2
Mad_King_Kalak 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is why the "right" or conservatives, or what have you, often failed in getting change. They would NOT use government power against their enemies, because they feared that power would later be used against them.

Now, there is a point to that when we are talking about creating new government powers. However, for those powers already there, the left will ALWAYS use them against the right, using whatever reasoning they want to say it's justified, and when or if the right does the reverse, they will say "that's different."

5
Mad_King_Kalak 5 points ago +5 / -0

John Lott's research shows the number of permits goes up every year, this, of course, in places that still require them, or where people get them as they have to cross state lines.

https://crimeresearch.org/tag/annual-report-on-number-of-concealed-handgun-permits/

2
Mad_King_Kalak 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thus, the conclusion I put in about pessimism in small doses being an antidote to the poison of baseless hope.

4
Mad_King_Kalak 4 points ago +4 / -0

He's like an annoying, drunk relative by marriage at a Thanksgiving Dinner that you forget about on the drive home, that is, until 364 days pass and you're on your way to Aunt Edna's again next year.

But you're correct, he and others like him, were the inspiration for this post.

0
Mad_King_Kalak 0 points ago +1 / -1

I must have struck a nerve, because the result of my last insightful comment ripping your shit to shreds is a mostly gibberish that doesn't reply to my evisceration of your points. Like your calling intergralism a theology. Laughable. I suppose to you it makes logical sense as some sort of point by point rebuttal. Or something like that. You'd be laughed off any debate stage though.

Is it possible, maybe, for you comment/reply without a wall of text? Anyway, the sparks are there, but you're to you're unable to be consistent, define your terms, avoid insults, and mostly, to keep your calm. I'd give you D+, enough to pass the class at least, though I'm guessing your temper has got you in trouble in this life.

Feel free to have the last word, which, I'm sure will be insulting and involve you spiking the football to the roar of (imaginary) crowds as you once again WIN (when in reality, you just drive other people away).

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sweet Jesus, you're so wearisome. I'd consider you a hopeless case, but there are some sparks there. Let's see if I can fan them.

So once again, a unz link to an article about inflation and QE etc. doesn't show what you think it's showing. You're actually arguing against your earlier self here, by now saying that stock prices DON'T MATTER because the Fed gooses the market. Total lack of intellectual consistency is a classic hallmark of sophistry and postmodernism.

Right, so you didn't define your terms, even if you SAY you did. I asked you to define capitalism, since you said it doesn't exist, and to define victory conditions for a boycott. Your response? Nothing on the first and on the second, a slight of hand and implicit implication that only victory conditions are if the company ceases to exist. The latter is like saying white flight from a city only works if Detroit is dis-incorporated. It's blackpill silliness.

I'm actually an intergralist if you know what that is (quick, look it up!). So ONCE AGAIN you're making this about what you want to argue against rather than what I'm actually saying by assuming I'm a libertarian. Are you aware of what you're doing there? Is it purposeful, I have to wonder.

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Stock prices go up and down the with the marketplace. You have companies that have not made a profit in years, zombie companies, with high stockprices. Fundamentally, Gillette is still a strong mega corporation that made a dumb decision, lost billions, but then recovered. It was like New Coke. That's why I said that link doesn't show what you think it shows.

Boycotts sometimes work, and sometimes don't. They stopped the woke ad campaign with Gilette, and that's all I ever claimed it did, with that company in that instance. You want to make things broad brush when it suits you and talk about ALL boycotts, and specific when it doesn't suit you when I ask for you to define your terms. Pure sophistry. Post-modern dreck.

Your ignorance is not the standard of truth. You're psychologically functioning as if what is in your head is reality.

0
Mad_King_Kalak 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sure, sure. Your blackpill rants sometimes fun, but like a sophist you mangle someone else's comments dishonestly, and can't define your terms because you use words like a post-modernist, they mean what you want them to mean when you want them to mean them.

Socrates himself would kick you out of the agora.

0
Mad_King_Kalak 0 points ago +1 / -1

Wall of text quote/response = total failure to engage. Further, you're bringing in red herrings, or handwavingly dismissing billions of dollars lost and the end of the woke ad campaign by redefining victory conditions such that they must be total and complete or they are worth nothing, which is blackpill nonsense.

Define your terms. Start with these two:

  1. capitalism
  2. "victory" (limited in this case to the woke ad campaign)

Do that, or gtfo

0
Mad_King_Kalak 0 points ago +2 / -2

And here it comes....quote/response format with the motte and bailey redefinition of common terms, followed by a side helping of wrongly redefining the other persons comments to be something they weren't.

  1. Your chart doesn't show what you think it shows. "August 25, 2019 - Procter & Gamble reported a net loss of $5.24 billion following an $8 billion write-down." https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/gillette-dumps-campaign-against-toxic-masculinity-after-losing-billions-0e926i-34keAutm-NEWRjA

Of course the CEO will lie and say it wasn't a mistake. When in human history have people accepted responsibility for fucking up if they can avoid it? The end result, though, is no woke ad campaign. I am right here, and you are wrong. No getting around it by the excessive use of quotes.

  1. And you're trying, by denying the existence of a capitalistic economy, to deny the profit/loss motive. That wasn't real communism is what you sound like. So amusing! Of course there is no laize-faire capitalism, there is no "pure" form of any societal organization. Silliness.

So get down to brass tacks, define your terms. If you fail to define what "capitalism" is, then gtfo.

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +2 / -1

Capitalism is about profit and loss. For example, Gillette puts out mega-woke ad and is mocked relentlessly. They lose billions. The result, no more mega-woke ads from Gillette. Mega corporations don't go broke all at once.

You're setting, no surprise here, a high bar on purpose as you're only going to be satisfied with a day of the rope scenario.

4
Mad_King_Kalak 4 points ago +4 / -0

$200 million to make, 3x that to break even, or $600 mil, as the Hollywood rule of thumb is every movie has 3x it's cost in marketing and other costs.

Sorry I was unclear.

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, that's good to know.

4
Mad_King_Kalak 4 points ago +4 / -0

I was standing in line at the local Walgreens, looking at the globo-homo art poster thinking "when the fuck do I see black pharmacists, let alone blue haired ones."

Into my view walks purple hair pharmacist tech. I was on my phone responding to a text, so I snapped a pic in context when she walked by again.

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Corporations do care about profits and loss. Governments don't. I was speaking about the entertainment industry. Don't bring in the problems with Fed, it's a separate issue.

Disney spent 4 billion on Star Wars and is still in the hole, for example, because they virtually destroyed the franchise with woke wankery. At one point, you could slap a Vader image on something and it was like sure money maker. Not so much now, and there is a civil war inside Lucasfilm about it. The investors have had enough, at least with regards to that franchise.

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

I suppose I can't disagree with your end goals. But it's all a trade-off. If you can't, say, let the 2nd Amendment apply only to whites (which at one time it did) then what rights you give to some, you have to give to all. Lastly, it wasn't Jews in Europe that created the concept of individual rights.

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!" - William Pitt

1
Mad_King_Kalak 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have a issue, though, with your perspective. The idea of rights belonging to individuals is a Western, nay white, cultural tradition, starting at the very least with Greece. Everywhere else in the world, historically speaking, nobody had any rights except the sovereign. It was a European invention of limiting the state.

Now, you might say that our own ideas are being used against us, and to that I might agree. Or that the preservation of individual freedoms is a trade-off, which it is, but individual freedom what makes a white nation a white nation.

(are there any white nations left, except for in Eastern Europe?)

view more: Next ›