Brigitte Gabriel: “The peaceful majority were irrelevant.”


“Those who know history are doomed to watch others repeat it.”

Over and over, in less than 5 minutes, watch Brigitte Gabriel cite five documented historical references to explain why the peaceful majority were always irrelevant, utterly laying waste to the fucking bla-bla of some abjectly moronic law student in her fancy hijab.

No need to add anything to that.

…Along the same lines, a commenter from yesterday emailed this article, thinking he was making some point about painting with broad strokes, or whatever, just like that stupid emphasis on the peaceful majority, above.

What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters They’re drawn to the movement for reasons that have little to do with belief in extremist Islam.

Yea, like what, 72 Virgins or some other equally delusional thing? Dominate wives and rape their daughters, perhaps? Just bored? Long for attention with a chance at hero status? Unemployed? No real future? Can’t afford an iPhone? What, exactly is each fighter’s specific “motivation?” Do they fucking lie? I know that’s a strange concept for a pissant leftie “thinking” moron to grasp … that people who vow to kill innocent people are capable of lying.

It doesn’t fucking matter.

Folks, this is the sort of dumb and meaningless psychobabble that’s going to be the end of Western Civilization if people don’t wise the fuck up. It’s like reading some leftie Hitler appeasement & puff piece in May of 1940—perhaps an interview with Neville Chamberlain on his outlook for his last 6 months in office—about how German troops who’d just then begun loading Jewish families into boxcars for Auschwitz had different levels of conscience and/or motivations for listening, or not, to its voice.

It’s impertinent. And it’s fucking stupid and displays an abject lack of any perspective on the history of mass murder, particularly mass murder that’s driven by top-down ideology, and not simply the conquest of strategically relevant territory.

Wise the fuck up.

Equally dumb is the right, with their typical closed borders NIMBY attitudes, apparently unaware that humanity itself is a migration story. In the vast main, migration—and particularly refugee migration—is a plus for existing countries and communities, as they are infused with people with enough gumption to risk it all, give it all up, and head elsewhere.

Two commentaries on that. First, this one from this morning.

Syrian refugees are potentially a net plus because they ought to be, in the main, a self-selected group of hardy individuals who voted with their feet to leave a repressive situation. Moreover, they could be a good source of intelligence, a mine of contacts and potential agents who can be sent back into Syria.

Of course the refugee flows will also contain a fair number of enemy agents and pentrators. However, if you handle refugees well, you can get more than you lose. The reason there is such a visceral resistance to resettlement is not due to some sudden slamming of the door, but because the public has NO CONFIDENCE in the Obama administration to manage it properly.

The public attitude toward refugees is a proxy for their belief in the administration’s competence. When Obama says “they will be vetted” not enough people believe him. They have been burned too often. When Obama says “there is no religious test”, that is interpreted to mean he will discriminate against Christian refugees, because he has pulled too many bait and switches in the past. If anything they will suspect that truly moderate Muslims will be passed over in favor of types that the Orientalist leftists would approve of.

Whether or not that is true, his falling popularity in the polls suggests that his proposals will be viewed askance. Right now his endorsement is poison.

Advocates of refugee resettlement must realize that the public isn’t necessarily hostile to Syrians as much as doubtful of the administration’s ability to perform due diligence and to act fairly.

In comments on another post this morning, this was quoted, but without attribution.

As for illegal immigration, human migration operates on the principle of desperation, not invitation. People don’t leave everything they know for long, dangerous journeys through hostile lands to get to a place where they can scrub toilets and build houses they can’t afford to buy because they enjoy it. Unless you are going to make life less inviting than the places they are fleeing, you can’t stop them. You can’t stop them with walls, fences, politicians, laws…never have and never will. Do you think you can scare someone desperate to escape whatever violent impoverished situation they are fleeing in central america by walking all the way to the US? You can’t. Unless Europeans reopen the death camps people are going to try to escape their terrible Middle East situations by going there. If America somehow deported every last illegal immigrant, they would just come back. Are you going to kill them? Because that is what it would take.

In the end, this is a problem of the abjectly moronic left in America and Europe. Here’s a picture worth a thousand words.


Can’t imagine a better snapshot of what you’re up against, with people who only ever attempt “thought” in order to attempt to find out what everyone else “thinks,” the mishmash of “thoughts” never being given a “second” thought for internal consistency.

Let me repeat.

“Those who know history are doomed to watch others repeat it.”

Update: Just hit my radar. It’s a PBS Frontline documentary on ISIS in Afghanistan that aired yesterday, AKA a fucking religion of fucking peace my fucking ass fucking update.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Another John on November 18, 2015 at 18:40

    I agree with much of your post and enjoyed reading it. I aslo consider myself libertarian on many issues, but I am not on immigration or the subject of Islam. Fears of problems that stem from immigration are not dumb. They are in fact part of our human condition. For much of history it was also a wise defensive mechanism to fear those from foreign tribes.

    There is a problem with the two positions you’ve asserted. You cant both be in favor of dealing with the reality of radical Islam while at the same time argue that it is safe and wise to increase the Islamic population of the country through immigration. Those two positions are in conflict. In fact everywhere you have muslim minorities in the world you have civilizational conflicts that have been going on for a long time (India, Burma, the Philippines, Western China,parts of Thailand, the Southern regions of Russia and certain Caucus states, South Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, and many other places in Africa, Shia vs Sunni Islam in various places). The muslim minority in the United States is a recent creation of our wide open immigration policy since the 1960s it is not a result of people choosing with their feet to walk from Latin America. Meanwhile in Europe states that have much larger muslim populations than the US (England, France, Holland, Germany, Sweden etc.) are having major social problems with those populations not assimilating. Now with the sudden influx of millions of refugees Europe is coming apart at the seems. It is illogical to want to bring that condition to the United States as a matter of policy. To say nothing of the fact the government is always and everywhere incompetent when implementing crisis programs. They will never successfully screen refugees for terrorists whether the government is Republican or Democrat. In fact the FBI director recently said exactly that, that there really is no good way to screen refugees.

    60 minutes recently had a bit on Burma and during part of it they showed an interview with a Bhuddist monk who is fervently anti-islam. They obviously meant to demonize his position, but if its true 15 to 25 percent of muslims are radical, than he has the right of it.

    Ultimately if we are going to have open immigration policy the United States will need to return to more traditional methods of assimilation such those from early 20th century. The diversity is strength nonsense of the left will balkanize the country in two more generations if its allowed to continue.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 19, 2015 at 08:04


      The biggest problem, in my view, is that when immigrants and refugees came in droves in the early 20th century (some despised and feared too…think Irish and Chinese) America wasn’t a socialist state. There was no safety net beyond family and community.

      This turns out to be, for obvious reasons, an excellent natural filter. Such that you get predominately hard working, tough, self-sufficient risk takers focussed on building a new life and sexondarily, they probably aren’t in large going to be interested in fucking up their new opportunity and their already substantial investment in building a new life by giving aid and support to radicals intent on taking apart exactly what they are working for.

      • Bret on November 19, 2015 at 09:44

        I was just talking about the relationship between immigrants and the social welfare state with a buddy earlier today. Maybe we are both naïve and inadequately familiar with these people (he is a Texan raised by Venezuelans by the way and has many immigrant friends, both legal and otherwise), but we do not see immigrants showing up to use the welfare state, ask for handouts, etc. All the panhandlers in our town at the street corners — members of slovenly team whitey. The folks at the welfare/Medicaid/WIC offices (which are hilariously collocated with the birth certificate office)…toothless trailer trash and blacks.

        The “undocumented” wetbacks, towel heads, and so forth are in kitchens, at construction sites, etc, either working for $3 an hour, or working for legal wages under SSNs borrowed from the deceased while having FICA and at least a pinch of FIT & SIT withheld. So it seems to us that they are largely funding the welfare benefits of spoiled, entitled white people — including and especially xenophobic right wing white people — who work government jobs and whose salaries and retirements are derived at least in part from those very withholdings.

        Not saying such abuse of the welfare state by immigrants isn’t possible or won’t become a problem in the future, but I’m not seeing any of it as of now. Maybe someone can enlighten me with contrary evidence, which I always welcome.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 19, 2015 at 12:27

        Well Bret, you know, Stephan Molyneux just recently came out with one of his “The Truth About [x]” videos on that score…which is just another reason I never watch them.

        Make your case, don’t tell me it’s The Truth upfront, because then you are just pandering to those who will just take it up and regurgitate your message.

        In the large, I don’t know, but it’s irrelevant because there just ought not be socialism and it’s just one of our big problems.

        In other news, just published a new post. Wait until you see what the president of Egypt, from 1956 – 1970 when he died, had to say about Muslim extremism and how he could make a crowd laugh.

      • Bret on November 19, 2015 at 17:48

        “Make your case, don’t tell me it’s The Truth upfront”

        I just did make the case. Cheating on a national system is not something that can be tracked accurately or reliably (just like a black market of guns or drugs cannot be), so on this topic we are inherently dealing with anecdotal observations and speculations.

        You said the problem with immigrants and refugees now is the social welfare state, did you not? How is your statement any less a declaration of “truth up front” than mine…?

        “In the large, I don’t know, but it’s irrelevant because there just ought not be socialism and it’s just one of our big problems.”

        This statement is what seems irrelevant. At least to the discussion at hand.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 19, 2015 at 17:56

        Haven’t time, as I’m just about to drive two women to dinner, fancy dinner.

        I was referring to how Stephan Molyneux titles all of his videos, which I find petulant.

    • Rita on November 20, 2015 at 09:33

      Another John sounds like very ignorant person from the Right on this subject – simplistically equating every Islamist and every instance of international upheaval to an inherent fault with the ideology. Richard’s post is appealing because it points out the idiocy of the Left and the Right – humans are migratory, and that isn’t bad; but, demonstrably evil people cannot be excused. Brett’s point below is also important: we need to stop conflating the ideas of people (ideology) with the actions of people (actual violence). Unfortunately, I think this country is more filled with idiots like Another John than rational people like Richard

    • Jordan on January 4, 2017 at 07:36

      Well said. People are too quick to believe everything they see or hear these days, and usually from one source mainstream media, who are more about ratings than getting to the heart of a story. I am Canadian and completely against the way they are handling the refugees now I’m not saying I have a better idea but one thing does occur to me when I see how in most of these countries they form ghetto’s large areas or neighborhoods that are strictly Muslim even under self run sharia law in these areas where police won’t go and terrorist are allowed to be born. the problem is in the teachings it begins and ends with education terrorists are born out of their parents hate and being brought up from birth to hate the west and then we back that hate up by going in to their country be it for good or oil or whatever the reason and they watch us destroy their homes and kill their ppl these kids don’t know the difference between us killing a terrorist or us killing their uncle so the hate is solidified now they come over to us fleeing war and we put them ALL into large groups of refugees with nothing but time on their hands and expect things to calm down??? Integration is the key to world peace growing together going through the same hardships and the same triumphs. Muslims are very connected think of it like a borg if you’re a treky they accumulate in large numbers getting more and more complacent and angry and bold as they get larger in numbers. If you asked me I would say spread them out thinner don’t put 100,000 of them in one city on 6 blocks of a single neighborhood and then leave them alone and expect that you can go in after and tell them anything. The government’s of the world have really screwed the pooch on this one because of political correctness and now they are about to screw it even harder in the opposite direction to the point that I am attacked in blogs for simply stating I am against the migration and placement of Muslims in my country to show I’m on the same side as these ppl but as soon as I ask to stop the racist comments that we need to fight but fight with respect as to not diminish our voice, well that makes me an instant Muslim lover and worthy of dying with the Muslims we are breading hate the only education most westerners get is hate speech and videos of death. There needs to be a massive effort by the world organizations to inform and educate not only them but more and most importantly us otherwise what makes us so great? Why should they live like us? Are we the model I’m of civil of good? I also think media needs to be stripped down to bare bones I’m tired of seeing these bimbos on TV that have clearly been placed as eye candy same with the men reporters it’s like a freaking reality TV show its not about the news anymore it’s only about the delivery and which side the stations reporter obviously supports what happened to unbiased news? And the fact that so many of us are willing to just accept what we are told even when we really don’t agree or we know something seems off or not right but do we look deeper before we form our opinions? No we don’t the system was not ready to handle this crisis but here we are in the midst of it and what are we going to do about it? And to all the kill them all camp I always say this ………..imagine a 5 year old Syrian Muslim any 5 year old Muslim now imagine you pushing the barrel of a gun against that 5 year Olds forehead …… pull the trigger. No one sees it like that in their heads they see a mushroom cloud and never imagine the realities. Finally I will state once again I am completely against radical Islam extremist ideals and they do deserve to die for their crimes. AND I AM ALSO AGAINST the murder of any innocence white black Arab or Chinese and kill them all would be to kill 3 times as many innocent as guilty it’s about time we did something right for a change educate the ppl on both sides start getting to these Muslim kids take them away from the parents who I am pretty sure are unfit parents if they are proven terrorists or murderers l, if necessary I’m pretty sure there are many good families in the world looking to adopt the main issues are the men the the women many of them slaves bring mother and child I font know but Christ a monkey our suspected devolved self could come up with a better plan . Get off the dam oil too maybe our interests in their country would die off

  2. RMcSack on November 19, 2015 at 12:03

    When an infection fails to respond to antibiotics, is the right course of action always more of the same? Or is that useless psychobabble?

    In 1940, the rest of the world had an opportunity to save the Jews from German persecution and refused:

    The reasons were pretty much the same used today: Economic, and Security.

  3. zenmoon on November 19, 2015 at 14:54

    Religion = The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power.

    Peace = Freedom from disturbance.

    By definition they are incompatible.

  4. Robert Ross on November 19, 2015 at 16:17

    One of your worst posts ever. The words flowed and flowed but you didn’t say anything because you skirted around whatever point you thought you were making.

    And that video is an embarrasment. It’s a room full of embarrassing people as well if the applause is an indicator. Do you think this represents some cutting to the heart of the issue? Do you think it exposes the stupidity of political correctedness in any way? No, its a pit bull vs a toddler and regardless of the validity of any of the points she raised – and there’s a big question mark over that to say the least, its a disservice to your readers. Notice she didnt answer the stupid question? In other words, can you say straw man argument, I thought you were an expert on logic and philosophy.

    I understand the desire to be profound and show your superiority but make it good stuff man. That’s without getting political FWIW. Have any answers big man?

    • Richard Nikoley on November 19, 2015 at 16:39

      Robert Ross child.

      Just sit down, shut the fuck up, and start integrating instead of regurgitating.

      “Al-Hayat’s Editor Calls for War on ISIS”

      You stupid, stupid people, more interested in regurgitating and spouting the narrative that you are in integrating all relevant facts and changing your views accordingly.

      • RMcSack on November 20, 2015 at 10:35

        Hey Richard, have you ever considered that it’s Saudi Arabia that’s trying to drag us into a war? ISIS has been deliberately provoking a wider conflict for months now with their brutal antics. They’ve been trying desperately to get the world’s attention, and it’s always seemed very fishy to me. I think these guys are a front for a much wider orchestrated move, and getting fired up the way you are, calling for an actual war, appears to be exactly what they’re after.

        I think they want to escalate the chaos, stir up Muslim animosity, and we’re falling right in line as expected.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2015 at 10:55

        No, I do not think that’s’ the value they’re acting on directly.

        But there is a possibility that they are acting global/political/geopolitical in a way that makes sense to them but no sense to us.

        The Saudis have been America’s staunchest ally, along with Jordan. The former placates by financing radical Islamic education, Wahabi. The latter tries it’s best to stay out of stuff.

        But what if they themselves see no resolution but via destruction?

        What if they really want an advance of civilization, but see no way around having to kill potentially millions of radicals with beliefs so primitive there’s no real way of accounting for them?

        One way is to both placate your moron population by financing the indoctrination, knowing that eventually, the West will destroy them for you.

        Geopolitics in the long term.

  5. Bret on November 19, 2015 at 18:30

    “Notice she didnt answer the stupid question?”

    Ross, it took me a while, but I did just notice that. I was actually in the process of sharing that video and then stopped before pulling the trigger for that reason.

    Gabriel conflated issues hardcore…she just happened to do so with impressive passion & assertiveness, which is the only reason so many (non-right-wing) people swooned over that video, including me, initially.

    In WWII, we rightly went in and fought the Nazis in spite of a peaceful German majority. We can play word games all day long (were we “at war with Germany” or “at war with the Nazis”?) but regardless, we did not enter the war to eradicate all of Germany including the peaceful majority. We eradicated the Nazis and then the fight was over (in Germany anyway). In response to September 11th, we did not declare war on all of Islam because of 19 hijackers and their network of leaders/supporters. We declared war (not literally but in “modern style”) on that network.

    In case there is any doubt, I believe unequivocally this ISIS/ISIL/Da’ish beast must be destroyed with extreme prejudice and vengeance. But neither does that require us to declare war on Islam nor is it productive to do so. It sounds instead like an efficient way to alienate and harass a lot of otherwise peaceful Muslims and give them a reason to consider joining the opposition.

    The law student’s question wasn’t even all that stupid. How are you going to fight an ideological war? It’s a rhetorical question, because, well, that isn’t the war we should be fighting. It is instead an absurd concept that only an alliance of high religion and high government could be stupid enough to come up with. We are on the contrary in a shooting and bombing war with people (not an ideology) who are aggressively trying to destroy us and others. Once those people are lifeless cadavers in the sand, our mission is over.

    Naturally in such a war there will be casualties in the way of peaceful Muslims, just like in my two aforementioned examples there were casualties in peaceful German and Afghan citizens. But declaring an ideological war on Islam makes no more sense than declaring an ideological war on Christianity for all its endorsements and examples of violence. I can list ’em out if we like…the KKK, abortion clinic bombers, Biblical encouragement of violence, and so on. I don’t see a shred of difference between those examples and all these Islamic ones.

    Look at the problem in front of your nose, which is ISIS. That’s what needs to be disposed of. Not the larger association they lay claim to nor the ideology they identify with. A war against either of those latter things is a war you’re absolutely going to lose.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2015 at 07:25

      “Ross, it took me a while, but I did just notice that. I was actually in the process of sharing that video and then stopped before pulling the trigger for that reason.”

      C’mon Bret, you’re way better than that.

      First of all, it’s the same setup you can see in any number of other college campus and thinktank Q&A deals. Search YouTube for David Horowitsz who’s been ambushed similarly.

      Send in the female Muslim in hijab, have her bless you with peace, then speak in Arabic to say her name, then set up the “question” with a premise that renders the question loaded.

      Her “question” amounts to, ‘how are you going to fight an ideological war without hurting our ideological feelings?’

      Rather than tell her she’s not stupid, won’t fall for a loaded question, sit down, shut the fuck up, next question please, Gabriel first informs her that the question is off topic and why. I doubt this is Gabriel’s first Rodeo in this kind of baiting.

      She then obliterates the premise of the question by acknowledging that most Muslims are peaceful, but demonstrates why it’s irrelevant, which by implication disputes that this is an ideological war.

      No, it should be a war to destroy ISIS and all radicals intent on harming others. Let whoever wring hands over ideology. Did we give a shit about Hitler’s Arian Supremicy ideology? See, it’s the moderates who want this to be about preserving their precious ideology.

      As to the rest of your comment, I see no implication that Gabriel is calling for war on peacful Muslims. She simply showing through the lens of history that they are irrelevent and then even follows that up with a question as to why one hears little to no condemnation from all these peaceful Muslims, but rather only concern that nobody hurts their tender feelings or tarnishes their precious ideology.

      Incidentally, all this you hear about the radicals not truly representing Islam is one big giant “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

      • Bret on November 20, 2015 at 09:50

        “Her “question” amounts to, ‘how are you going to fight an ideological war without hurting our ideological feelings?’”

        Based on the trimmed clip of her question and lacking the prior context of the panel’s discussion, that is actually impossible to say.

        I thought at first she was criticizing the panel for advocating a so-called ideological war. Now, watching it again, I get the sense she is pleading for an ideological war vs perhaps some regional annihilation/ruination (“How are you going to win this war without addressing it ideologically?”). i.e. It’s not us Muslims that are the problem…it’s these ISIS animals’ ideology you need to combat. She doesn’t seem consistent across her questions regarding ideology. I’m happy to be informed otherwise if I am missing something.

        Again, without the background of the panel’s minutes, we are shooting in the dark with nothing but assumptions. The assumption I am left to make is that this law student felt the need to pipe up on behalf of peaceful Muslims due to the panel’s denouncing of Islam altogether over this ISIS crap, which as I have said above, is abhorrently retarded and inconsistent (i.e. applying that mentality to Muslims but not the also violent Christians and Jews). Again, happy to be proven wrong if someone can.

        The important thing is that a war against an ideology is an idiotic concept (sounds like you and I are in relative agreement there). You can’t “defeat” an ideology with weapons. You can’t really defeat it at all…only disarm and obliterate the powerful people that espouse it.

        The reason I am unimpressed with “the peaceful majority were irrelevant,” is that that very statement is irrelevant and already taken for granted in this and any war. We’re not fighting the Middle Eastern continent of Muslims…we’re fighting specific militants who occupy and control portions of it. The peaceful majority are bystanders and will suffer some casualties. Just like in all those historical examples Gabriel mentioned. The peaceful majority are indeed irrelevant. Where’s the newsflash?

        I’ll look into this No True Scotsman fallacy. But upon initial read, sounds like a silly conspiracy theory that assumes apparently peaceful people are all conniving under some banner to commit hosile acts. I don’t buy it. It’s bullshit. I’ll be impressed when these ardent anti-Muslims hold Christianity to the same standard.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2015 at 11:10

        Hey Bret, perhaps you have a lot on your table and I get that. Been there.

        But I’m all over this like stink on flies 24/7 for a week and I have no time to endlessly clarify my writings because someone really isn’t addressing them correctly.

        And even worse than your response to the general thrust of the comment, your “take” on the No True Scotsman” fallacy is just downright embarrassing. You should have left that off.

        By the way, the video has nothing to do with ISIS. It was about the killings in Benghazi, Libya, completely unrelated.

      • Bret on November 21, 2015 at 00:50

        “…downright embarrassing. You should have left that off.”

        You’re sounding very much like this Mark fellow that I just hammered yesterday. I don’t presume to know everything and it embarrasses me not in the least to state an opinion about my take on something, even if that interpretation is not agreed with.

        I’m beginning to think you are not nearly as inclusive and welcoming of discussion and diversity of opinion as you implicitly claim, saying instead “you’re not addressing them correctly.” Correctly is an extremely amusing and ironic word in the greater context of your blog here.

        “By the way, the video has nothing to do with ISIS. It was about the killings in Benghazi, Libya, completely unrelated.”

        Well there you go. And yet it still wound up in a post whose context was a push towards war with ISIS, with no context around it.

        I’ve had enough of this particular dialogue. You take whatever last word you feel like taking.

    • GTR on November 20, 2015 at 12:13

      @Bret “We eradicated the Nazis and then the fight was over (in Germany anyway). In response to September 11th, we did not declare war on all of Islam because of 19 hijackers and their network of leaders/supporters. We declared war (not literally but in “modern style”) on that network.”

      See the difference here? In 2-nd World War the ideology of nazism was wiped out, thus no new nazis were generated by it later, in current wars islam is not wiped out, thus new islamists are being generated over and over again. The second option is a smaller defeat, not a victory. You either eliminate the ideology that generates the problems or you loose.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2015 at 12:29

        Well, almost, GTR.

        I’m sure there are still many Germans who mourn Hitler’s failure, many who regard Arian descendance superior, etc.

        But to marginalize them and allow them to masturbate as much as they want, there you have the sweet spot.

  6. Mark Amberdow on November 19, 2015 at 22:05

    Your descent into madness continues unabated.

    More resistant starch, less politics. No one cares about your views peppered with “fuck” every other sentence.

    • Bret on November 20, 2015 at 00:26

      Fully disagreed, Mark. I enjoy reading Richard’s political/non-dietary opinions, regardless of the fact that I don’t agree with all of them. I enjoy debating with him on those points of disagreement even more than I enjoy reading them.

      Reason being, nobody learns in an echo chamber. How about instead of being an arrogant pussy (no, not an oxymoron), you jump into the discussion and state your position, and then argue to back it up. Maybe worry less about where Richard came from and more about what you can bring to the table.

      What’s the real reason behind a comment like the one you made above here? Bitching at the blogger for daring to share an opinion contrary to yours… What kind of ultra childish bullshit is that?

      I know what it is. You admire Richard but you’re too chickenshit to admit it. Accordingly, you look to him for wisdom and become very uncomfortable when he says something that fails to fit your worldview — am I right?? Why else would you take the time and effort to post your subsophomoric rebuke of his freedom of speech (on his own blog, no less)?

      Grow up, pussy boy. And feel free to reenter the discussion when you have something useful, interesting, or unique to say.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2015 at 09:53

      “Your descent into madness continues unabated.”

      Mark, to just add some stuff to what Bret already posted, you might be unaware that this blog has been in existence since November of 2003, which reminds me I need to do a 12th Anniversary post. The 4,252 posts I’ve put up count to just a bit over 100 shy of the 4,380 days in 12 years, i.e., nearly a post per day over 12 years.

      And you complain.

      Let me suggest an enlightenment for why you do–other than that you love my irreverent ass ass and are disappointed, like a spoiled child, because I ran out of your favorite cookies.

      If you were to go back in the archives, you’d find almost exclusively political, social, philosophy posts until I got on the Paleo bandwagon in 2008. For ten years prior to that, I was active on USENET and other forums for the same stuff. You’re not the first peddler of cheap conventional wisdom, waving hands that what I write doesn’t correspond to the paradigm you fool yourself into believing you critically examined.

      You didn’t. You simply have enough other people in your social circles who “think” like you do, such that you can confirm that bias for yourself.

      To put it in words that will be equally foreign to you (thus a continued descent into madness), you operate from a monologic, in a mono-paradigm. I, on the other hand, have practiced the art of omnicentricity, dialogic, and omni-paradigmatic thought since about 1992 and it’s why I can usually outthink anyone in terms of their sets of assumptions, and can understand anyone’s paradigm.

      More recently, I’ve become so advanced at it that I have practiced the art of forming of entirely new paradigms (Anarchy Begins at Home is distinct from any other form in important ways).

      This is where I typically get labelled as mad or crazy, simply because nobody can pin me down into a single distinct paradigm they recognize, with enough adherents that it’s considered legitimate by people like you.

      Here, you and anyone can get started too. But your first task, and it’s a very difficult process, is to critically examine every single assumption you hold. Every. Single. One. Doesn’t mean you reject them all, but you have to come to see assumptions as assumptions.

      Here’s a primer.

  7. Chris Spurgeon on November 20, 2015 at 04:47

    Hey Richard, thought you might like this, you could not have put it better…..
    Andrew Neil

    • Richard Nikoley on November 20, 2015 at 07:58

      Fantastic, Chris. That’s going up on my post today. Thanks man.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k