Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Christopher Murray
He that makes himself a sheep shall be eaten by the wolf.
He that makes himself a sheep shall be eaten by the wolf.


Post has shared content
Add a comment...

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
This is a really good article that brings up some good points
Stealth GMing: When and how to quietly step up and support other GMs in the moment by filling in facilitation gaps and keeping a game from nose-diving. The goal: more fun for everyone!

Stealth GMing Over the past few years my game mastering to playing ratio has significantly shifted towards running games. I love both roles, but now that I understand more about GMing role playing games I am certain I have become a very different (read:…
Stealth GMing
Stealth GMing
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Ninth Circuit strikes again. Open carry is a right. This from the most liberal court on the nation.
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Add a comment...

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
This is long but says things that many just don't want to hear.
The Liberal Left, James Woods, and how bigots hypocritically denounce bigotry.
James Woods is dropped by 'liberal' talent agent: 'It's the 4th of July and I'm feeling patriotic'.

It's great sounding to hear that people are standing up to fascism. It was during the era of World War II, England, after the French were invaded. This after the world watched Hitler consume Poland. I mean, people were concerned, but until France was invaded, it was like today's Russia consuming Crimea.

The United States didn't enter the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The war in Europe had been raging for years and England was on the verge of losing to Germany. But then, fascism was very clearly defined.

We're hearing the liberal left calling the conservative right out as fascist. So in the face of the patriotism of Hollywood's liberalism, let's dig into this one.

*Fascism is, as defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized government headed by a leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Well, let's break this apart. The argument being that the Republicans are fascists:

1. Philosophy of fascism exalting nation, race above individualism.

Hrm... All nations exalt themselves, but fascism is different. Fascism preaches that nothing is above the good of the nation. That you are insignificant as an individual, because the nation's needs are above your own. That's the difference between nationalism and fascism.

Nationalism is about patriotism, a love of country. It's also the establishment of pride for one's preferred country. Fascism is the extreme version of this. It's not about love, its about superiority and elimination of individualism. That's a big difference.

But anti-Americanism language is quick to identify when someone is educated in this difference, and switches out the word "nationalism" for "jingoism."

Jingoism is different from nationalism, in that it's belligerent and emphasises warlike behavior of a nation's population. An example of jingoism is displayed by Palestine. An example of nationalism is Canada, England, France and the United States. An example of fascism is China, Venezuela and Syria.

Yet, the Democrat and hard liberal left of America preaches it's superiority over the right, and the elimination of individualism by making everyone the same by governmental authority. They also say that liberalism is something greater than you, and it is for everyone... hrm.

2. Autocracy and dictatorship. These two terms are not both applied to the current administration. Only the latter, dictatorship, is applied as a fear. First and foremost, let's define autocracy first.

Autocracy is a system of government by one person with absolute power. Well, it certainly means that one person is in control over everything. The reason why this isn't applied to the United States, is because we're a democratic republic. Our government places power in three branches. Regardless of who is at the top of each, no single person has any real power.

In the United States, each branch is built differently. While the executive branch has the President at the top, the judicial has the seven Supreme Court justices, and the legislative is a bicameral split in power between the Senate that argues fairly on behalf of the States and the House that argues fairly on behalf of the People.

The legislative branch is Congress. They are elected by the people and are supposed to serve at the will of the people, able to be replaced more frequently than the President. The Executive branch consists of the President, who is replaceable every four years, elected by combination of populist and state fairness. And while the President has a lot of power, the chair has no central authority over the other two branches. The justices have life terms and while appointed by Presidents, it's rare and they outlive multiple administrations. Thus it eliminates any long term power of either of the two branches and the Supreme Court works only for the Constitution of The United States. They don't work for the populism that rises and falls with each generation.

So that's why liberals and anti-American people don't apply this definition to the United States. They can't. The definition of a dictator or dictatorship, while applied, is nullified by this same truth.

For instance, a President needs to first have the military power to hold power. In Venezuela, their constitution did not forbid the use of or limitations on their military against their own citizens. We do. Also, the military is sworn to the defense of the Constitution, not any branch and not the People. "... to defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The latter claims authority to self-deploy against the population that would threaten the Constitution outside of the rule of law. A case would be a President who declares the Constitution null and void, amid calling himself God Emperor Apophis, even if Congress approves, because the Constitution authorizes the military to take them down and restore the Constitution for the people.

Whew. That's why the United States has checks and balances, to prevent that from ever happening. So anyone who says the President is becoming a dictator is a complete inept idiot. You shouldn't listen to them.

3. Severe economic and social remediation is an easy one. The word here is severe. An example is the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Turkey, Syria, Iran, and apartheid South Africa. Interestingly enough, Europe is still very socially stratified, as is most of Asia. Only Canada, the United States, and Australia, to name a few, are truly free societies.

However, Democrats and the liberal left want greater categorization of people. They define who is better than who through these categories. Look at the LGBTQ movement. They had to individually define each category as letters. I'm this, you're that, and we have similar goals, but we're not the same. We're not people, we're this and that, to make us unique and special than those not like us. Or, more specifically, what happened here to James Woods.

James was categorized as conservative, and therefore labeled an enemy. I doubt I like all of his opinions and I'm sure he won't like all of mine. But the left doesn't care about what they might have in common. They refuse to work with conservatives. That's bigotry.

Further, that's a social regimentation that defines liberals as better than conservatives. Even those conservatives who believe the opposite are bigots. That's what happens when you put people into categories. You begin to value and devalue based on a catch all label. I'm the end, it's that bigotry that leads to fascism.

4. Forcible oppression happens when you have categories you don't like. You want to silence them from questioning and making people think. They'll shout you down. They'll mock you. They'll fight you. They'll demonize you. But not explicitly you, just the category you belong to. It's easier to convince people to hate an image of a group than their own child. Of course, if their child happens to be part of a group, then it's easier to turn them in to authorities for their own good.

This is also what's happening to others today, like James Woods, by the liberal group consensus. That's why antifa is supported by and consists of liberals, not conservatives. That's why antifa carries weapons. They are the low brow grunts, brown shirts they believe conservatives are. Yet there are bad seeds on all sides. No single group has a monopoly on bigotry.

What's dangerous is that bigotry is upheld by the Democrat party and liberals as justice. They call it patriotic. They call for citizens to put aside their individualism and confront the opposition, because of something greater than themselves. They demonize based on category, to make the most people fit into that category as a deadly, lethal threat. They then physically accost that threat. They refuse to listen to the threat. Because all a threat does is lie. The threat must be eliminated at all costs for the good of the country, according to liberal extremist views... because liberals are superior to conservatives.

Why, liberals like that certainly sound fascist to me... but hey; It's patriotic.
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
2 Photos - View album
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
A really good read
A lot of my friends have been posting very passionate pieces about the March yesterday. From the deeply unhinged (whom I won't name) to the respectful (thank you, +Jodi Kaplan) — I want you to know I read what you wrote, and to please interpret my silence as a show of respect. I listened. I read.

There was a general feeling of "we're going to win this one someday" and "the kids will lead us". To the latter, I regret that I must say no they really won't, and on an emotional level — how dare you put this on them.


How dare you.

These are teenagers, for Christ's sake, living in one of the safest periods in American history. School shootings may be slightly up (may: it depends on how you define them, as many different criteria have been used over the decades) but overall violence is down dramatically from the late-80s peak. Child abductions are way down. It has never been safer to be a kid in America. We've still got a long way to go but the overall crime rate is down by a degree that city planners of the '80s couldn't even hope for.

And instead of telling kids, "hey, violent crime is down, child abductions are down, your likelihood of dying in a school shooting is so small we'd much rather berate you in the lunchroom about chewing your food thoroughly because more of you die from choking than gunshots," what do we do?

Every single shooting — and, let me repeat, by some measures they have gone up: but to also repeat, more kids die of choking than gunshots — gets turned into a 24/7 news cycle for a week. We are being terrorized not just by our criminals but now by our mass media, too. Every lurid, fear-inducing thing possible gets plastered over the screen in order to keep your eyeballs glued so they can charge advertisers more to tell you how their brand of toilet paper will chafe your bunghole less.

It's sick.

And it's working.

We've become a nation terrified of itself, and we are teaching our children to be terrified. And when CNN shoves a microphone in a kid's face and asks them how they feel about it, the kid responds as we have taught them to respond. They tell us they're scared.

I get that fear. I do. Don't misunderstand me as mocking them, because nothing could be further from the truth. Those kids are doing exactly what we ask of them: they're learning from us, and what they're learning is they should be afraid. We taught them to be afraid.

Are school shootings a problem? Yes! Should we address it? Yes! How should we begin?

Shut off the television, you idiot!

Start by putting risks into perspective. Start with this article by New York Magazine's Eric Mintz:

"American children do not "risk their lives" when they show up to school each morning — or at least, not nearly as much as they do whenever they ride in a car, swim in a pool, or put food in their mouths (an American's lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461). Criminal victimization in American schools has collapsed in tandem with the overall crime rate, leaving U.S. classrooms safer today than at any time in recent memory."

So, what did I see in the March yesterday?

I saw a bunch of kids who have been lied to about the level of risk they face at school.

I saw a bunch of kids who have been told by their parents, "we're so sorry that we couldn't fix this problem for you."

I saw a bunch of kids who are now having it thrust on their shoulders, "now we're looking at you to succeed where we've failed and it's on you to lead us to political victory".

When I was sixteen, just being sixteen was hard enough.

Holy shit, I feel sorry for these kids. Not only are they struggling to deal with adulthood, but we're lying to them about the risks and putting completely inappropriate burdens on their shoulders.

I feel awful for these kids.

I really do.

They deserve so much better than us.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded