How Ignorance Can Be Indoctrinated - A Real Life Example of Being Disconnected With Reality

The Video:

Apparently us white males have been misbehaving - yes we were naughty and elected Trump and dared - yes dared to support police as an institution and to say that we believe in innocent until proven guilty!

So lets Start with the first guy

Ah The Beta Cuck is easing us white males into the propaganda - the useful idiot is himself a white male and probably also a male-feminist in his spare time. (total time in video so far - 2 seconds)

#2

Beta Cuck 2 - still Male - but now (what a relief [sarcasm]) he's not white. Talks about it being nearly 2017 before disappearing for the main act!

#3

Ah here we go - this is the guy who tells us that we can be better white males! He's wearing a cat shirt just for the internet! How savvy! Wanna bet a white male owns that IP? Also notice the friendly feminine pastels - you can feel your testosterone plummeting.

#4

Ah our first rule maker! Well I notice that she is neither white nor male.  I'm sensing we've been duped boys! Ah we are supposed to recognize that America was never great for non-whites.  I disagree - We must all say "compared to what" and if one were to take the rest of the world...I'd say yup all in all America (at least post-slavery) was far better for blacks and other minorities than even the regions they came from.  Hell...your black ancestors were sold by their enemy tribesmen to the white slavers as a way of getting rid of you and taking your stuff.  So it was either be killed by other blacks in Africa - or be slaves and alive in America.  Hardly excuses slavery - but slavery as a social practice was not something invented by WHITE MALES - rather a customary practice by literally everyone for thousands of years And it was White Males (principally the British) who ended it over vast swathes of the globe - and then the USA caught up - and roughly 700,000 WHITE MALES died for it.  You're welcome.

#5

Ah Ugly Betty here thinks we should all just agree that BLM (no not the bureau of land management) isn't racist - just trying to help out poor oppressed black people!

Yes fry em like bacon indeed. Or...how about the Dallas Sniper who shot 12 and killed 5 officers...
He was not a BLM member/supporter himself - only because he felt they DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.  So what did BLM supporters have to say?

Now - I know what you're gonna say - the MOVEMENT isn't about this...its just a few crazies etc etc etc.  Yes well why don't you just try a bit of substitution here...like with the David Duke support for Trump.  Is it still just a few crazies? Or is the entire movement racist by virtue of association?  I'll let you decide.

Ok back to the video...

The Return of the Cuck

"Blue Lives Matter isn't a thing!" he says with out any justification.  Well that's just like...your opinion man... and I'm not sure how it is connected to white males.  So I suppose if I am to play out his scenario/opinion that only white males have a respect for the lives of police officers?  Well I'm sure that is wrong but..it does show his disconnect with reality.

Return of the Cat Meme Shirt!

More on Blue Lives Matter... "They weren't born with blue skin..."

Well you are correct but your glib disbelief is stupid. The counter-movement to BLM...hilariously also acronym-ed to BLM..isn't actually about skin color but about maybe not calling for the death of cops as people in BLM appear to do.  It isn't a Kill Black Men movement - it is a "don't create a dangerous environment for police officers to operate" movement.  But we all know - despite protestations by some that it is simply incidental if more cops die...oh not that you're calling for it...but if it happens well they probably got what they deserved right?  Ass.

#6 Anti-woke cucks - they are disconnected even with themselves

"Stop saying 'woke'".  Well I'm pretty sure its only left leaning meme-lords that are using the term and doesn't specifically apply to white males.  Lena Dunham has beeen described this way - though I am more preferential to her self description as a 'waste-oid'.

Return of The Not White Male

"Stop saying woke" - Again...not sure how this is a white male thing specifically or how we can be better by not saying it.  You just don't like it.  I agree its stupid - but not in a specifically 'white male" sense.  I think its stupid because of the presupposition of moral superiority - and yet you make me want to defend it with your even more stupid righteous indignation somehow to white males using it.  It boils down to...

REEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Onward...

#7 - The Young 3rd Wave Feminist - No doubt believes in the patriarchy.

"Learn what man-splaining is and stop doing it" she says with extraordinary condescension...you know like if she was man-splaining it to you - but without a sense of irony...The disconnect very visible here.  Hrm...did I just mansplain her?  I don't think so...but you decide.

Getting Cucked Round 3

"Oh and if you're a judge, don't prioritize the well-being of an ivy league athlete over the woman he assaulted"  Hrm yes quite. You could do better by being more specific about the incident - but again - this has nothing to do with being a white male (nor does anything prior to this or after it).  Judges often have a disconnect themselves and are more lenient with people they can sympathize with on an in-group bias basis - like that is why we have the meme of 'white-collar' crime where fellow professionals like bankers, doctors and police/lawyers get more of the benefit of the doubt and shorter/more lenient sentences.  The white isn't about skin color - it is about economic class and social status.  You aren't wrong in the specific - but you are wrong in generalizing it to white males.  You cuck.

Black Skin = Black Thoughts: Cat Meme Part 3

Beyonce is black so she cares about black issues.  Ok...not sure how this has anything to do with white guys.  You have at least one white guy in this video who agrees with you...and he's white.  Your own argument is false within two seconds of you speaking.

Awkward and arrogant FoxNews call out is also stupid.  Nowhere does he provide a basis for it - this is just red meat for the useful idiots.

The Return of #5 - Kanye is now excommunicated

"You guys can have him" - referencing his spoken support and meeting with President-Elect Donald Trump.  To her its like he betrayed his blackness by offering his support and having a conversation rather than protesting and burning weave shops.

Hey Kanye - you're not black anymore! You're a bad white male! Also apparently we own him now or something...like he's now a slave or some token black guy rather than someone 'down for the struggle'.  Wew lassy!

Cat Meme 4 - Die Hard Edition

"Kanye...you know what you did".  I am sensing some butthurt here. Like somehow Kanye is a race traitor or some other leftist "othering" category.  You do know you are violating your own supposed principals of inclusiveness by 'othering' Kanye right?  No - you don't.  You  have fallen into the trap of tribalism.  If you do know better and I am wrong...that just makes it worse and quite a cynical move.  Gee I hope you don't throw out or delete all of his 'genius' music.

#6 Returns to Deliver a Message

"Nobody who has black friends says they have black friends." Do you have black friends? *crickets* Muahahahaha. Most of the time when someone is referencing a black friend or the fact that they associate with them is because some prick like yourself is accusing them of not being aware of or being insensitive to black issues - through lack of association.  It seems cliche - but often the question proceeding the statement is meant to insult/undermine the subject's integrity.  Maybe you stop assuming that someone doesn't have black friends first?  Again - nothing to do with being a white male...more to do with being subject to racial identity politics around every turn.

Cat Meme 5 - Die Harder

"Just because you have black friends doesn't mean you're not racist!"  Riiiiiight well it is probably a good sign that you're not - but since we can't prove a negative here...all white males are racist as an assumption to Cat Meme.  Also I would think it would be up to those alleged black friends to associate with the hypothetical racist white male.  Lets play this one out...Do you Sir Cat Meme associate with white racist males and call them your friends?  I'd bet the answer is no.

He looks really worried here for a moment - like the cognitive dissonance is catching up with his mouth.

Ambiguously Brown Male

"Look guys nobody's perfect."  Oh how nice of you to admit after the minute long lecture about how badly we white males have been acting! Oh the sweet sweet scent of moral superiority by virtue of not being born as a white male!  I say ambiguous brown male becuase I don't know where he's from or his name...could be middle eastern, could be central/south america...could be southern Spain or North Africa...OH THE HUMANITY!

AAAAAND the pullback

"But honestly you guys could do a little better in 2017". Huh well as a general statement that can apply to every individual - but in context it is horrendously demeaning and bigoted. Yes you and all your fellows are bigots.  I know...its shocking.  Try not to be triggered! Avoid Safe Spaces!

Right after saying that nobody is perfect...you immediately pull back the slight concession...in a yeah but no kinda way.  Go fuck yourselves.

3rd Wave Whiplash!

"Some of you guys do a great job!"  Gee thanks...right after pulling back the previous consolation you go for another one...let me guess...there's a 'but' here.

"Some of you don't"  Huh...well I called it. Disingenuous optimism followed by arrogant pullback. I hope she knows that the patriarchy is watching!  Still nothing connected to white maleness - just uncorrelated moaning.

Cat Meme 6 - Memes and Loathing in Las Vegas

"Please 2016 was bad! 2017 can't be worse than this..." Your grasp of hyperbole is noted - the problem is I don't think you see it as hyperbole.  The disconnect with reality will be growing like a psychosis.

And the Signoff

Weird...none of the two actual white guys made a resolution to do anything...they just begged the rest to stop doing these things that have nothing to do with white maleness.  Huh. This is just a bigoted screed by people who are unwilling to see their own hypocritical views for what they are. If I had sympathy I'd say that it was a sad waste of potential - but I don't. They are old enough to know better.  I blame their professors, parents and teachers.  You have created little monsters.

And shame on MTV for promoting social justice.  It won't win you anything.

No You Can't Fire The Electoral College

The recent election has left those on the left/progressive end quite butthurt and trapped in an alternate reality of delusion.

Nowhere more is this evidenced by - than the recent propaganda piece published by the ACLU on their own site. So I will offer a tear-down of the piece and refutation of each and every point.

"Hillary Clinton — won the larger number of votes by several million."

Yes, but if you back out California alone - Trump won the popular vote.  California is a terribly overbalanced state in favor of the Democrats.  So if one examines the electoral college - it functioned appropriately and balanced out the heavy population concentration in the state - just as the system was designed to do!

"The ACLU has opposed the Electoral College since 1969 for non-partisan reasons. By now — everyone, Republicans, Democrats, and none-of-the-aboves — should be fed up with its undemocratic and unpredictable nature."

Lots of propaganda here.  First the ACLU is not non-partisan - so anything it does is ideologically driven - the only honest thing in that first sentence is the date.  Second, the propagandist use of undemocratic. The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.  Words have meaning and a democracy is not simply a government that is voted for.  We vote for representatives and we have many forms of checks and balances that make us uniquely a republic and one unique upon this earth.  Being undemocratic in this case is meant to be deliberately confusing to the reader - who may be under the illusion of living in a democracy.  It is virtually gas-lighting.  It is accurate in the strict sense that the United States isn't a democracy...so nothing we do on a national scale and very few things on a state scale (aside from ballot referendums) are actually democratic.

People like this often try and confuse the language or insist on the term being in the vernacular as a way to muddy the water - but they know better and should be called out on it.

Unpredictable? That is an ambiguous and also propagandist term.  The author is projecting his or his own organizations perspective without any facts to back it up.  It is entirely predictable - get 270+ electoral votes and you're in!  What is unpredictable about that?  Nothing! There are further checks in place in case of a tie or other electoral issues.  The author is a propagandist and fails to even once cite the constitution itself.  The entire premise is a fraud.  Moving on...as if one needs to...

"Alexander Hamilton, the current darling of Broadway, promoted the Electoral College in
“Federalist 68” for deeply elitist reasons — he did not trust the common people to select the president. Notes of the Constitutional Convention show that the Electoral College’s unequal distribution of voting power was chosen as part of a sordid bargain: Along with the 3/5 Clause, the Electoral College was part of a compromise over slavery. States like Virginia wanted political influence commensurate with their total population even though they did not allow a large percentage of their population — slaves — to vote."

Deeply elitist reasons? You mean because the majority of the population wasn't even literate? Yes you are correct - but not for the right reasons.  One must read Plato's "The Republic" among other works and realize that our Founders had studied the history of previous democracies in Greece and elsewhere and realized that they had all ended in revolt and cities burnt down by mobs.  The Electoral College was a counter to the larger population of the southern states at the time - it was not something that went hand-in-hand with the 3/5ths Compromise as is suggested.  Additionally the only evidence provided is some professor's thesis paper - they didn't even bother to cite the widely available primary documents...y'know the Federalist 68 that they introduced to you without exploring in the first sentence.  Again - propaganda. The accurate description is found HERE and has nothing to do with slavery.  I mean it has as much to do with it as any other piece of the constitution does - in that they are in the same document - but the EC served to LIMIT the power of the slave states not to enhance it.

The final sentence is just rubbish in that it still conflates the 3/5ths compromise with the EC.  Utter trash.

"Even if, like Hamilton, we wanted an oligarchy to choose our president, today’s Electoral College is not a deliberative body."

Uhhh - well you are correct.  It isn't a deliberative body like the House of Representatives or the Senate.  It isn't supposed to be so this statement is also propaganda and meant to confuse the reader.  More trash.

"Whether an elector is permitted to exercise any independent judgment at all is hotly debated."

No it isn't. You are contradicting your previous statements!

"Although the Constitution does not require either of these approaches, most states have chosen to adopt laws requiring electors to cast their votes for whoever wins the state’s popular vote; 48 states decided on a winner take all system."

Yes They literally wrote that right before talking about the so-called 'hot-debate'.  Just because different states do things differently doesn't mean that its debatable or *gasp* controversial...I know try on logic for a change.  What is meant is that there is no Constitutional mandate and since the elections are actually held by the states - it is left up to them how to decide.  It isn't confusing - unless you deliberately set it up your argument to be confusing.

"The Electoral College thwarts the fundamental principle of one person, one vote by awarding each state a number of electoral votes equal to its allocation of representatives plus its two senators."

There is no such principle in the Constitution.  This is simply a statement based on a lie.  It thwarts nothing and is plainly set out to do exactly what it did in this election and all others prior to it. This is a huge lie - and one that should be obvious to anyone graduating from High School.  The fact that they try it out shows them to be subversive.  Why subversive and not simply ignorant/unknowing? Because its the ACLU - a group of highly educated lawyers who have the time and money to research basic fucking facts.  It is a deliberate lie - just like calling the USA a democracy.  Neither are true in any sense of the actual words.

"A voter in Wyoming thus has over three times as much influence on the presidential election as a voter in more densely populated California."

This sounds promising but wait...Wyoming has 3 Electors to California's 55.  Big scary Wyoming! Oh Wyoming why must you oppress the nation with your 3 uber votes! WAAAAAHHH. The author (at the ACLU no less) is proposing via this statement that Wyoming should have even fewer votes! He's actually advocating disenfranchising Wyoming voters as a consequence of his proposal to get rid of the EC.  

"And there are still racial and ethnic disparities in voting power."

Hrm - well that isn't connected to the EC in any way but go on...lets play this scenario out.

"One recent study calculated that Asian-Americans have barely more than half the voting power of white Americans because they tend to live in “safe” states — like Democratic-leaning New York and California and Republican-leaning Texas." 

That makes no sense that people living in states with the same other people...have less of a vote.  They have the exact same 1 vote that everyone else has.  There's no racial weighting...WTF is this even? Safe states? Oh they mean states that reliably go one way or the other politically.  This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with geography and the overall political/cultural climate of a region.  The author here unknowingly makes the case FOR the EC not against. The EC enables small shifts in any one of these states to have big national impacts.  This is also be design.  Swing states change every election - evidence? Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were swing states this year - states that had gone to President Obama previously and especially PA was new.  No one expected that outcome...no one. Author is full of hot air.

"Furthermore, the number of representatives each state receives, the baseline for Electoral College representation, is determined by the census. But the census consistently undercounts minorities. The Census Bureau itself calculated that the 2010 census missed 1.5 million minorities, including 2.1 percent of African-Americans and 1.5 percent of Hispanics. The marginalization of minority voters in many states is compounded by state voter suppression laws."

Sentence 1: True(mostly) - does not require a furthermore - and its not a baseline - there is no modifier that can make it go up - no circumstance.  The author manages to lie within a truth.  Amazing. So the census bureau misses some people (1.5M out of 330M  and somehow they are ALL minorities?) and so of course the entire system is declared by the author and his organization to be invalid! Yes more hints at subversiveness. Well hints as in outright statements of it.

Marginalization? Its an error - not a deliberate attempt NOT to count them.  The author imputes a purposefulness where there is none and then references voter suppression laws (ID laws) based on the false idea that minorities simply don't have them and its too hard to get one.  Of course it is a bald faced lie.  Go ahead - walk around some area filled with non-whites and try and find someone who doesn't have or cannot get an ID.  It won't work because its bullshit.

"The smaller states argue that they will be ignored if they do not have more than their proportionate share of voting power. But the Electoral College system makes wallflowers of most states, including the most populous, and therefore of most of the American people."

Definitely a lawyer that wrote this - and a shameful one. States argue that the EC gives them a necessary voice in government.  Yes this is true. The Author then follows up with a lie. The EC does not make smaller states into wallflowers at all!  It gives them disproportionate power!  I mean that's the whole crux of the argument in every statement the author makes prior to this...and now contradicts himself or tries to minimize it.  Blatant chicanery.  Then he tries to indicate that California and Texas are wallflowers...despite admitting the contrary earlier and advocating for MORE power in those states by getting rid of the EC. 

"Less populous states already get to put several fingers on the scales in the Senate and in the constitutional amendments process."

No they don't.  They get the exact right amount of power based on their population and senate seats.  The Senate is the States House.  They used to be appointed by state legislatures - hence the longer terms of office since they deal with more foreign policy (treaties and the like) and must consider the interests of the states as entities themselves and not simply a collection of peoples.  The states as entities are to have equal representation as equals among fellows in the Union.  Yes now they are directly elected - but the long term view philosophy at least still stands as well as that sense of egalitarianism and being a more reasoned, deliberative and less raucous legislative body than the House of Representatives.  Author is still a knob.

"Why give them another undue advantage when our government is supposed to be run by “we, the people,” not “we, the states”?"

It isn't an advantage - it is a feature of two legislative bodies checking and balancing each other.  It is why we have two legislative bodies and not just one.  I don't have time to explain the entirety of the ideas behind bicameral legislatures...needless to say the author here is subtly implying that we should consider abolishing the Senate altogether.  Yes quite subversive and glib at the same time.  The jerk raises a question like that without providing any research - suggesting that there is no merit...since the author apparently hasn't taken time to find any!  Its a sneering question and meant to be rhetorical.

How subversive is the author and the ACLU? Well lets take a gander at the whopper coming up!

"The National Popular Vote Act Solution

Even without a constitutional amendment, the states have the power to fix the main problem of the Electoral College. If enough states enact the National Popular Vote Act (NPVA), the winner of the national popular vote would become the winner of the presidential election.

Under the NPVA plan, states enact a law requiring their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote (rather than the state’s own popular vote). The act becomes effective only after states with electoral votes totaling at least 270 have passed the legislation. Eleven states (CA, D.C., HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA) with a total of 165 electoral votes have already passed the NPVA. If states with electoral votes totaling 105 more votes pass the act, the winner of the next presidential election will be selected by popular choice.

This state-based approach is consistent with the framers’ decision in Article II to authorize the states to control the appointment of electors. If it is constitutionally permissible for states to instruct their electors to vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote (the prevailing practice today), the states must also have the power to choose a different benchmark.  

Dozens of pro and con arguments — more than can be explored here — have been made about the constitutionality of the NPVA approach. It is probably true that the Electoral College cannot be wholly eliminated without a constitutional amendment. The NPVA would not eliminate the Electoral College but simply place it under new management — the American people’s.  The ACLU supports the NPVA because we believe that the responses to the range of opposing arguments are more persuasive. 

Although the states adopting the NPVA so far tend to be blue states, the movement has been bipartisan — as it should be. In February, the Arizona House became the third majority-Republican state legislative chamber to approve the act (following the New York and Oklahoma Senates) in a bipartisan 40-16 vote. If state legislatures refuse to go along, voters should take matters into their own hands with ballot initiatives to require that their states adopt the NPVA.

The Electoral College has been a predictable rubber stamp so far, but there is always the chance of a December surprise from so-called “faithless electors” who don’t vote as expected. Why should we tolerate this degree of unpredictability from a group we don’t actually want or expect to be exercising their own judgment? Even if we can’t agree on results, we should all be ready to agree on principle that our president should be chosen, like all of our other elected officials, by the straightforward popular vote."

I hope you read all that garbage.  The idea is that your state would assign electors to vote the way that the majority votes...so that anyone who gets to 270 - gets everything else.  So Wyoming - regardless of who you voted for - would not have the ability to assign electors to the candidate that your state's people supported.  Yes the author is again advocating disenfranchising you.  The author also lies about the NPVA Plan itself.  The effect that it has is that it puts CA in the drivers seat of even every other state that passes this law.  So lets play this out - hypothetically let us say that we go to the 2004 Election where GWB won the popular vote and the Electoral vote - that means that even if CA went 70% Democrat...their electors would be forced to vote Republican... *entering Bizarro World*  

You will note that in this election that Arizona's EC votes didn't go to the Democrats - BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET TO THE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED 270 EC VOTES.  Not all states have ballot initiatives - but clearly a program of targeting is under weigh. Your state should assign its electors in accordance with the will of the voters of that state.  Anything else is tantamount to the greatest disenfranchisement scheme the nation has ever seen - affecting more people than slavery or Jim Crow laws ever did. No that is not hyperbole - it is fact and would affect roughly 60 million citizens who do not live within 62 miles of the coast but give dominion over all elections to states that have large and condensed populations mainly on the coasts.  That is by-the-way a larger amount than the total black population of the entire nation in modern times (~37.6M). The author is trying to invalidate the votes of almost TWICE that number. You could back out every single Hispanic and Latino (50M) and still not get to the numbers of people that he is advocating essentially give up the right to vote!

This is how you get riots - this is how to make a country into a democracy - politics by mob rule - and this is how you kill a society.  Moves like this can only end in bloodshed eventually and has the hallmark of a tyrant.  It is a cynical attempt to force the rural states to heel and even to bend Texas and Florida to the will of California.  Nothing about this enfranchises anyone or offers any value except to totalitarians.

The 'faithless electors' amounted to 2 on the republican side (ooooh big scary 2/306) and 6 of the Democrat electors went off the rails - a couple of whom weren't allowed to vote and were replaced with alternates! Yes we have alternates in case of sickness, or inability to cast their vote as required by law!  It isn't unpredictable - it is about the electors having a sense of what is moral and being a defensive ward against a tyrant.  The author is advocating for a tyrannical system under false pretenses.  

We should all agree? Why is that? No we should not agree that the President should be chosen by a popular vote!  That is projection and propaganda and just a falsity of the highest order.  We should not all think alike nor be joined in a tyrannical system as proposed!  This is subversion under the guise of patriotism.  This is the kind of thing that needs to be argued over and have the lies and propaganda exposed.

People get paid to put out crap like this...And they are dangerous; because to many people they will seem reasonable and have a valid point.  They will seem this way because of various logical fallacies like the appeal to authority and the appeal to expertise.  They will abuse this natural trust and twist it like a knife in your mind. They will as shown - create false assumptions and false premises and then base whole arguments around a central lie.  Please do your own research - examine the sources and beware those who come peddling a new grand plan to save you from yourself.