WeSoCo Times

Here's the guy that slapped that kid

Philz Coffee, a San Francisco-born coffee chain, will remove Pride flags from all of its locations, the company said Wednesday, after an online petition criticizing the move spread rapidly on social media. sfchronicle.com/food/restaur…

A lot of people are asking me to explain more about why I think what happened in the church in Minnesota is a psyop, and I'm kind of genuinely confused about what they can possibly be confused about. Trained Leftists stormed a church with a professional camera crew and Don Freaking Lemon and did a performance meant to agitate Christians across the country so they could spin new energy into their Operation ICE Floyd thing through conflict. I don't understand what's confusing here. The church didn't have to be complicit in this for them to decide to do a theater production there. No need to suggest otherwise. The church also didn't to be complicit for the Left to hand pick that particular church, which has a pastor in the Doug Wilson, Christian Nationalist, theological family for that to have been intentional by the Left. Turning the relative extremist camps in their enemy's coalition into its heroes and voices of prominence is strategically valuable for them regardless of whether or not the guys were "in on it." If you read their activist manuals, like Beautiful Trouble, you'll find a TON of relevant tactics that were all employed, including ones about creating theater and leveraging media. It's pretty clear they followed those formulas, co-starring Don Lemon who made it into a huge media spectacle and thereby elicited the social media and political reactions they wanted. That this was a theater production is very, very, very obvious from the performance itself to the camera crew to the prominent media character in the middle of it. Look at how they write about their famous tactic of "your target's reaction is your real action," though: "When challenging a more powerful target, the key to success often isn’t what you do, but how your target reacts to what you do. Therefore, anticipate your target’s response and write it into your script." They organize these spectacles deliberately around an expected reaction. They knew this would upset Christians nationally, and that's why they did it. It was part of the purpose. It was to generate the reaction in Christians, which turns into the energy they need to keep escalating. They also understand that we'll turn anyone targeted by the Left into some kind of symbolic hero. They can make use of Christian Nationalists for that purpose, so it's a bonus reaction to turn him into a hero. Again, I really cannot figure out what people find confusing about the operational purposes of this direct action. I do, on the other hand, understand that there are a lot of emotions involved with seeing your faith, a house of worship, and a worship service and congregation interrupted (or "attacked") through Leftist direct action. I understand that's scary, profane, and particularly outrageous, which is very emotional in lots of emotions (fear, anger, disgust, etc.). On the other hand, I also understand that those reactions are something the Left would want to generate and that they cloud the ability for rational thought in those affected by them. Of course the Left wants you reacting emotionally. The whole point is to escalate the situation. That's another principle, by the way: escalate strategically: "When authorities ignore the demands of the people, people can pressure them to listen and act. But to win, people must keep up the pressure. A target rarely gives in after one action, so it is often necessary to strategically increase the pressure on them in a step-by-step escalation that draws upon a diverse mix of tactics. The target will try to wait each pressure tactic out, but a well-organized campaign will then up the pressure in a new way. Each new action re-emphasizes the larger demand, builds strength to take the next escalated step, and reminds the target that the people are not going to leave them alone until they give in." So is "play to the audience that isn't there" (that's you, by the way): "In a media-saturated world, the audience you care about is rarely the one witnessing your action, but rather the one you’ll reach through mass media and social media. Design your action with them in mind." Why do you think a professional film crew and Don Lemon were there? Because they believe in the cause? Lol. "Think of your target and your immediate audience as unwitting actors in the theatre piece you’re concocting for another audience they’re not even aware of." That's you, again, by the way. Another principle is "consider your audience," so you can bet they're doing that: "Don’t expect your audience to choose you. Instead, identify the constituencies you need to win your campaign, and strategically design your actions to move them in the right direction." This one is really important to them, and manipulative, and it includes both people they want to persuade (on their side) and to provoke (into useful reactions): "When evaluating the success of a particular action, it doesn’t matter what you think about your creative poster or press release or civil disobedience. All that matters is what your audience thinks. Protesting solely for the sake of self-expression and self-gratification? That’s the political equivalent of masturbation. Political action that is carefully and thoughtfully designed and executed to cause a reaction or response from a targeted audience? Now that is making love!" They make it pretty simple, in fact, in big, bold letters: "Remember that there is no right audience, just the audience that is right for your particular goals. Try this basic formula: we can get A to do B if they believe C. A is your audience, B is your objective, and C is your message. Design your action or actions toward getting A to believe C." Provoking a reaction means the audience is people they want to provoke (that's you). If they can get you to believe a message like that nothing is sacred, including your church service, they can get you to take reactive actions like the ones we're seeing now. I think the primary objective here was to spin up a lot more media and social media attention for their stupid ICE Floyd actions, which aren't really taking off the way they needed to. For an aviation metaphor, Operation ICE Floyd (or, Operation Butch Floyd, if you prefer) has reached the point-of-no-return speed (V1) but doesn't look like it's going to get fast enough to take off and climb (VR, then V2). That means unless it can get a lot of extra energy in it, it will probably crash. Your reaction to this stunt is, they hope, that extra energy. As indicated, there are likely multiple purposes to this provocation. In addition to spinning up Christian conservatives into spreading their messaging everywhere for them and generating energy and conflict for their campaign, there's also the conflict between federal and state powers they want to amplify (as demonstrated by Weirdo Walz). Anyway, the operational purposes and mechanisms of this one are pretty obvious, and I must have underestimated how much the emotion of seeing a church service disrupted by Leftist thugs and provocateurs (and their pet professional broadcaster) would cloud the issue for people. Hope this helps.

Boom! Two more Antifa suspects have pleaded guilty in the first federal Antifa terror case in U.S. history, bringing the number of convicts to seven. They admitted an Antifa cell was involved in the Texas ICE ambush shooting. Read my new Ngo Comment report:ngocomment.com/p/feds-secure…

Go look up my criminal record. Oh wait I dont have one.

I infiltrated Antifa for six months back in 2017-2018, to subvert and sabotage, but also to understand my enemy. I wanted to get inside their heads and the best way to do that is to get them to let their guard down because they think you’re one of them. At six months, I was at the upper limits of my ability to hold my tongue and blend in while listening to them spew the most retarded bullshit imaginable. Even someone who’s well-read in Marx would laugh at what the average antifascist believes about Marxism and leftwing philosophy. The modern American version of the movement is a shaky alliance between leftwing anarchists and communists. Hence the black and red colors in their symbolism. They’ve agreed to set their differences aside and sort things out after they’ve overthrown the government. Which is their primary mission, for anyone who thinks it’s something more noble like policy reform. No, it’s about seizing power, plain and simple. One thing I noticed was that each antifa organization had an unspoken hierarchy. Black militants would always be in a public-facing leadership position where they could scream through a bullhorn and agitate the rank & file into a frenzy. The organizers were almost always White women and gays. The trans element was usually relegated to being mere foot soldiers, and any straight White guys pretending to be allies in order to fuck the art hoes were at the very bottom. Being a White guy at their meetings and events felt like how I’d imagine it would feel to be a White guy at a Black Panthers meeting. It’s rarely said aloud, but there’s a not-so-subtle tension…an underlying menace that permeates every interaction with other members, excuse me, “comrades.” You’re not welcome, you are tolerated. But only if you’re useful. Only if you show twice as much enthusiasm. Only if you never speak except to affirm someone else. Your only purpose is to be a whipping post, to nod along, smile like a jackass and clap the loudest everytime a minority says the dumbest shit you’ve ever heard. And to carry heavy shit. The women and the gays will tell you to carry things anytime something weighs more than five ounces. They don’t ask. They point to whatever needs moved and expect you to volunteer yourself. They do it with a satisfied sneer and a glare of contempt. This victim hierarchy of women, LGBTs, blacks, latinos, muslims, jews, etc. rules every thought they have. Everything must be dissected, deconstructed and categorized according to the oppressor-oppressed dynamic. This is the lens through which they perceive the world. Nothing exists to them free of its guilt or innocence, a stone isn’t just a stone. It’s an object attached to a label created by the language of the patriarchy. And for that sin, it must be redeemed. Renamed, baptized into the religion of decolonization and given a new name that doesn’t vibrate the vocal cords the same way as words invented by evil White men.

Antifa is a trained paramilitary organization that engages in street tactics like this to escalate tensions and justify cycles of retaliatory violence. They know what they're doing and are trained to be good at it. They should be designated a terrorist organization.

I've told the story many times now about why I decided to dedicate my life to fighting Woke and radicalism. It's because of what I saw while doing the Grievance Studies Affair and realizing what it meant. The short version of the story is that we had submitted a paper to a very "reputable" journal called Hypatia about educational theory, urging in that paper that we should arrange various means of abusing more "privileged" students out of their privilege. Wanting it to be humorous and to soften how horrible that is, we urged further that it must be done "with compassion." The peer reviewers liked the idea of the paper but not everything. In particular, they took issue with the idea that we would use compassion instead of a Woke (critical) education modality called "the pedagogy of discomfort," and they told us to read Megan Boler's book Feeling Power about this and to make adjustments. Compassion, they worried, might put the needs of the privileged students ahead of those of the more oppressed, thus multiplying the very harms the program was allegedly meant to correct. I was aghast. Truly aghast. After a couple weeks of thinking about it and discussing it with @MikeNayna in particular, we concluded that what was happening in academic Leftism, including in education, was "the seed of a genocide." Note: I said the seed of a genocide, not a genocide. Seeds don't bear fruit unless they find fertile soil, sprout, grow, and have all the right conditions. People got really mad about this phrasing, though, not understanding it (of course...). The idea was that what academic Leftism was churning out, including for educational models and policy, holds out that certain groups in society are responsible for all society's ills, if for no other reason than "complicity" by group identity, and they have to be punished to reeducate them into a new ideological frame. They have "privilege" and need to learn to recognize it, reject it, and combat it everywhere. Megan Boler's "pedagogy of discomfort" advises putting people with privilege into states of discomfort about their privilege and then just leaving them to sit in it until they begin to understand it and "reform" themselves against it. What we didn't know at the time, but that I do know now, is that what academic Leftism was producing is nothing other than a new, American-context version of Maoism. The "pedagogy of discomfort" is about the process of "struggle" through "criticism and self-criticism." And I could go on (literally, working on a book about this, so at a lot of length). So we were right. What we saw in academic Leftism is, at the very least, the seed of a genocide, maybe even its first sprouts. That observation wasn't made in isolation, of course. By that point, @peterboghossian, @HPluckrose, and I had been fighting "Social Justice ideology" for years. Peter was being subjected to it routinely in institutional policy at Portland State University where he worked. We were seeing it everywhere in the world (at least online) and working its way into real policy decisions, in universities, K-12 schools, government, companies, and beyond. That's why we were trying to do something. The things Peter was facing at Portland State were solid evidence of the effects this ideology would have when institutionalized. We had seen similar outbursts at universities across America, not least the very famous 2015 outburst against Nicholas Christakis at Yale. BLM had gone fairly wild through 2015 as well in the wake of Michael Brown's death for charging a cop, which they spun into a ridiculous victim-martyr narrative quite successfully. We knew academic Leftism was a major problem. In short, we did the Grievance Studies Affair because we already believed this ideology, which was being developed, certified, and taught in academic Leftism, which we now call "Woke Leftism," threatened to unravel society. So in early 2018, a few weeks after the peer-review comments came back about that paper with those ominous suggestions, I asked my wife if I could quit my job (yes, famously now as a massage therapist) and dedicate everything to studying and exposing this evil ideology as fast as I could, hoping it wasn't already too late. All peers I had to my left politically rejected me completely for this stand. They told me ominously that there was no stopping what's coming and whatever other nonsense I'm hearing again today from new peers. They threatened us, mocked us, slandered us, you name it. So what? So I picked up the cause of exposing the ideology that's now unraveling society and threw myself into it fully and have never looked back. That's not my point, though. My point is that this ideology, which is at the heart of our entire educational system from the very bottom up to the research-frontier top, in almost every academically informed professional association, etc. etc. etc., will unravel society. We were right. In fact, it is unraveling society, and we are now near a point of no return. We must fight this evil ideology and remove it from our educational institutions. We must finish the work the Grievance Studies Affair sought to begin: to delegitimize everything from academic and activist Leftist ideology passing itself off as serious, professional work or anything like best-practices, and to get it out of the institutional tier of our society. Ultimately, the point of this work is ideological subversion, as Yuri Bezmenov explained it. We're now approaching the end of Stage 2 of Ideological Subversion (destabilization), having already been demoralized (Stage 1) largely through the incorporation of what came out of academic Leftism throughout the institutional apparatuses of our society. Stage 3 comes next, if we go there. Stage 3 is "crisis." It is fast, brutal, and terrible, and through it we lose our society. Everything now depends on us recognizing that which takes us closer to Stage 3 of Ideological Subversion and rejecting it. We must walk all of this back, but that starts by stopping, by refusing to take another step forward. "And so the dialectic progresses," the academic Leftists have written. We must understand what that means with all of its polarization, conflict, and tribalism, and reject it. The dialectic must not progress. It must be refused entirely.

A while ago, probably in 2017, I appeared on Tucker Carlson's Fox show to talk about God knows what. Afterwards a name I barely knew sent me a DM on twitter and told me I did a great job. It was Charlie Kirk, and that moment of kindness began a friendship that lasted until today. Charlie was fascinated by ideas and always willing to learn and change his mind. Like me, he was skeptical of Donald Trump in 2016. Like me, he came to see President Trump as the only figure capable of moving American politics away from the globalism that had dominated for our entire lives. When others were right, he learned from them. When he was right--as he usually was--he was generous. With Charlie, the attitude was never, "I told you so." But: "welcome." Charlie was one of the first people I called when I thought about running for senate in early 2021. I was interested but skeptical there was a pathway. We talked through everything, from the strategy to the fundraising to the grassroots of the movement he knew so well. He introduced me to some of the people who would run my campaign and also to Donald Trump Jr. "Like his dad, he's misunderstood. He's extremely smart, and very much on our wavelength." Don took a call from me because Charlie asked him too. Long before I ever committed (even in my mind) to running, Charlie had me speak to his donors at a TPUSA event. He walked me around the room and introduced me. He gave me honest feedback on my remarks. He had no reason to do this, no expectation that I'd go anywhere. I was polling, at that point, well below 5 percent. He did it because we were friends, and because he was a good man. When I became the VP nominee--something Charlie advocated for both in public and private--Charlie was there for me. I was so glad to be part of the president's team, but candidly surprised by the effect it had on our family. Our kids, especially our oldest, struggled with the attention and the constant presence of the protective detail. I felt this acute sense of guilt, that I had conscripted my kids into this life without getting their permission. And Charlie was constantly calling and texting, checking on our family and offering guidance and prayers. Some of our most successful events were organized not by the campaign, but by TPUSA. He wasn't just a thinker, he was a doer, turning big ideas into bigger events with thousands of activists. And after every event, he would give me a big hug, tell me he was praying for me, and ask me what he could do. "You focus on Wisconsin," he'd tell me. "Arizona is in the bag." And it was. Charlie genuinely believed in and loved Jesus Christ. He had a profound faith. We used to argue about Catholicism and Protestantism and who was right about minor doctrinal questions. Because he loved God, he wanted to understand him. Someone else pointed out that Charlie died doing what he loved: discussing ideas. He would go into these hostile crowds and answer their questions. If it was a friendly crowd, and a progressive asked a question to jeers from the audience, he'd encourage his fans to calm down and let everyone speak. He exemplified a foundational virtue of our Republic: the willingness to speak openly and debate ideas. Charlie had an uncanny ability to know when to push the envelope and when to be more conventional. I've seen people attack him for years for being wrong on this or that issue publicly, never realizing that privately he was working to broaden the scope of acceptable debate. He was a great family man. I was talking to President Trump in the Oval Office today, and he said, "I know he was a very good friend of yours." I nodded silently, and President Trump observed that Charlie really loved his family. The president was right. Charlie was so proud of Erika and the two kids. He was so happy to be a father. And he felt such gratitude for having found a woman of God with whom he could build a family. Charlie Kirk was a true friend. The kind of guy you could say something to and know it would always stay with him. I am on more than a few group chats with Charlie and people he introduced me to over the years. We celebrate weddings and babies, bust each other's chops, and mourn the loss of loved ones. We talk about politics and policy and sports and life. These group chats include people at the very highest level of our government. They trusted him, loved him, and knew he'd always have their backs. And because he was a true friend ,you could instinctively trust the people Charlie introduced you to. So much of the success we've had in this administration traces directly to Charlie's ability to organize and convene. He didn't just help us win in 2024, he helped us staff the entire government. I was in a meeting in the West Wing when those group chats started lighting up with people telling Charlie they were praying for him. And that's how I learned the news that my friend had been shot. I prayed a lot over the next hour, as first good news and then bad trickled in. God didn't answer those prayers, and that's OK. He had other plans. And now that Charlie is in heaven, I'll ask him to talk to big man directly on behalf of his family, his friends, and the country he loved so dearly. You ran a good race, my friend. We've got it from here.