Analysis of the shooting near Milo’s talk.

I examined the video frame by frame.

At nine seconds, Yellow Hat is walking swiftly and calmly through the crowd of thugs blocking access to Milo’s speech, and no one pays him any attention. He appears to be just another protester helping block access.

At 17 seconds Bald Man suddenly starts running towards him, and Yellow Hat abruptly starts backing away

At 19 seconds, a big yell goes up from the crowd. Yellow Hat appears to be being beaten up by the much larger Bald Man, or possibly more than one much larger man, and is fleeing, dodging, and zig zagging.

He is trying to evade Bald Man, and Bald Man is pursuing. It looks like some more people are joining in to cut off Yellow Hat’s escape.

At 26 seconds, Yellow hat is not facing towards Bald Man, who is right behind him in hot pursuit, but rather facing towards another man who appears to be moving into the path of Yellow Hat’s escape, so that Yellow Hat is trapped between Bald Man whom he is fleeing, and people moving into his path. Possibly several men are moving to intercept Yellow Hat. One man is advancing towards him hands outstretched as if to grab him, another hits him with a piece of cloth, perhaps a crumpled up banner. At 27 seconds a shot rings out. Bald Man falls, and Yellow hat reverses course, paying absolutely no attention to the fallen Bald Man, and retreating from the man he was facing when the shot was fired. Yellow Hat runs towards a group of left wing banners.

Either someone else shot Bald Man to take the pressure off Yellow Hat, or Yellow Hat shot Bald Man while glancing at him out of the corner of his eye in order to give himself a path of retreat. Yellow Hat did not look at Bald Man immediately before, during, or immediately after the shot, yet his reversal or course indicates he was aware that Bald Man had suddenly ceased to be a threat, and that he was now ignoring Bald Man because he had far more urgent problems.

Immediately after the shot, we see a big bunch of people with black masks over their heads and faces run from behind the camera towards the place where Bald Man was shot. Black masks being a pretty good indication of bad intent. Whether by accident or design, Bald Man had been chasing Yellow Hat towards the place the black masks appeared from. To the left of camera, everyone starts looking at the place the black masks came from, like there is something there much more important than a mere shooting.

In conclusion, leftie on leftie violence. Either Yellow Hat shot Bald Man in self defense, or someone else shot Bald Man to take the heat off Yellow Hat, fearing Yellow hat was about to suffer grave harm, possibly at the hands of the black masks. Probably Judean People’s Front versus the People’s Front of Judea. What do you expect when you hang out with violent thugs? Maybe everyone involved was a bad guy, but the one who got the bullet was the one who attacked first, unless a different bald man got popped in the confusion. Looks like justice on the face of it. Back in the sixties and early seventies I noticed that radical left organizations had a mysterious unfortunate mystery death rate similar to that of Clinton Associates.

63 Responses to “Analysis of the shooting near Milo’s talk.”

  1. Mediocre IQ White Nationalist says:

    Looks like the yellow hat guy attempted to help a red hat guy (a trump guy) and then was attacked by the antifa. The antifa are saying the guy who got shot was part of their “defense committee” aka, he’s the guy who actually lifts and is around to beat people up. Pretty clear what happened as far as I’m concerned.

    • Jack Highlands says:

      Yep. Jim, there’s finally footage up on YT (I just got a dark screen with audio when I clicked your link over the W/E) and it sure looks like yellow hat was standing at the edge of a bunch of red hats when the bald guy came over and began assaulting him.

      I don’t think it was left-on-left. I think a Trumpist shot a Leftist enforcer thug in self-defense and was released within hours by police. There is a hundred times more MSM and Alt Right news and interest on Spencer getting punched than on this thug almost dying. The YT has a few hundred views. I don’t fully understand the lack of interest, though I could speculate.

      Anyway, this happened in Seattlegrad. The only way it could be more in favor of the Trumpist was if he were White, not Asian (apparently), but I don’t think non-White privilege was a factor here. I suspect he would’ve been released the same way if he were White.

  2. Etaoin Shrdlu says:

    For Cloudswrest, some details have come out on Reddit, including friends of the bullet-catcher mentioning various things about him. The bullet-catcher was a supporter of Antifa, was a punk rock fan, and had an anti-Nazi tattoo (or maybe button) from his punk-rock days (recall the “Nazi Punks F*** Off!” song by the Dead Kennedys) that consists of a swastika in/under a circle-and-slash (the “no” symbol). This may be where the confusion over the bullet-catcher’s political beliefs is coming from, or it may simply be the Left trying to spin a smokescreen of disinformation.

    I haven’t seen a video with good enough resolution for me to make out anything useful, so I’m not sure what makes the blog owner identify the shooter as a protester, but the information I’ve been seeing says he was a Trump supporter going to hear Milo, and that it was a very clear case of self-defense.

  3. viking says:

    The right is going to start fighting back things will get interesting the antifa in the USA at least is going to get the shit kicked out of it and die out.The police are going to be assured they will not be prosecuted by the feds for police and they will start cracking heads again.
    As for the state dept Trump if he is smart which he isnt unfortunately will go through the state dept websites list of 20-30 things they do from gun control womens studies and gut the living shit out of them down to one thing diplomacy directed by the president.

    • lalit says:

      So confident the Right will annihilate the left eh? Clearly you have not read David Hines at storify.

      • jim says:

        The left’s superiority in violence comes entirely from state backing. The left is in power because everyone thinks it is in power, and everyone thinks it is in power because it is in power. This would be an unbreakable grip if the left was stable, competent, and unchanging, but there is always movement further left and power struggles within the left.

        • lalit says:

          But surely, there was a time when they were not in power and no one thought they were in power. And in such a time, they changed the situation to being in power and getting everyone to think they are in power. How did they get here from there? Certainly there is something about power and its mechanisms that the left understands that the right does not. What is it that they know that the right does not? This is the crucial point and this is the reason the left is not to be underestimated.

          • viking says:

            First while they were a couple laws away from total power they ran into trump and china/putin so are knocked back.

            The best way of explaining how they came to power is left ratchet. They propose a small change one step farther left, and they use the academy the media hollywood politicians etc to begin to make the case by cherry picking statistics, personalizing the case and dozens of other techniques, eventually they normalize that cause and repeat the process.Media is there greatest weapon even before electricity books theatre poetry painting were all employed to make the cases emotionally.Hester Prynne is a sympathetic figure if you dont think to hard about what might happen if instead of shaming one in 100,000 women as sluts we moved toward celebrating their whorishness. you can watch television from the 40s till now and see the process of feminism from the life of riley or the honeymooners where wives barely tolerate their stupid husbands while demonstrating their superiority all the way through the “landmarks of feminism in television” till todays newest sitcom about a tranny 8 year old where he wears as ball gag as the gag.One click at a time with a laugh track is how the left took over.
            Our civilization is too advance too complex for the average citizen to be able to consider policies, the left can advance simplistic emotional proxies for policies and demand change, the counter argument is too complex for most to bother with. Also for much of its history the left was proposing new policies so they could make claims about what the future would look like compared to the bad old days, one things thats changed is they too now have a record that can be memed unfavorably with a past that we tend to se through rose coloured glasses.
            Reaction though seems to underestimate that in a lot of the ways the left was bound to happen because well it hadnt been tried. but more importantly the left often starts with a truth. Slavery is not a great idea, serfdom or simply keeping most of the population is starvation mode is a really stupid idea, yeah sure it was a result of history we had to go through that phase but leftists were correct to understand it wasn’t sustainable and anticipate and steer history the right staking its reputation on resistance was stupid, better they too understood the implications not only of the historical moments unsustainability but of the likely course of liberalism and steered an alternative solution that strangled leftism in the cradle while strangling babies was still a thing

          • pdimov says:

            The ideology of the American right is self-defeating. It maintains that the government must be weakened and not be allowed to interfere. So when the left is in power, it uses the government to pound on the right, and when the right is in power, it doesn’t. It pounds on a random third world country instead.

          • jim says:

            That is a good question, and requires more than a comment to answer.

            Part of the answer is that when Lord Howe was sent to defeat Washington, he engaged in a staged fake conflict like that which occurred outside Milo’s auditorium, except that the police outside the auditorium were hit by bricks and not allowed to fight back, while Lord Howe’s men were hit by cannon and bullets and not allowed to fight back. Which is to say, a large part of the answer is treason and murder – that Bald Man has police protection. His job is maintaining ideological uniformity by beating people up, he beat someone up on camera, and police are not charging him – though I am pretty sure that after being hit by bricks they would much like to charge him.

            Seems that Yellow Hat is a leftist, but he dissented about violence against Trumpists at the protest, so Bald Man, an antifa enforcer, proceeded to beat Yellow Hat up. Unfortunately for Bald Man, concealed carry.

            I need to write another post on the left’s rise to power, as illustrated Lord Howe and Bald Man.

            • Cavalier says:

              I first learned of Lord Howe from Moldbug’s corpus. It blew my mind.

            • lalit says:

              Ok, fair and logical answer. But this leads to other questions. How did the left get Lord Howe to sign up for their cause when they were clearly not in charge? How did they get Lord Howe to take such a risk on their behalf? How did they convince Lord Howe that the risk-return ratio was worth it?

              And why is the right unable to subvert the left similarly ?

              • pdimov says:

                How does the left get you to sign up? Two ways. Either they promise you power in the new order, or convince you that the old order is unjust, and the new order will be just.

                Why is the right not able to subvert? The right preserves (or cracks down), the left subverts. That’s what they do.

                • peppermint says:

                  The Nazis promise White youth a family in the new order and tell them that the old order is trying to destroy them for muh values and because the Jews are not us or our friends. The White youth respond by posting dank memes.

                  Cuckservatives and neo reactionaries want to either preserve the existing muh values structure or the power of the Jews, and thus don’t have anything to say to the White youth.

                • Lalit says:

                  But how do you convince someone who has status in the old order such as Lord Howe to sign up for an uncertain new order. One’s perception of existing injustices in the current order are a strong function of one’s status in the current society. There is an inverse correlation in fact. Now Lord Howe was certainly high status in the current order. Why would he perceive injustice in the current order? Why would he risk that status? Why would he trust the promises of the new order leaders?

                  The right preserves for sure, but preserve what? Society or the left’s organisation? Society of course! Then, Why does the right find itself unable to subvert the left’s organisational infrastructure? Why no successful attempt to cause schisms in the left’s diverse coalition?

                  There is something about power and its workings they know that the right does not! What is it?

                • jim says:

                  Lord Howe was known to be a supporter of the American Revolution, when he suddenly received a series of promotions that put him in charge of putting down the American Revolution.

                  Bit of an odd choice. And who made that choice? Well, turns out to be curiously difficult to find who made that choice: Obfuscated and hidden power. Committees chosen by committees.

                  Similarly at the Milo’s talk incident. Who was it that ordered the police to stand around like potted palms when the protestors threw bricks at them? And when large numbers of black military age male Muslims get dumped on some marginal electorate, there is never any news, and no one is responsible.

                  Recall the show “Survivor” where people made secret deals and secret alliances. That is how politics works. You don’t know that the person you are making a deal with has already made a deal with someone else to double cross you.

                  Lord Howe was put in charge of British troops by people who wanted British troops dead. Recollect America’s defeat in Vietnam.

                • pdimov says:

                  People who try and succeed bringing down the old order are often, if not always, high status in the old order (else they wouldn’t have the capability). Soros, for instance, is high status, is he not? Yet he wants to see the world burn.

                  “Well, turns out to be curiously difficult to find who made that choice: Obfuscated and hidden power. Committees chosen by committees.”

                  Just like today all strings lead to Soros, my bet would be that that choice was made by a specific influential person, per RF’s iron law.


                • peppermint says:

                  » Soros is taking down the old order

                  I thought Open Society was just composing a bunch of words proggies like, but it actually has a specific meaning developed by the same jewniversity guy, Popper, whose name is associated with some obvious philosophy of science. Soros took this idea, that governments should be responsive to the people instead of governments telling the people what to think, and named his foundation that the Cathedral uses to tell the people what to think after it.

                • Cavalier says:

                  pdimov, that’s a great link. I read a few articles. Dude man is totally right on a bunch of things. One thing he says is that Jim believes in Lockean spontaneous order, which helped crystallize my vaguely uncomfortable feeling about Jim’s proposition that in an ideal patriarchy a husband should personally hunt down a man adulterous with his wife. It’s appealing on a base level, but nuts.

                  Anyway, that’s just what came to mind.

                • jim says:

                  Women only want men capable of violence. Therefore we have to legalize some violence by husbands.

                  We should of course coerce female sexual choices, but there is a limit to how far you can get just by forcing women to have sex with the man they should have sex with and forcing them to refrain from having sex with other men. We have to meet women half way and give them what they want.

                  Which, in truth, is blood, or at least the real possibility of blood.

                • peppermint says:

                  the way to mitigate the loss of status of the victim of a sex crime like adultery is to have the victim personally beat the criminal. This is less essential in crimes of violence like getting sucker-punched since it is generally understood that that could happen to anyone.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so.

                • pdimov says:

                  “One thing he says is that Jim believes in Lockean spontaneous order, which helped crystallize my vaguely uncomfortable feeling about Jim’s proposition that in an ideal patriarchy a husband should personally hunt down a man adulterous with his wife.”

         is full of natural law this and that, but less so, as Jim’s understanding seems to have evolved considerably. (So has mine; the concept of universal natural law is very appealing at first.)

                  But at bottom it’s still individual prior to society vs RF’s individual secondary to society (which I think is correct.)

                  This in a way also underlies the WQ – women as individuals are attracted to violence but they are also herd animals and like whatever everyone else likes. So if you give them individual liberty, have to give men violence. But you don’t have to give women individual liberty.

                • jim says:

                  women as individuals are attracted to violence but they are also herd animals and like whatever everyone else likes. So if you give them individual liberty, have to give men violence. But you don’t have to give women individual liberty.

                  Women just are not that controllable. Even under the Emperor Hongwu, when women were absolutely property and her owner could execute her or do anything he liked to her, women were dangerously powerful and prone to misbehavior – as for example Hongwu’s wife. Women are by nature dangerously powerful because a man can merely kill you, while a woman can make you immortal.

                  So even in Hongwu’s empire, still have to meet women half way. Thus we need to give husbands the authority to engage in personal violence, or else women will never be happy with chastity and monogamy.

          • peppermint says:

            what is “the left”?

            Leftists are the people in charge of institutions. Leftism is the ideology that future institution controllers talk about. By this definition, the left is always in power, though what counts as leftism changes.

            What counts as leftism is about to drastically change. Nationalism is the new normal.

            • pdimov says:

              It’s exactly the other way around. Leftists are those who are not in charge but feel that they ought to be. The people who have a stake in preserving the existing power dynamics are right-wing.

              The Chinese communists are right-wing, even though nominally communist.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                Chinese communists were not right wing pre Deng. Arguably not that right wing now since they support AA, feminism, SOEs etc. But probably right wing relative to the Cathedral.

                The left is a ruling elite whose ideology and composition mutates a lot because of lack of a clear hierarchy. That is all. A military junta or divine right monarchy has a clear and unambiguous hierarchy of command and distribution of spoils, a leftist regime does not, that is why they are way worse because anyone can join in the exploitation and has to constantly makes up ways to expand the government to get a bigger share of the spoils.

                • pdimov says:

                  The left is the part of the elite that feels that it should be more ruling than it is. This is why elite overproduction is a problem. Too much elite, too little power.

                  There are no (lasting) leftist regimes. The regime is either rightist, or it collapses into Jim’s leftist singularity and eats itself.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so. The left has been in power in America since 1795, and in England since 1820, but it does not feel itself to be in power. The protestors outside the Milo talk were allowed to get away with violence that would cause a brown scare if the right did it, but if you told them they were in power they would point out that they have a zillion dollars in student debt and cannot get jobs despite having Harvard degrees.

                  You tell him Harvard rules, and he has a PhD from Harvard, and he says “Why am I working at Starbucks? and living in my mother’s basement?”

                  The answer is that lots of people are working at Starbucks, but lacking a degree from Harvard, do not feel they are entitled to power. His answer proves the left is in power, that he feels he is entitled to power because leftist, but that there are too many leftists and not enough power for them all.

                  And in answer to the question “What was in it for Lord Howe?”: A share of the spoils. The left is in power, and is forever seizing power.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Yes exactly.

                  That’s why any “good” government (or less bad) has to limit the number of people that can feed at the trough. Otherwise it’s left singularity time. The problem is that leftism is always popular for the elite for obvious reasons – bigger government, more jobs.

              • peppermint says:

                So, there are people who are ambitious and want to be in charge of institutions, and people who are less ambitious. The former adopt the cool ideas that the people currently running things hold and expound upon them. All lives matter therefore Whites should pay what they would otherwise give their children for infinity moslems to live off crime and welfare.

                The people in charge of the institutions often have great ideas about how their institutions will reshape the world and make it better, but usually have more opportunities to see what’s going on in the world. And if they would only see, they only would see.

                • pdimov says:

                  The amusing thing is that nobody feels in charge.

                  The right’s ideology says “don’t tread on me”, implying not being in charge. Institutions are ostensibly under someone else’s control.

                  The left’s ideology says “I’m oppressed”, implying not being in charge. Institutions are oppressive and right wing.

                  The “old order” is a soup of individuals all signaling to some nonexistent power how against it they are.

                  Neoreaction at least says “we should be in power”.

                • peppermint says:

                  Institutions exist and new personnel advance through them. Leftists don’t so much say I’m oppressed as they’re oppressed and need your tax money and daughters, while rightists say no step on snek but only have actual power in the sense of the militia.

                  The old order is a bunch of true believers in muh values signaling to each other how they’re going to reshape the entire world in the image of muh values and neo reactionaries tell them their values aren’t good for holding power.

                  Today rightists can listen and talk to the king directly rather than through other institutions, while leftists can spiral out of control on the Internet and their ideas can get btfo, a marked change from the last century when media companies controlled how people saw the government and the world, executive departments oversaw NGOs which oversaw banks and other companies to steal from the Whites and give to the muds, and college professors taught White genocide.

                  Reduction in unaccountable institutional power means reduction in leftist power.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Reduction in unaccountable institutional power means reduction in leftist power.”

                  ‘Unaccountable power is evil’ is slightly better than ‘power is evil’, but it’s still stupid. Accountability doesn’t matter. Two leftist power centers accountable to one another are still two leftist power centers.

                  And ‘reduction in unaccountable power’ is an oxymoron; who can reduce unaccountable power?

                • peppermint says:

                  power is defined as unaccountable when it is soft and obscurely wielded; therefore monarchy is the only legitimate form of government other than military dictatorship which becomes monarchy

                • pdimov says:

                  Who defines ‘unaccountable power’ to mean ‘soft and obscurely wielded’?

                • peppermint says:

                  accountability for political decisions is when everyone knows who made the decision and why they had that authority to

                • peppermint says:

                  The left has never won an honest debate and has never had to win an honest debate, because the leftists are the institution controllers. They just signal and appeal to platitudes and taboos.

                  Not to let cuckstainty off the hook. Under Catholicism, it is not a sin to burn coal, but it is a sin to use a condom while coalburning. The reason the mudslimes won is that when mudslimes win they enslave the men and take the women as sex slaves while when christcucks win they force everyone to go to church once a week and eat crackers. Thus the population is progressively and permanently Islamized with every encroaching campaign. Spain was won by the reverse process of removing kebab and settling humans, but was set up for future trouble when the christcucks refused to finish the job and uninstall skypes.

                • pdimov says:

                  “accountability for political decisions is when everyone knows who made the decision and why they had that authority to”

                  It can also mean that bad decisions can be punished, and most people use “unaccountable power” as a synonym for “unchecked power”, at least as far as I know. Which is why I misunderstood what you were saying.

                  Faceless bureaucracies can be right wing (the left calls that ‘stagnation’), but I think I have to agree that a bureaucracy whose head is an elected official or appointed by such probably cannot.

          • SteveRogers42 says:

            What they know — mind control, propaganda, “education”, ownership of the news and entertainment media, the ad agencies, and the PR firms.

            One guy comes along with media savvy and personal charisma, and their $#!t is suddenly looking mighty shaky.

          • Barnabas says:

            “What is it that they know that the right does not?” It’s simply easier to destroy than to build. The Roman works harder and the Vandal profits.

      • viking says:

        yeah I read it and I lived it, the lefts violence is staged political theatre not war like are you setiously thinking the left could kick the rights ass in an actual even fight?

        • Filthy Liar says:

          Why would the left (or the right for that matter) ever get into a situation where there’s an even fight?

          • lalit says:

            Exactly! The left fights only when it is sure of victory. As for the right, it does not fight at all! So given this sorry record, why is the right so sure that they will win a fight? They have no history or data points to go by?

            @Viking I’m not saying that the left could kick the right’s ass in a fight. What I’m saying is that the right have never given me any cause to believe that they can or want to fight all.

            • viking says:

              Im not saying the left will volunteer for fair fight, Im saying waht happens if it were fair and that dynamics change. The right is law and order, christian, etc so street fights are anathema but at some point that changes. When the right calculates more order from fighting than not, that left is a real threat, is one. Another is when left has so undermined the culture that right values too are destroyed and rights no longer feel constrained by them, this is surely happening.When right no longer feels the government can be relied on to maintain order, they will feel a duty to maintain order.etc etc
              We are in a pre civil war situation, in other words a situation where its conceivable a random event could touch off a war. Its remote but possible, the left should be careful.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        The right would smash the left is a declared total war. The left’s strategy is to avoid a declared total war, fight battles in which the right’s forces are ordered to protect the left, which orders they will faithfully obey.

        This “works”, but constrains the left’s possibilities. You can do more if you can seize power. Allende thought Pinochet would back him, or at least not resist him, which is why he moved to seize all power and end the constitution and elections. Oops.

        We want oops.

        • peppermint says:

          And since social media makes the loudest, most extreme leftist win, they are literally normalizing political violence while Trump is taking office (viz: Spencer-punching)

          • jim says:

            This did not work out entirely to their advantage in the incident near Milo’s talk. They are trying to tell people that Bald Man was a peace loving martyr to love and peace who was trying to “de-escalate” a conflict – which presupposes that the existence of people who disagree with leftism is an intolerable level of conflict which is de-escalated by rendering those of insufficient faith horizontal.

      • Robert says:

        Hines is right that we don’t organize properly. We need to stop worshiping the false god of independence. We are trying to change that

  4. Orthodox says:

    More black on black crime.

  5. Jack Highlands says:

    Thanks for the legwork Jim. This is exactly what I meant by Who/Whom of course. Sometimes all we have to do is sit back and watch these scum shoot each other. Not that it will always be that easy.

  6. Cloudswrest says:

    According to this linked article, “Yellow Hat” claimed he was defending himself from whom he thought was a “white supremacist”. Yellow Hat was described as a middle aged Asian man so either Yellow Hat is bullshitting or he is a complete foreign FOB retard (all “white” nationalists look like Whitenationalists to me.) “Bald man’s” friends are vigorously denying he is a racist and that he is an anti-racist.

    • jim says:

      Calling Bald Man a racist is the Stalinists calling the Trotskyists “fascist”. It was obvious that Yellow Hat believed that more than one man in the crowd was out to get him, and it looked to me that he was right.

    • jim says:

      His friend describes Bald Man as

      “He has always been of the mind to be compassionate, empathetic and to educate. That’s his goal,” Herrera said.

      “to educate” means that these words are being used in the social justice sense, where love means hatred, compassion means brutal indifference, and empathy means assault.

      I suspect that Yellow Hat is no better, but Bald Man attacked Yellow Hat. Yellow Hat did not attack Bald Man.

      Yellow hat was walking through the crowd like he belonged there, and when he fled after the shooting, fled towards a bunch of people carrying signs.

    • SteveRogers42 says:

      Are there any actual policemen working for Seattle PD or the UW’s (fully-commissioned) PD? Whoever is inside those uniforms seems to be completely helpless/oblivious. It reminds me of the FutureCops in Demolition Man: “We’re police! We’re not trained to handle that type of violence!”

  7. drytreemadonna says:

    If you didn’t know, the all-black outfits are anarchists. European anarcho tactic called “black bloc” where the intention is for everyone to blend together, cannot easily be identified and tracked by police in a crowd. But the real reason is probably that is looks bad ass, and anorexic vegans rarely get the chance to feel tough. Limp wristed punch-and-run on Spencer was done by one of these idiots.

    Their explicit intention:

    1. Use moderate protestors as human camouflage to duck into after smashing a window, etc.

    2. Incite moderate protestors to participate in the “direct action”

    3. Inspire others to join because… it’s exciting a badass to break stuff in all black

    4. Then something vague about liberation from material goods, catharsis of smashing the window of an international corporation… blah blah blah

    What it boils down to is a collection of lost souls who hate their fathers, throwing a temper tantrum because they are genetically inferior to their peers and cannot accept their lot in life. Because of their inclusivity and egalitarian ways they tend to collect some of the most dysfunctional and stupid people in all radical politics. The best of them are the college students who can hold a logical discussion and thus go soft on anarcho- ideas within a few years of starting their interest. They graduate to NPR-flavored Chomsky worship, nihilism or swing Right when they see just how wrong and retarded the left’s ideological core is (speaking from experience)

    • Jack Highlands says:

      The guy who sucker-punched RS was caught on video, upper face visible. He walked away more like a man of 35 than 55, so I’m still not convinced he’s the late middle-aged Texas accountant who is literally a shit-eating, collar-wearing, bull-prepping sub for a porn sloot. Pol identified the accountant as the assailant, and even if they’re wrong, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

      Either way, he richly deserves the doxxing he’s getting: I laughed to see the internet guest book at his employer’s website – two entries over several years, then dozens this weekend, and of a very different nature.

      Such is the human quality of the modern left. Pizzagate is real news.

  8. TheBigH says:

    So it looks like the left has decided upon a color revolution to stop Trump. How do we counter it?

    • jim says:

      The God Emperor has it well in hand. At 12 noon, immediately after he took the oath, the Washington National Guard got new leadership. A few hours later, he addressed the CIA, accompanied by Bush’s old CIA director and Trump’s new CIA director. He appealed directly to the CIA rank and file over the heads of the CIA leadership and the press and got a standing ovation. The CIA is the primary tool in creating color revolutions.

      CIA has been taken care of by Trump’s personal charisma next biggie is the State Department NGOs, who are the guys who sponsored that violence against Milo. Trump plans to “retool”the state department.

      “There may be resistance in parts of the Foreign Service to the reallocation of resources away from some of the department’s many functions. “

      This is more complex than the CIA since the State Department is hostile to Trump from top to bottom. It is going to take a couple of months to get the State Department out of color revolution mode.

      The thugs were able to win in Seattle because the police in Seattle were not allowed to arrest them. In Washington, however, the police seem to be busting them quite efficiently, and Washington is now nice and quiet.

      We will likely see color revolution in some big cities, but Trump holds Washington and has the loyalty of the army, and though he is opposed by the leadership of the CIA, he has the CIA rank and file. When big cities do color revolution, he will isolate them using his loyalists in the countryside, and just quietly wait them out.

      The man has charisma, the guard, the army, and the cops. And in his CIA speech we saw how useful and effective charisma can be. He will be fine.

      • Alrenous says:

        You know you have a good stable regime when literally just some faggot is an existential threat.

      • lalit says:

        Jim, I know Trump (or his people) read Scott Adams at

        I wonder if they read you too. I’m convinced Spencer reads your blog and also the comments section after I saw him do the Black Power salute exactly. Your reach “appears to” belies your claims of being a mere retired software developer. One might be forgiven for thinking there is more.

Leave a Reply