@ZeDwiver the American sun is from Otto and the PF ones were ordered online

Vista prints

Chris handed out some PF business cards last night too while we crossed through town. Great night last night

LMAO

In case this was missed: https://twitter.com/LA_ADL/status/920104032722550784

https://twitter.com/jo_mendelson/status/920067092900016129

@Pale Horse - FL are you putting this up on the wiki?

@Thomas Ryan @502ssOtto ^^

No, it's actually a declaration that all dominance hierarchies that currently exist must be overthrown in order to establish a new hierarchy with the "proletariate" in power. This is actually normal behavior. Those who cannot compete in the established dominance hierarchy are left with the alternative to overthrow it. Nogs, for example, will never be able to out compete whites because of the IQ differences.

The fascinating thing about whites and our altruistic nature is that we've developed multiple dominance hierarchies that coexist with one another. e.g. You may not be great at sports, but you might be able to design a bridge that holds 1,000 horses, etc.

I think the other races are somewhere along the line in this process, but the individualism of whites has created a variety that out competes others.

@SDO Phil-TX what day is the council meeting?

It'd be great if we could meme the ADL into being a Jewish Supremacist hate group.

Are you following the guide?

@everyone report this: https://twitter.com/Anthroptimism/status/921240814994337792

@everyone if you're looking to print flyers, they're under pinned messages. You can get them printed pretty cheap at FEDEX printing: https://printonline.fedex.com/v3.8.0_s8/

Seach online for a coupon code

https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-10-24/court-rules-undocumented-minor-held-hostage-by-trump-administration-can-access-abortion/

Although aborting minorities is a good thing

It's a spoof. Only tweeting at that article I just posted to trigger people.

https://twitter.com/AustinChronicle/status/922929690167398401

Haven't tweeted it though.

Here we go...

That's not my design

I took it from the article I posted above to parody it.

@Thomas Ryan While that video presented the bias of collectivism vs individualism, it was coherent and well thought out.

I agree that it was full of falsehoods. His deductions, while in error, still maintained a certain degree of logic, thus those who are looking for a simplification of the alt-right can watch that video and understand the evaluation. More so, you can look at the alt-right content and see how he made those deductions. That's my point. i.e. His video, despite its flaws, appears to be impactful.

:\

@Rocky Place Exactly. My point is that video has the potential to keep someone blue pilled.

Yeah, controlled opposition. But, some of their stuff is failing. This video seems like a fresh strategy. They introduced a strong claim that we're anti-christian. When I was coming into the alt-right I noticed a lot of that sort of banter. So, anyone who watches that video as part of their introduction to the alt-right can be primed towards confirming that anti-christian conclusion, thereby preventing them from pursing alt-right content further.

technically, whatever you hold as your highest ideal is your "religion".

I'm just gonna sit here calmly with my classic Slavic dish while reading my chain of command dishing it out. /humble brag

pork dumplings sauerkraut

yeah, college town about an hour from Austin

@NDO Eric - TX my brother recommends the pixel 2 (don't get the XL -- "complaints about burn ins.")

If you want a real IQ score, I don't think there is anyway around not paying for the test.

The drug issue is a symptom of a larger issue. Attacking it head on like that won't deter people from drug use. It's like telling someone to stop thinking about pink elephants.

I made this in response to the UT brick thing that's going on.

https://twitter.com/statesman/status/923621269404348416

@Thomas Ryan The main point of the article is to point out that events in the US are on par with Weimar, Germany -- which you agree with. We're facing the same ethnic enemy and their politics as did Hitler. Basically, the author is pointing out the same conclusion I've reached, but I've worded it as, “The history of WWII is repeating itself,” but I then go on to suppose that this is occurring because history has been suppressed via subversion, so the moral theories that we should’ve learned have been lost.
More so, this story has played out multiple times that it has become an archetypical story in human mythos; the main theme being: The traditions held by the fathers are lost/forgotten; the hero of the story goes on an adventure into the unknown and rediscovers them thereby saving the father from death and thus restoring order to the world they know.
In the modern case, vindicating Hitler is an iteration of that theme for many people because he embodied many of the virtues of a benevolent father. However the historic narrative in today’s media has depicted Hitler as the satan of our times.
A large part of what we face on the alt-right is correcting this untruth. Was Hitler an enemy of America? Was Hitler an enemy of the Brits? Was Hitler an enemy of Europe?
To correct this historic record is to save a father figure in the collective history of white people -- which is shorthand for European descendants. America is part of that history rather than isolated from it -- i.e. America is part of that pan-European identity. And, unless I’m mistaken, this is a vision Hitler shared. He wanted us all united against a common, foreign enemy. I don’t think Hitler wanted these nations to surrender their sovereignty, otherwise he would’ve taken Britain instead of trying to negotiate with them.

Having plans could be a contingency. Like I'm sure we have plans to invade every country on this planet, but we're not acting on 'em.

As far as pan-Europeanism goes, I see alliances forming between the various alt-right groups in Europe and North America.

I'm a 1st generation American, so I'm sure that influences my perspective here.

Thomas, do Jews put their nation before race?

I've wondered if Israel is just a front. A place for Jews to escape to should their subversion fail.

That sounds like a great experiment to me. 😄

@NDO Nick-TX When Thomas Jefferson was talking about equality, I think he was referencing the forces of nature. The same forces that created me are the same forces that created you. That's what he meant by being created equally. He was arguing against Divine Right of Kings and pointing out that in the eyes of god men are men regardless of title.

Yeah, I think that was the maxim he was invoking.

In essence, the following concept is what the enlightenment was supposed to be about:
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment . . ."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Republic, The Laws, 59 - 47 B.C.

The 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights is in line with the 1st Commandment of the Bible, too. Both the 1st Amendment and 1st Commandment are in line with the above quote.

We can only discover the laws of nature, not write them.

Government is supposed to be a steward of the law.

@NDO Eric - TX sounds like they took it down pretty fast

#realACTIVISMhours

I like how there is "kek" in the picture

@Thomas Ryan erase the albert & al so it says kek library

Nice work Tyler!

That photo will get spread around more with it saying Kek library.

Will the Taco Supreme replace White Supremacy?

Demolition Man was a prophecy

What are you puffing?

Why does the ADL, a private institution , have so much pull with these guys? Is that even legal?

@AugustoPinochet(Paul)TX I do not agree with that statement if we're talking generally speaking. If we're talking natural right, then the answer is no. If we're taking legal rights, then that is a matter of contract.

A society can establish the legal right to a job.

Those all being legal rights maintained by the governent.

@AugustoPinochet(Paul)TX I think the idea of natural rights is born from a sense of property. You own yourself. i.e. You are in possession of the self. All property rights begin with possession.

@Thomas Ryan The fine line between despotism and rule of law is the ability to show the soudness of the moral theories you're implementing.

If the will of the people does not coincide with the state, what then?

Right now we are in that very struggle with the state.

The idea of "consent of the governed" is in line with whether or not the state represents the will of the people.

Mussolini was a civic nationalist if I'm not mistaken.

Thomas, yes, people's preferences change. But, that doesn't change the nature of the law enforced, i.e. is it universal or not? Is it of sound moral theory, or not? If you have a grievence (i.e. valid moral objection), then it is an imperative that this objection be considered or else you've created an environment for tyranny.

@Thomas Ryan Natural law is built upon the observation that there is a natural order to things — which is to say that nothing is random (not to imply that every event has purpose).

If you accept that there is a natural order to things (i.e. chaos theory), then it’s safe to assume that there is a natural order to human behavior, i.e. it’s not random.
Thus, if that is accepted, then it is safe to assume that there are particular actions that lead to particular outcomes. Meaning: The human experience is not random.
So, that said, if it is sound to hold that no outcome is random (i.e. no such thing as true random), then there must be a natural law governing our experiences regardless of how ignorant we are of its influence on events as well as to what degree. In the past, this force — and all natural forces for that matter — were commonly referred to as ‘god’. Thus, prior to secularism, in the hierarchy of law, god was supreme. We have the same centralized institution today, except now there is no deity. The state is the new fictional entity most hold as being supreme.

More importantly, if there is a goal like justice (a description of a particular experience), then there must be *laws* (i.e. principles) affecting events that lead to such outcomes. And, so, the discovery of such principles is the pursuit of the rule of law. Or, better said, the pursuit of justice.

Anyone that demands justice is by default acknowledging there are natural laws, otherwise ‘justice’ is a meaningless word, i.e. it’s not objective.

If what I say is sound, then these ‘laws’ should not be confused with edicts — which are decrees granted the force of law by the bonds created among men, i.e. contracts, so long as there is consent. More so, since all legal rights are the product of contract, what are natural rights?

The absence of consent is slavery.

In America we have an order of common law in order to protest the discoveries we made. In contrast, some jurisdiction in the world have civil law which allows for any law to be interpreted in anyway the arbiter sees fit.

The use of force in self-defense or thrid-party defense is justified. Anything outside of that scope begins to get into acts of conquest or acts of aggression against others.

We're getting into tribalism there. I thought the scope of the discussion was limited to governance of our people.

I don't think anyone is making the claim, "governed with a feather light hand." The measures that leads to the emergence of the rule of law are very strict. So, neither light nor hard, but rather firm. i.e. Walking the fine line between order and chaos.

The whole point of this all is that any man has the right to invoke the law thereby giving us the ability as a collective to consider all possible angles available to us at a given time. Omniscience is impossible, right? But this methodology gives us the closest we can to come to governing with the benevolence of god.

As long as by critic you mean a right to express a grievance, then I think we found agreement

On a lighter note, it is my personal opinion that in the ethnostate all men should have a right to have a toilet where his balls do not dip into the water while taking a shit because all balls do not swing equally.

All balls should dangle freely. http://media1.giphy.com/media/m12GiqBQywgbS/giphy.gif

I thought they were cracks too. The idea of America being cracked is a great visual since it highlights the division in the union