Banned By...

Things happen my friends, and you have to expect some rough weather along life's dangerous journey. But banned by RT? The "Question more", "anti-censorship" Russian media giant? Yes, that too happens. And even to yours truly.

First let me say that RT, comparatively speaking, is less censorious than its Western counterparts. But it being less censorious than its Western counterparts begs a question. Western media sources are very censorious. RT is somewhat censorious. I learned this when I went after some of their pro-homo nonsense.

Yep, RT too, is pro-homo. Just like its Western globohomoshlomo counterparts. Oddly enough, I got bounced there not for my "antisemitism" but for my "homophobia".

I noticed back in the days of the Yahoo message boards that dissing queers would get you bounced faster than dissing the Jews would. But back then you could come back immediately with a new avatar and fake email address. Ah, the good old days when the Internet still hadn't figured out how to squelch us. Now they want a valid email address and have IP identifiers.

RT has a love-hate relationship with the Jews. Several years back you could point out all kinds of unsavory facts regarding them: like their treatment of the Palestinians. Then almost overnight they decided that criticizing the Jews was verboten. My posts started getting ghosted so I left.

Nearly a year ago, stopping by after my long absence, I saw that the Jews were getting hammered in the comments section once again. I chimed in and for some reason my thoughts on such matters, and others, weren't being ghosted anymore, and in fact started getting a lot of recs from other commenters.

Game on!

But some 4-6 weeks ago the editorial board at RT had a change of heart and course. We commenters began noticing that we had to type in code when speaking of "chews... j.e.w.s... juice..." or our posts would often vanish.

But RT then implemented a bot that recognized all the variants of the accursed name and began deleting comments utilizing them within a few seconds. Not all for some reason, but many. In my case roughly half. Even me saying "retarded" once in a post got it deleted. And that was about DC.

So yeah, RT too has gone woke. But why?

I have no answer for that other than to surmise that Vladimir Putin's staunchly sluggish and unimaginative ethos has percolated deep down through the full strata of Russian society, and into the very veins of the anonymous minions slaving away at RT/Tolstoy.

I say RT/"Tolstoy" because the comments section there is administered by a somewhat mysterious entity called "Tolstoy".

Somehow, RT/Tolstoy accessed one of my avatars and my gmail address, neither of which I gave them, when I first signed up there long years ago... and I didn't create my gmail address until several years afterwards. I heard once from a dependable source that Tolstoy comments has an office (their headquarters?) in Israel. I don't know. Like I said, it's hard to get more than cursory information about Tolstoy on the Internet. It'll take a deeper dive.

Anyway, 4-6 weeks ago I noticed some of my posts going missing at RT. That hadn't been a problem before, though some other commenters were complaining about it. But soon enough the occasional missing post became an often missing post. I began typing in code too. This worked for a few weeks... only. Then the coded posts started getting deleted too.

But what finally got me banned was calling queers queers. I'd noticed that for some reason they'd become a protected class at RT. In fact certain woke tropes began finding an ally in RT.

I resorted to using code words for "queer": "k weeer... qwiers... q'we're...." But the Tolstoy bot/moderators were soon on to my tricks until finally, when I asked if RT "had a faqqot bot moderator", I was banned.

In truth, it's a relief. The comments section at RT was becoming an aggravation. Speaking in code. Seeing a post get deleted. Watching the hourglass spin forever for an article or for comments to load. Not to mention seeing RT spewing wokeness.

I can still go there and read posts if I want. I just can't comment on anything or rec someone's post, getting the message: "You can't comment at this site".

My friends, take it from me: at the end of the day, all our musings on the Internet are little more than whispers into a howling storm; and all we say here will disappear into the larger noise, where it will be forgotten.

Fitz

We'll Know...

We’ll know how serious Trump is about repairing the wreck eternal DC has made of America when he:

Finishes building the Wall.

Pardons the Jan. 6 trespassers.

Pardons Steve Bannon

Starts deporting illegals.

Gets the US out of Syria and all the other places it has no right to be.

Prosecutes Michael Byrd for the murder of Ashli Babbitt.

Prosecutes Ray Epps for leading the trespassers into the Capitol.

Cleans house in the FBI.

Cleans house in the Secret Service.

Tells Netanyahu to go pound sand.

Tells Zelensky to give back the $$$billions of American taxpayer's dollars he’s pocketed, then hands him over to Russia.

Even with the republicrats controlling the White House and both houses of Congress what do you think the chances are of any of this happening?

Fitz

Lefties Are Strange

https://identitydixie.com/2024/11/07/an-open-letter-to-redditors/#comment-27099

Mr. Radclyffe gives good advice, but Lefties won't hear it. It's not that they can't. They won't. They're willingly deaf and willingly blind.

"Sin clouds the intellect!" as the saying goes. Not necessarily everywhere and all at once, but Lefties...? They're largely socked in. Their minds are occupied territories. Overrun by the infernal army. In my opinion it's largely because they're chronic masturbators. They're controlled by their out of control passions. Particularly lefty women.

Leftists are passionate about so many things. Especially things they cannot define, or defend in open debate. But not being able to define their own terms or defend their own arguments when challenged isn't seen as a failure by lefties. It's seen as a virtue. Because in their minds it proves what nazis those who oppose them are.

Anyway, time to pray and fast my friends. Things are going to get strange.

Fitz

Are Warrant Officers Really Officers?

In the US military they're definitely officers. On base they'll get officer's quarters, and they can go to the officer's club.

Warrant Officers's are technical experts in a given military discipline, e.g., artillery, helicopter pilots, air defense, counter-intelligence, IT and many others. In the US Army there are about 45 Warrant Officer MOS's (military occupation specialties):
https://recruiting.army.mil/ISO/AWOR/ARMY_FEEDER/

WO's occupy a niche between noncommissioned officers and commissioned officers. They don't command troops as a rule (though in certain instances they can) but due to their subject matter expertise are very important as technical advisors to commissioned officers, and as trainers to the enlisted ranks.

The WO cohort commands a high degree of military esteem; and though they are theoretically outranked by all commissioned officers they have a status equivalence which roughly parallels that of the commissioned officers: A WO1 being somewhat akin to a 1st Lieutenant., a CW2 being somewhat equivalent to a Captain, a CW3 to a Major, a CW4 to a Lieutenant Colonel, and a CW5 to a Colonel.

WO's are often older soldiers - in their thirties or forties, fifties even - who climbed up the ranks for many years as enlisted men and women before their elevation to WO; thus they've been in the military a long time and know how things there work. Because of their knowledge, technical expertise and insider information officers respect them, but don't really know what to think of them. NCO's see them as officers and stay out of their way. And the junior enlisted soldiers love them because they're chill with them. In the Army at least they are an entity unto themselves and as a rule no one messes with them because they're outside the normal chain of command.

CW5's, the highest of the WO ranks, are a rare sight. They're called "unicorns" because it's very unlikely you'll ever see one in the flesh, and are said to emanate a mysterious, almost god-like aura.

Fitz

Quo Vadis, Donald?

At one point in time, being a republican meant you still retained some sanity. Compared to the derangements of the democrats we took some solace in that... even as they marched from victory to victory.

But the powers-that-be (Satan Inc.) recognized the danger conservatives posed to their agenda and decided that the republicans had to be neutered. Co-opted really. They pursued this end with cleverness and persistence. The fruits of their labor stand before us today in the form of the despicable "neo-con"... the phony conservative.

The neo-conservative, as embodied by the likes of Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney, the Bush's, the Cheney's, William F. Buckley, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz... came into the light during the Reagan years, and have cursed the Earth ever since.

They became known for talking tough about communists, but being timid about confronting them. For publicly opposing abortion, and then retreating at the first hostile headline. For decrying socialized medicine, then folding on Obamacare.

In the early 2000's republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. What'd they do with that gift from above? If you're here you probably know the answer. The only thing they seem able to muster any stomach for is kowtowing to whatever Israel demands. In their minds, in some mysterious way, that's considered "conservatism".

Say what evil you will about the democrats they do have this going for them: they actually serve the interests of their constituents.

The republican party today is the party of moral cowards and do nothings. They like to talk a lot and eat. Then talk some more. You can't shut 'em up!

And despite their claims of family values, rumor has it they are no less likely than democrats, and maybe even more so, to star in secretly recorded videos of illicit sexual shenanigans with children. I don't know how true this is, but the rumor persists.

Barring some accident or other misfortune, Donald Trump will be back in the White House this January. Does that actually mean anything? Maybe... but probably not. His first presidency was a litany of unfulfilled promises and bad omens. While it wasn't as unhappy as the past four years have been, by any objective measurement it can't be considered "good".

Politicians are narcissistic people. Trump is certainly a narcissist. An interesting study in that personality disorder for sure, but a narcissist all the same. Narcissists are among other things, moral cowards. They may step into the line of fire, but only for the photo op it presents. Not for them risking the disfavor of the fickle masses.

And Trump, as some of you might recall, was a "close friend" of Jeffrey Epstein. It's not impossible, or improbable, that the Cabal has videos of Trump doing questionable things with underage girls. Or boys for that matter. That was the rap on George HW Bush anyway: that he liked those young Black lads.

I suspect that at the Judgement, we're going to be amazed at just how many of today's "influencers" are into pedophilia... and more. It's a club (not so secret anymore) with perverse initiation and celebratory rites. And once you're in it the World becomes your paradise, and nothing is forbidden... except leaving. As Mr. Epstein discovered to his amazement.

Given his narcissism and the sleazy milieu that gave rise to his star I expect little from the second Trump presidency. His first one was an epic of underachievement. If he moves to pardon the Jan. 6 rioters the media dagger men will move in and he'll retreat. Should he try to disengage the US from the dying monster that is Ukraine, the MIC will certainly become unhappy. And being a narcissist, he'll retreat there too. Should he try to get the US out of Syria... well we saw how that played out the first time.

Same with striking a peace deal with Russia.

As for doing something about the out of control American societal locomotive and the broken bridge down the tracks we're speeding towards? Not even with both houses of Congress and the US judiciary behind him.

Of course I'm speculating in this. But I've been right often enough that I just assume it automatically. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I am on occasion.

And for yours and my sake, I hope I am wrong.

Fitz