuff

To be fair Janet Reno shares the guilt in this one, but even still.  The fact that Hillary was at least part of the reason this parody game was made is just one more reason why gamers may want to consider not voting for her.  To make a long story short, Clinton said video games should stop being about fun, and start being about life.  Janet Reno then pushed this agenda on her behalf.

So Penn and Teller made such a game in the most sarcastic way possible, albiet, with unusually low (zero) traffic, lower than normal (45 mph) top speed, and no visible view of Vegas on the Horizon, even when you're about to reach it.

Conclusion

The thing is, I'm actually holding back here.  I COULD, for instance, talk abut her ties to Katherine Clark, who HAS been directly linked to Anita and Zoe, her anti-video game push in 2005, when she was a senator, or countless other anti-gamer atrocities she has committed.

There's simply too much stuff to cover it all in one article, but hopefully, where she stands on the issue is clear at this point.  And if you think she'll be harmless, tell that to the Brits and the Canadians, who get profiled as rapists for playing video games, because SJW's already came to power in their countries.