Topic: Breitbart's Ben Shapiro Launches "Truth Revolt" against media

[IronDioPriest]

I s'pose this is a thing. I tend to be skeptical of conservative claims at "new and groundbreaking" tactics, operations, strategies, organizations, etc. I guess I've been too optimistic in the past when people have made such claims, and then disappointed when they panned out to be so much less than expected.

Still, it should be noted on these pages, that while the irreplaceable Andrew Breitbart is gone and sorely missed, those carrying on in his name seem to be trying their best.

BREITBART.COM'S BEN SHAPIRO: TRUTHREVOLT WILL MAKE MSM 'PAY' FOR LIES, CHANGE 'NATURE OF MEDIA'

On Sunday, Breitbart News Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro discussed the launch of a new website that will seek to "change the nature of media" by exposing the donors and advertisers that enable the mainstream media to distort the truth and push their agendas with no accountability, especially when it comes to their bottom lines.

Shapiro will lead TruthRevolt.org, which will launch on Monday to expose the mainstream media and “unmask leftists in the media for who they are, destroy their credibility with the American public, and devastate their funding bases."

[Libertas]

Let us review this effort with eyes wide open and see what we shall see.

[ToddF]

Nothing short of making people ashamed to quote low information media, will ever change low information media.  As long as it's cool to act the moron, people will be acting moronic, quoting low information journalism.

This new effort will be one big non factor.

I will continue to be the army of one, in implementing effort number 1.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

What it is, is one more tool, in an arsenal of tools with which to combat falsehood. One problem with the way most people think is that there exists a killer blow, an all-powerful argument, that so stuns the enemy that they fall over, despairing & defeated. But that blow doesn't exist (not with men @ least).

The solution is proper education: interacting with people in the s-l-o-w process of tinkering with their worldview…for that’s the battle in which we’re engaged: opposing worldviews. The Christian conservative filters through Christ & faith – and those led by the father of lies (who, btw, are for the most part, unaware of him) filter through a humanistic perspective. The other side believes the distorted truth OR, have so wrapped themselves in an existence dependent upon sin that they convince themselves that they are somehow righteous in their rebellion; that they are on “the right side of history.”

One of my favorite phrases is “If there is no God, then nothing is wrong.” Everything & anything is permissible because there is no metric for discerning between good & evil…only pragmatic subjectivism (what’s best for ME, right NOW?). What’s left on the other side is a moral relativism that sees us as misguided zealots pushing antiquated notions from an ancient tome.

So let’s see where it goes, while we keep on keeping on.
To paraphrase Bobby Flay: “To all you believers out there, keep on doing what you’re doing, but ask yourself this: Are you ready for a throw-down?”

[Weisshaupt]

The solution is proper education: interacting with people in the s-l-o-w process of tinkering with their worldview…for that’s the battle in which we’re engaged: opposing worldviews.

Sorry, its got to be better than slow. We don't have the time, nor am I convinced that "slow" works either.
I have spent that last 10 years with my Mother, sister and Father, escalating continually.  All of them decided it would be better to not see me or my children than confront even the smallest inconsistency in their world view.  Add to them co workers, friends from grade school, etc.  I even created an exam that literally makes them go berserk.
 
Their "worldview" is that anything contradictory to their worldview is a lie. Or, more accurately that " If there is no God, then nothing is wrong." - they reject the very idea of objective truth.  If I say that the sky is blue  that is "my truth", unique and separate from their equally valid  "truth" - and their truth is anything that advances them - anything that strokes their ego, anything that makes them feel secure, happy or noble. What Dave Sim said about women being fundamentally "emotional beings"  is true of the lefty as well - and the reason for the lefty emphasis on the Demasculinization of men - they want them to act like most women - they want to make them emotional beings..

I don't know what you would call it. It wasn't communication in any meaningful sense of the term as I understand it. It was a kind of “emotional badminton.” I acted happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful and then it was her turn to act happy, sympathetic, interested and cheerful and then it was my turn, etc. She might accidentally say something interesting where I could, with sincerity, say that I found what she had just said interesting. This temporarily escalated the level of her cheerfulness but, alas, that is all that it did: whatever was being said ranking a very distant second to maintaining and escalating the level of cheerfulness. A very, very distant second. I realized that this is where the “henhouse cacophony” originates. If “communication” within a group of women is working properly (as women see “working properly”) everyone should be talking faster and faster and faster and in a higher and higher musical range – either portraying themselves or being (the two states being deemed interchangeable in the female world) cheerful, more cheerful, “cheerfulest” – until, maximum cheerfulness having been achieved, a glass breaks or something.

This is what the average liberal wants from you and everyone else around them. Its what S I Hayakawa called "the language of social cohesion"

What complicates problems of interpretation is the fact that informative uses of language are intimately fused with older and deeper functions of language.. this presymbolic talk for talk's sake is, like the cries of animals, a form of activity. We talk together about nothing at all and thereby establish friendships. The purpose of the talk is not the communication of information, as the symbols used would seem to imply, but the establishment of communion....The togetherness of the talking, then, is the most important element in the social conversation, the subject matter is only secondary. There is a principle at work, therefore, in the selection of subject matter. Since the purpose of this kind of talk is the establishment of communion, we are careful to select subjects about which immediate agreement is possible... Having agreed on the weather , we go on to further agreements... which each new agreement, no matter how common place or obvious, the fear and suspicion of the stranger wears away and the possibility of a friendship enlarges

Lefties are basically children.. people stunted at the emotional level of 5 year olds.  They believe wealth needs to be shared equally because they have a Kindergarten  mindset. Wealth is always distributed by "adults" No one works to get what they have, and its important  to share, because the Adults don't want to deal with the tantrums. A kindergartner is going to be far more aware of an adults emotional tone in what they are saying than the content.  A adult upset about Obamacare and yelling about it is only seen by the child to be angry.  The child has no idea what characteristics of Obamacare have the adult upset, and they really couldn't comprehend them even if the adult made an effort to explain it. All lefties are like that- stunted at five years old and simply unable to comprehend anything but the pre-symbolic qualities of any given speech. Therefore, when you disagree with them ALL THEY HEAR is "I don't want  to be your friend" -

 Back to Sim:

With an emotion-based being, your only choices are to narcotize her with a steady stream of cheerful, musical expression or manufacture a chaotic mixture of emotional portrayals to “wake her up” (“awake” being a purely relative term, of course, in referring to emotion-based beings). You can try being sensible and reasonable but all you're going to get back is an emotion-based portrayal of sense and reason having nothing to do with sense and reason. An emotion-based being just attempts to reflect and/or portray what little emotion she can discern in sense and reason (“sombre,” “serious,” “earnest,” “non-musical”) and attaches the portrayal to an arbitrary stream of musical vocalizations having nothing to do with the subject at hand. This invariably provokes extreme impatience in the non-emotion-based being, to whose impatient expressions the emotion-based being will invariably respond: “Why are you getting so angry?” Impatience is not a happy emotion, but an identifiable one for an emotion-based being: “I was singing your sombre, serious, earnest, non-musical song with you and now you're angry. Why don't you just sing a cheerful song instead so we can both be happy?” To the emotion-based being, this makes perfect sense

My Mother still periodically emails me and asks why we "can't be a family" after she voted to hold a gun to my head,  violate my rights, and steal from my children. This is why. Every statement, every fact, every reasoned argument has been heard and interpreted as "I don't want to be friends"  - She is seeking a way to "sing my sad song " with me. They only emulate and copy those of us who are rational.  Maybe in some small facets of their lives they are capable of being rational - areas where their egos and identity are not so invested - but when it comes to big issues - they want tribal unity. They want a Chieftain to tell them what to do and what to think, and whatever that authority decides is "right"- and following the authority makes them "good" and guarantees being accepted by others. 

Anyway, I just found that I couldn't live that way. A woman is going to do whatever makes her cheerful at the moment and that, in my experience, is the extent of her perception of ethics. In order to maintain a relationship with an emotion-based being it is necessary to be cheerful about anything that makes her cheerful. Coupled with a “woman's right to choose” as central ethic – or, rather, “ethic” – this involves a wide and variegated spectrum of feminist actions and behaviours and opinions.

 We are evil for the simple reason that we don't want to belong to their tribe and sing the "happy songs", and instead make our own decisions. The whole thing is fully alien to them.

So, in my humble opinion, winning the media war will do little to help us.  These people have been stunted, either naturally or artificially, in their growth to act as Kindergartners.  It is my experience that once this happens they are stuck in never land. They can never grow up. They WANT "Authorities" to take care of them. They want to Share equally. They want to feel safe and protected.   They want to fell like they belong, and that they are better than other people- that they are special. The won't  understand complex topics and won't  want to learn, especially if doing so interferes with any of the above which is the primary focus of their lives and souls. So instead a rejection of a lefty ( "I don't want to be friends") is treated with grade school taunting and attempts at bullying.  Its easy to feel pity for them, till you realize that you have an entire classroom of kindergartners who have voted to give themselves  guns and have started demanding free candy of the adults .

[IronDioPriest]

...One problem with the way most people think is that there exists a killer blow, an all-powerful argument, that so stuns the enemy that they fall over, despairing & defeated. But that blow doesn't exist (not with men @ least)...

One can see this very thing manifest in the conservative cult of personality. I've been guilty of it - still am in some regards. I see a person emerge from the rest whose message, style, charisma, and authenticity seem to resonate, and my spirits get lifted.

Brietbart, O'Keefe, Palin, Cruz, Netanyahu, Beck...

You can see it when an ostensibly or even authentically conservative film, song, or artist breaks through the Leftist barrier and commands the attention of the broader American audience.

You can see it when someone who was a known Leftist or liberal finally seems to "get it"; or when a celebrity whose ideology floated under the radar suddenly "outs" themselves as a conservative.

You can see it when there is a meaningful legislative victory, or when the Supreme Court comes down with a decision on "our side".

You see meaningful victories or consequential people, and somehow believe that maybe now, the tide can be turned.

But all of these things coexist with the steady decline of our country. It is not enough. "If it's to be, it's up to me" has never been so apt a cliche. I just don't know how that manifests into a movement that does what is necessary.

[Libertas]

IDP - "I just don't know how that manifests into a movement that does what is necessary."

Aye, there's the rub!  History shows that if such things do coelesce into a "movement" there is typically one defining moment that puts into stark contrast opposing viewpoints of how the world should be...have we reached that yet?  It is that question, given what we have seen to date ocurring in this nation, that makes some like myself wonder in stupified incredulance if that moment could ever be reached before "too late".

 

Pablo - "One of my favorite phrases is 'If there is no God, then nothing is wrong.' Everything & anything is permissible because there is no metric for discerning between good & evil…only pragmatic subjectivism (what’s best for ME, right NOW?)."

They will rue the day when everybody adopts that nonsense!   machinegun

Weisshaupt - Love that "Ultra-Liberalism Final Exam"!   

[LadyVirginia]

 I happened across a book at the library last year on narcissism.  I didn't know anything about it except the definition really.  It was written by a woman who's treated a number of narcissists.  I was curious as to how a narcissist is defined clinically so I checked the book out.  Oh, my gosh.  It was as if she'd written about several of my family members. I was shocked.  I'd always thought of these people as "jerks" or "mean" or just plain selfish.  But I discovered these people have a personality disorder.  According to her it's nearly impossible for them to change.  They rarely seek treatment (why would they? they're wonderful-it's everyone else who's awful) and if they do it takes so much work that they don't usually have the desire to continue. I guess it’s hard to get past thinking you’re so wonderful.

Two points from the book I wrote down (forgot to write book title down):
1."feels obliged to continually let people know how they should be doing things and to correct their actions at every turn" (this is exact quote)
 2.…often projects their failures/flaws onto others (summary of one chapter).

Point number one is my mother to a "T".  The 2nd point is common to several family members.  They blame everyone else for their failures.  Never do they consider that they messed up and should try something else.  Often they continue to do the same failing behavior because it's other people not them causing the problem. So there’s no conversation about other things to try or learn.

Now knowing that they actually have a personality disorder does relieve me of the burden of thinking I can fix them or get them to see another POV (do you know how many times I thought a logical, rational, reasonable conversation would be helpful?).  But it doesn’t make them easier to deal with.  Sad to say but I have found the only way to survive being near them is to limit my time with them.  Since they don’t know how to have a conversation (only monologues) I allow myself to listen then I leave as soon as I can.  Funny they don’t realize what I’m doing because I just say I’m really busy when any of them complain I don’t spend enough time with them.

This past summer [a study of] a nationally representative sample of 35,000 Americans found that 6 percent of Americans, or 1 out of 16, had experienced [clinical narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)] at some point in their lives. And there was a big generational effect. You'd expect that people who are older would have a higher percentage of having experienced this because they've lived so many more years. But only 3 percent of people over 65 had had any experience with NPD, compared with almost 10 percent of people in their 20s. Given that you can only diagnose this when someone is 18, that's a pretty short number of years in which to have this experience. That was another pretty big indication that this was an out-of-control epidemic.

Well, according to recent research (to be discussed below), Narcissus has spawned many offspring in our current generation, and narcissism is alive and well and living in America. Just so we are all on the same wavelength, narcissism is a personality characteristic associated with self-absorption, egocentrism, an overestimation of one's own importance and abilities, a sense of entitlement and a disregard for others.

One study found that 30 percent of young people were classified as narcissistic according to a widely used psychological test. That number has doubled in the last 30 years. Another study reported a 40-percent decline among young people in empathy, a personality attribute inversely related to narcissism, since the 1980s.
***
One obvious place where young people are learning about narcissism is our omnipresent and unrelenting popular culture. A study by the celebrity psychiatrist Dr. Drew, in which 200 "celebrities" (I put the word in quotes because the threshold for being considered a celebrity these days has declined significantly) completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, found that -- here's a shocker -- they were significantly more narcissistic than the general population. Interestingly, the celebrities who actually had a talent (for example, musicians) tended to be less narcissistic. Guess who were the most self-absorbed celebrities? Female reality-TV stars! It's not surprising that those celebrities who were famous for being famous were the most narcissistic; their narcissism drove them to become celebrities.

link

A new analysis of the American Freshman Survey, which has accumulated data for the past 47 years from 9 million young adults, reveals that college students are more likely than ever to call themselves gifted and driven to succeed, even though their test scores and time spent studying are decreasing.

Psychologist Jean Twenge, the lead author of the analysis, is also the author of a study showing that the tendency toward narcissism in students is up 30 percent in the last thirty-odd years.

These data are not unexpected.  I have been writing a great deal over the past few years about the toxic psychological impact of media and technology on children, adolescents and young adults, particularly as it regards turning them into faux celebrities—the equivalent of lead actors in their own fictionalized life stories.

On Facebook, young people can fool themselves into thinking they have hundreds or thousands of “friends.” They can delete unflattering comments. They can block anyone who disagrees with them or pokes holes in their inflated self-esteem. They can choose to show the world only flattering, sexy or funny photographs of themselves (dozens of albums full, by the way), “speak” in pithy short posts and publicly connect to movie stars and professional athletes and musicians they “like.”

link

Interesting article about narcissists and even gender: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/science/seeing-narcissists-everywhere.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

7 Myths About Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2009/04/21/7-myths-about-narcissism-and-narcissistic-personality-disorder?s_cid=related-links:TOP

I’ve concluded that one reason I can’t have a conversation with my so-called conservative family members (these aren't recent college grads either--funny my kids aren't narcissists) is because they suffer from narcissism.  They’re not interested in Constitutional principles if it interferes with their lives. Their conservatism often seems to turn on not losing what they have and not principles. My mother considers herself conservative and I think that stems from getting involved in pro-life work 40 years ago. But the stuff she says about everything else floors me. I sent my mom the article about how pro-homo Fox news is and she never responded.

They actually are the people that give conservatives a bad name. Conservatism is right because they’re right. The end.

Who will this new website help?

[Libertas]

Explains how Obama got elected twice...NPDs like thier own company...which seems odd given their belief they are superior to all...   

[Weisshaupt]

  But I discovered these people have a personality disorder.  According to her it's nearly impossible for them to change. 

Psychoanalysis teaches that we are all narcissistic at an early stage of our lives. As infants and toddlers we all feel that we are the centre of the Universe, the most important, omnipotent and omniscient beings. At that phase of our development, we perceive our parents as mythical figures, immortal and awesomely powerful but there solely to cater to our needs, to protect and nourish us. Both Self and others are viewed immaturely, as idealisations. This, in the psychodynamic models, is called the phase of "primary" narcissism.

Inevitably, the inexorable conflicts of life lead to disillusionment. If this process is abrupt, inconsistent, unpredictable, capricious, arbitrary and intense, then the injuries sustained by the infant's self-esteem are severe and often irreversible. Moreover, if the empathic crucial support of our caretakers (the Primary Objects, e.g., the parents) is absent, our sense of self-worth and self-esteem in adulthood tends to fluctuate between over-valuation (idealisation) and devaluation of both Self and others. Narcissistic adults are widely thought to be the result of bitter disappointment, of radical disillusionment in the significant others in their infancy. Healthy adults realistically accept their self-limitations and successfully cope with disappointments, setbacks, failures, criticism and disillusionment. Their self-esteem and sense of self-worth are self-regulated and constant and positive, not substantially affected by outside events. .... Research shows that when an individual (at any age) encounters an insurmountable obstacle to his or her orderly progression from one stage of personal development to another, he or she regresses to his infantile-narcissistic phase rather than circumvent the hindrance (Gunderson-Ronningstam, 1996).

While in regression, the person displays childish, immature behaviors. He feels that he is omnipotent, and misjudges his power and that of his opposition. He underestimates challenges facing him and pretends to be "Mr. Know-All". His sensitivity to the needs and emotions of others and his ability to empathise with them deteriorate sharply. He becomes intolerably haughty and arrogant, with sadistic and paranoid tendencies. Above all, he then seeks unconditional admiration, even when he does not deserve it. He is preoccupied with fantastic, magical thinking and daydreams. In this mode he tends to exploit others, to envy them, and to be explosive.

The main function of such reactive and transient secondary narcissism is to encourage the individual to engage in magical thinking, to wish the problem away or to enchant it or to tackle and overcome it from a position of omnipotence.

A personality disorder arises only when repeated attacks on the obstacle continue to fail -- especially if this recurrent failure happens during the formative stages (0-6 years of age). The contrast between the fantastic world (temporarily) occupied by the individual and the real world in which he keeps being frustrated (the grandiosity gap) is too acute to countenance for long. The dissonance gives rise to the unconscious "decision" to go on living in the world of fantasy, grandiosity and entitlement.

Call it Narcissism, Neanderthal ethics, or Kindergarten behavior, its all the same thing.  me. ME. ME! And the Liberals are MAKING THEM.

For very young children, self-esteem is probably best thought to consist of deep feelings of being loved, accepted, and valued by significant others rather than of feelings derived from evaluating oneself against some external criteria, as in the case of older children. Indeed, the only criterion appropriate for accepting and loving a new-born or infant is that he or she has been born. The unconditional love and acceptance experienced in the first year or two of life lay the foundation for later self-esteem, and probably make it possible for the pre-schooler and older child to withstand occasional criticism and negative evaluations that usually accompany socialisation into the larger community.

As children grow beyond the pre-school years, the larger society imposes criteria and conditions upon love and acceptance. If the very early feelings of love and acceptance are deep enough, the child can most likely weather the rebuffs and scoldings of the later years without undue debilitation. With increasing age, however, children begin to internalise criteria of self-worth and a sense of the standards to be attained on the criteria from the larger community they observe and in which they are beginning to participate. The issue of criteria of self-esteem is examined more closely below.

Cassidy's [1988] study of the relationship between self-esteem at age five and six years and the quality of early mother-child attachment supports Bowlby's theory that construction of the self is derived from early daily experience with attachment figures. The results of the study support Bowlby's conception of the process through which continuity in development occurs, and of the way early child-mother attachment continues to influence the child's conception and estimation of the self across many years. The working models of the self derived from early mother-child inter-action organise and help mould the child's environment 'by seeking particular kinds of people and by eliciting particular behaviour from them' [Cassidy, 1988, p. 133]. Cassidy points out that very young children have few means of learning about themselves other than through experience with attachment figures. She suggests that if infants are valued and given comfort when required, they come to feel valuable; conversely, if they are neglected or rejected, they come to feel worthless and of little value.

Lets see,  When did feminism take hold and when did Mothers start leaving thier infants in the care of people earning minimum wage? Could this have anything to do with the rise of Narcissism in younger generations?

This process of the formation of self rests on the operation of a few critical principles:

The child, as we said earlier, develops a sense of "mother-constancy". This is crucial. If the child is unable predict the behaviour (let alone the presence) of his mother from one moment to another, it finds it hard to trust anything, predict anything and expect anything. Because the self, to some extent (some say: to a large extent), is comprised of the internalised outcomes of the interactions with others – negative experiences are be incorporated in the budding self as well as positive ones. In other words, a child feels loveable and desirable if it is indeed loved and wanted. If it is rejected, it is bound to feel worthless and worthy only of rejection. In due time, the child develops behaviours which yield rejection by others and the outcomes of which thus conform with his self-perception.
The adoption and assimilation of the judgement of others and its incorporation into a coherent sense of self-worth and self-esteem.
The discounting or filtering-out of contrarian information. Once Bowlby's "working models" are formed, they act as selective membranes. No amount of external information to the contrary alters these models significantly. Granted, shifts in relative positions may and do occur in later stages of life. A person can feel more or less accepted, more or less competent, more or less integrated into a given social setting. But these are changes in the values of parameters within a set equation (the working model). The equation itself is rarely altered and only by very serious life crises.

The real point is, once broken these people can't be fixed. If you want to change a lefty's mind, try using a rock.
Liberalsim the the comforting Parent these damaged individual  always wanted, and they will hold on forever to it - even to the point of having you killed to make it so.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

The solution is proper education: interacting with people in the s-l-o-w process of tinkering with their worldview…for that’s the battle in which we’re engaged: opposing worldviews.

Sorry, its got to be better than slow. We don't have the time, nor am I convinced that "slow" works either.

What I mean by slow is “not incredibly fast” (because worldviews are deeply entrenched & not instantly changed [& some never])…but steady, growing numbers. It’s a relative term, as in “slow compared to what?” The alternatives are poke & hope—wait & see—merely hoping for the best…or perhaps armed conflict.

In order to accomplish increasing numbers, one must be constantly at it…because you don’t know from whence the soldiers will come: chance meetings, active prospecting, vendors with whom you may work, friends or friends @ church, etc.

On the 25th, I head to Ottawa for a leadership conference (1 of 3 that weekend; the other 2 in Fresno & Milwaukee) that will be attended by 25,000—30,000 per location (below is the Summer Conference held in Columbus Ohio – we rent stadiums & sell out the next venue before the current one ends). While there, we attend workshops on topics like Purpose, Vision, Core Principles/Resolutions, Freedom/Responsibility, Systems & Critical Thinking, Developing Adversity Quotient (emotional intelligence + IQ), AND plot metrics for who we will target & reach out. Friday & Saturday are workshops, Sunday is a non-denominational Christian worship service where we hand out 7 to 8 thousand free copies of Ultimate Questions, by John Blanchard (http://www.the-highway.com/ultimate_questions.html - coincidentally, the same pamphlet my church uses for new believers). The sermons deliver the Gospel with an emphasis on our duty to preserving freedom as the bedrock for healthy a culture. It's an awesome thing to see several hundred to 1,000 people stand up, post-sermon & accept Christ!


Then it’s back into the field for 3 months to speak to acquaintances, organizations, churches, etc. bringing a message of foundational principles, entrepreneurial thinking & self-reliance in the face of declining markets. The material we leave behind are CD’s/DVD’s/Books/Training material. Those interested in joining the cause often get more material via subscription – sort of networking system with liberty, freedom & people equipped to take charge of their within their communities as the product, along with Christian outreach.

It’s relatively slow…but we’re approaching 450,000 members within the US & Canada. The goal is to develop under the radar, until numbers equate to a tipping point within the culture If anyone is interested in hearing an audio program, I’ll post a few links to digital content (including a sermon). There is also Twitter feeds & several excellent leadership blogs. The focus is action vs. commiserating.

Like your family members, some will laugh, jeer/taunt or call me a conservative idiot. But along the way, I also redirect & reorient thinking, one family at a time. There are still a lot of people in the middle. My job is to find them: conquer-fortify & domesticate.

[Weisshaupt]

What I mean by slow is “not incredibly fast” (because worldviews are deeply entrenched & not instantly changed [& some never])…but steady, growing numbers. It’s a relative term, as in “slow compared to what?” The alternatives are poke & hope—wait & see—merely hoping for the best…or perhaps armed conflict.

I suspect you have 12-24 months before reality finally asserts itself in a big way. But lets say instead its 10 Years before the  monetary collapse and complete breakdown and chaos reigns.   

The goal is to develop under the radar, until numbers equate to a tipping point within the culture

And what number do you think that will be? I bet that has to be at  least 20% before you make a dent,  or around 60 Million. You currently have less than 1% of that. Assuming a exponential rate of growth based on what you have already seen, how many years do you think you would need? Is it More than 10 Years - because I don't think you even have that long.

The middle you are after is probably quite a bit smaller that most would like to admit.  Most conservatives I know are to the "Call me when the shooting starts"  stage.  We don't have time to change the culture, nor to act politically in any meaningful way before the collapse, and the collapse will render most of what we know and experience  moot.  I suspect your services will be far more in demand then, as people search for ways to adapt to the fact that reality has destroyed their worldviews, than anything you do before peoples lives are torn asunder.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

...I suspect your services will be far more in demand then, as people search for ways to adapt to the fact that reality has destroyed their worldviews, than anything you do before peoples lives are torn asunder.

Good metrics to keep in mind - but none of us have traded in our firearms for eloquent speakers & a few good books. A Plan B is still Plan B…& can easily be promoted to Plan A…when the yogurt finally hits the fan. Heh…there’s one entire side-organization in which the women are cross-bow fanatics with several soccer-mom converts to hunting & sport-shooting (& a few I would not want angry with me under any circumstances!)

And I think you’re right about increased services rendered post-destruction. But there’s all the difference in the world when dealing with panic if one can plug newbies into a network that’s already built & operational, rather than attempting to build it with resources already diminished. Seeing an organization behind my individual words speaks volumes.

More safe-houses, allies/communities & determined/educated patriots can only be a good thing moving forward, regardless the nature of the battlefield (bloody or philosophical).

[Libertas]

The real point is, once broken these people can't be fixed. If you want to change a lefty's mind, try using a rock.

Change it from semi-solid to mush...can I start now?   

[AlanS]

Point number one is my mother to a "T".

The first point is every parent born. At least all that I've known. And I'm guilty of it myself.


I don't see how yet another website is going to change the world. We already know who are the vast majority of the supporters/donors of leftist causes, so what makes this site so much different?

[LadyVirginia]

Point number one is my mother to a "T".

The first point is every parent born. At least all that I've known. And I'm guilty of it myself.

I know several parents who are not that way at all. But I'm not about talking about the "normal" or even "enthusiastic" looking after your kid stuff (nor was the book I quoted),

My mother does this to everyone constantly--not just her grown children, grandchildren (some grown) or other family. My mother is compulsive about it.  There's not a situation that she doesn't have an opinion about and a way to tell you how to do it better (her way). There is only one way and it's her way-- about anything.  She has an opinion on anything she observes and complains all the time.

She recently sent me an email telling me she didn't like something my husband said to me and wanted me to confront him about it.  I had no idea what she was talking about.

You're lucky if you don't know anyone like this--they make life--

hard.

[Alphabet Soup]

The real point is, once broken these people can't be fixed. If you want to change a lefty's mind, try using a rock.

Change it from semi-solid to mush...can I start now?   

Only you can decide when it's time to use....persuasion. As for me, I'm still holding to a leveling gaze and a low but evenly voiced, "If you "F" with me I'll end you." They know that it isn't a threat but a promise.

I work hard to keep distance from the crazies but maintain running strategies that hold that whatever the situation I am always better prepared, greater armed, a bit tougher, or just a tich crazier then my adversary.

My point is that you can't reason with a leftist, and killing them is illegal (for the moment), so the next best thing is to utterly discourage them from advancing their bullsnot - at least in my immediate surroundings.

[Weisshaupt]

[
You're lucky if you don't know anyone like this--they make life--

hard.

My Mom did something similar. Michelle was letting her see the kids behind my back till my Mom started in on her owning a pistol. My wife told her she had to go, left and that, finally was the end of it.

My entire family is like this, but they don't make life hard for me any more.  None of them even know where I live, and their only contact for me is an email. Trust me, drop em.  You will be so much happier. Warn your local police that you may have issues with false complaints or other harassment, inquire about the process for a restraining order, and consider carrying all of the time.   because they can be persistent when dropped. But boy will your life be better not having to deal with their constant crap. What a relief it is not having to think about dealing with them. .

[AlanS]

Point number one is my mother to a "T".

The first point is every parent born. At least all that I've known. And I'm guilty of it myself.

I know several parents who are not that way at all. But I'm not about talking about the "normal" or even "enthusiastic" looking after your kid stuff (nor was the book I quoted),

My mother does this to everyone constantly--not just her grown children, grandchildren (some grown) or other family. My mother is compulsive about it.  There's not a situation that she doesn't have an opinion about and a way to tell you how to do it better (her way). There is only one way and it's her way-- about anything.  She has an opinion on anything she observes and complains all the time.

She recently sent me an email telling me she didn't like something my husband said to me and wanted me to confront him about it.  I had no idea what she was talking about.

You're lucky if you don't know anyone like this--they make life--

hard.

Sorry. I completely misunderstood.

Unfortunately, I have a FIL that fits the bill perfectly.

[AlanS]

.....I am always better prepared, greater armed, a bit tougher, or just a tich crazier then my adversary.

My motto: If you find yourself in a fair fight, you screwed up somewhere.