Game of Drones

***SPOILER WARNING***

READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

I can't help but feel, at this juncture, like we're heading toward a lackluster finish with Game of Thrones. Episode 3 was pretty awesome in a lot of ways, but also pretty disappointing, so it ended with me feeling rather ambivalent. Narratively it felt like an unfulfilling, if not incoherent, mess. Aesthetically it was superb, perhaps, depending on how you look at it. If you conclude the extreme darkness and blurriness was an artistic or atmospheric decision, to convey the sense of foreboding and terribly disadvantageous conditions in which the living were fighting, then I suppose they really nailed it. Because for much of the episode I found it rather difficult to see what was going on exactly. If you think that it was just the result of poor technical work, i.e., bad film and editing practices, then I suppose even that aspect of it was lackluster. (I really want to believe it's the former.)

As for its story and conclusion it kind of feels like Benioff and Weiss pulled a Rian Johnson with the Night King (NK), as he was by far the most intriguing character in the series and the one I wanted to know the most about, only to be dispatched with profoundly little development over the span of 8 years. Hence the Snoke reference. Perhaps the only villain in a major production I've ever seen discarded with less character development.

I've always been in awe of the irony of that image. No, Rian, your Snoke theory sucked. That's why your Star Wars film is arguably the most hated, by a wide margin, in the franchise's history. Literally all of the fan theories about Snoke I'd been hearing for years prior to the film's release were better than that of the film's maker. The NK went out with a comparable unsatisfactory fizzle for me. He's been built up as a millennia old threat to all life on the planet. For years we've been told humanity is doomed if the NK and his over 100,000 strong undead army makes it past the wall. Only for him to die, in literally his first battle south of the wall, to a little girl with a steak knife. I can't help but feel like one of the coolest, most menacing villains ever, was squandered to a significant degree. And just like Rian Johnson, those responsible for that decision seem completely oblivious to their error, and the problem with "subverting" expectations as an end in and of itself. But more on that later. My only hope now is that one of the alleged spinoff series they're developing is about the NK. But I'll believe that when I see it. 

This disappointment is compounded by the fact there's simply no way Cersei can match, much less surpass, the existential threat that was the Night King. The disparity between these two foes, in regard to their respective power and the awe they inspire, is akin to the difference between Satan himself and Hillary Clinton. I mean, they're just in completely different leagues, and I don't see how Benioff and Weiss can compensate for that. Thus the kill order feels inverted like a boxing match in which the main event is a bout significantly lower on the echelon than the preceding fight. And so from a climactic perspective it kind of feels like it's possibly all downhill from here, as the next and last opponent is the far less frightening, powerful, and deadly of the remaining villains. As much as I hate Cersei she's no Night King, and no matter how the show might try to portray it her army is a joke by comparison. So it personally somehow feels wrong inside that the battle against her would be the "grand finale."

I understand why they saved her for last (all the Lannister Drama). I get it. But I don't think I will enjoy that as much, and frankly, I feel like the NK's death was perhaps made deliberately underwhelming because of it. In other words, his role and fate were deliberately diminished, in order to prevent it (as much as possible) from eclipsing the subsequent yet inherently less remarkable Lannister showdown.

As far as battles go, the one against the NK was pretty remarkable in some ways, from a visual and magnitude perspective. The writing, however, has clearly suffered since parting ways with the books. The show frankly, in comparison to where it started, feels very fast and loose (i.e., mediocre) now from a narrative perspective. There's a lot of narratively questionable stuff happening in GoT these days. Flagrant individual and collective strategic blunders, to give but one example, abounded in Episode 3. Staying in the north knowing the NK and his army are heading straight for you seems like a really bad decision from my point of view. Helping Yara retake the Iron Islands, and waiting there until the NK reaches King's Landing, forcing Cersei to fight with you if only for self-preservation would have been preferable. At the very least, the women and children should have been evacuated elsewhere, and not placed in a mass tomb in a battle against someone that reanimates the dead as a hobby. I mean, come on. How the hell does no one see that coming? It the narrative equivalent of telling people to seek shelter from a wildfire in a fuel shed, the sagacious leadership of Winterfell decides that the women and children will be "safe" from an enemy that raises the dead, in the crypt. 

🤨

The Dothraki, with their suicide charge, were wasted in my opinion. Might as well have slit their throats yourself. At least then you could have burned them preventing their reanimation. Also, despite having lost one dragon to the White Walkers both Dany and Jon have an inexplicable disregard for the lives of their remaining dragons, and repeatedly put them in danger for little if any benefit. Your enemy is the undisputed world champion in the javelin throw, and yet you insist on doing things like flying straight at him, hovering stationary in the air above him, and worst of all landing and sitting stationary on the ground. We know from the Season 7 finale that not even rapid strafing fire attacks are "safe." So naturally they did a bunch more of that, and even less prudent things, in this episode. I feel like they really wrote themselves into a corner in the Season 7 finale, and as a result their only remedy was for the NK to have a terrible aim now, which he does. He nailed a Hail Mary least season, nothing but net, yet now can't seem to manage a layup. Because if he could the series would have effectively been over at the end of Season 7. Thus ever since when he shoots, he misses, because he must; because the script demands it.

When Dany lands her dragon in the middle of the zombie horde, and just sits on the ground allowing her dragon to be mobbed and nearly stabbed to death, I almost lost my mind. Both because it was profoundly nonsensical, and was an ostentatiously lazy plot device to allow her to be dismounted, in order to give Jorah his heroic finale. It was very reminiscent of The Walking Dead (TWD) as such. (What I consider one of the laziest and poorly written shows in all of television.) You could consistently tell when someone was going to die on TWD, because the characters would suddenly become full blown retards, and start doing things that make absolutely no sense. Like landing your dragon and sitting on the ground in the middle of a zombie army, for example, and allowing your dragon to be mobbed and repeatedly stabbed forcing it to choose self-preservation over you.

I guess it goes without saying no one could remain mounted on a dragon at all, much less during a dragon versus dragon aerial melee fight, without a saddle and being secured to the animal by... something? Frostbite and hypothermia apparently don't exist for Targaryens either, who seem as immune to cold as they are fire, because they routinely fly around on the backs of dragons in arctic caliber weather with little more than a modest pair of gloves and a windbreaker. It's 10° on the ground and these two are flying around at breakneck speeds, attached by sheer forearm strength, and without so much as a beanie. But I can forgive all that I suppose. It would arguably be less dramatic without seeing the actors' faces. The strategic errors are much harder to forgive however. Why would Arya, an ostensibly professional assassin who managed to sneak past a large portion of the undead army and the White Walkers themselves, scream (alerting the NK to her presence) as she attacked for example? How does it behoove you to yell at someone you're sneaking up behind before striking? She may as well have shouted "boo" as she pounced. (Are you trying to scare the NK or kill him?) But it all works out, you know, cause reasons.  

Things are also looking bad for Jon. All the other characters maintained/resurrected by the "Lord of Light" are expiring as soon as their usefulness terminates. Frankly, if anyone else but him ends up on the throne, this show will kind of feel like the most epic troll in television history. Because I never cared for Dany. She's a closeted tyrant, and too capricious and egocentric, to be a good ruler. This is of course assuming the show's creators won't simply dispense with the trammels of extant book lore again entirely to pursue whatever arbitrarily revised outcome they may have concocted. Like killing Jon, again, which would render his dramatic resurrection, being that it now obviously wasn't to play any pivotal role in stopping the NK (as he was grounded and easily and immediately neutralized as a threat), so much narrative dross. Which it already rather is I'm forced to surmise at this juncture. So I guess at this point I'm just crossing my fingers for Jon in the hopes he serves any extraordinary purpose at all.

In retrospection the mission to capture a wight is when the show really seemed to go off the rails hard for me personally. That was when nonsensical conduct really seemed to come to the surface as a conspicuous staple of the show's DNA (if you will). The NK's choice to shoot down the dragon flying a quarter mile away for example and basically getting a bullseye, as opposed to the one sitting right in front of him (which is carrying all the people who could potentially thwart his plan), which he somehow misses from a much closer range always stood out as really nonsensical. As was Jon's refusing to get on the dragon, and then being mobbed by zombies which causes him to fall into freezing water, only to conveniently be saved by his uncle Ben. Going on to survive hypothermia (yet again), after riding on horseback all the way to the coast, while soaking wet in the arctic. I mean, how did Ben even know about this excursion, much less where to find him in the vast expanse of the frozen north? It was simply poor/uninspired writing that blatantly served its purpose; giving the NK a dragon without any real regard for preserving narrative integrity to that end. 

This last episode (8:3) was filled with similar logic defying content. How many times was a main character left surrounded, and facing ostensibly impossible odds when the camera cut to something else, only for it to come back to them later inexplicably not dead and saved at the last second by some miraculously timed intervention? I'm sorry, but such excessive reliance on Deus ex machina is not "good" story telling. That's the kind of story telling you do, when you just don't give a damn, or have written yourself into a corner you don't know how to escape. Dany's landing was, following the same vein, a blatantly lazy narrative device to dismount her so they could kill off Jorah. Like I said, it was TWD caliber writing. Sam is yet another example of this. 

Fat clumsy Sam getting Edd killed.

Who doesn't know Sam is a clumsy fat ass? How many allies does fat ass clumsy Sam have to get killed before he's forbidden from being anywhere near a battle? Why wasn't he in the crypt? Because if he were in the crypt they'd have had to come up with something more thoughtful than saving fat ass clumsy Sam to kill off Edd. Everyone knew he shouldn't be there, but he was. Why? One reason. To provide a lazy excuse for killing Edd. And after doing so, fat ass clumsy Sam scurries off, never to be seen again (to my recollection) doing anything of substance. TWD often used this exact same, lazy, and consequently utterly trite technique for advancing the show's plot. Characters were routinely killed off in that show trying to save some other stupid/clumsy character.

The embodiment of the white patriarchy being defeated by feminism.

And then there's the issue of Arya Sue (or Mary Sue Stark). How did she get there? How did she get past all the zombies and White Walkers (which had the tree surrounded), to sneak up behind the NK (who was standing directly in front of his minions), and then why scream as you attack which negates the whole purpose of sneaking in the first place? All this "prince that was promised" stuff, and it's Ayra that kills the NK. Not Song of Ice and Fire, bridge between the north and the south, Christ-like figure, Jon Snow. Not mother of Dragons and Breaker of Chains, Daenerys Targaryen. Arya Stark kills him. Arya. The same Arya who, after all that pestering Gendry to make her a specialized weapon, just drops the thing during what is a relatively ordinary (inconsequential) fight early on. It is she who manages to get the drop on the NK, despite his reflexes being shown throughout the episode to be second to none. And then he basically just allows himself to be stabbed in the thorax by a little girl and turns into a slushee. He was fast enough to do a full 180° turn and catch her midair, throat and weapon wielding arm in hand, but not to snap her neck or toss her away before she stabbed him. You know, cause reasons.

Look, I have no problem with Arya being an "assassin." Women can absolutely be assassins, particularly one of Arya's diminished stature, but not in the way it's depicted by GoT. Women, simply by being women, have the potential to infiltrate and subvert in a manner men typically cannot. History is replete with examples, such as the story of Samson in the Bible, of women using their feminine wiles to ruin or destroy men. So I've no problem with a female assassin exploiting a man's natural inclination to be a defender of women, or lasciviousness, etc., to be his undoing. That's completely plausible even without the ability to change your appearance. In fact, the show itself depicts Arya killing Meryn Trant in precisely this manner; i.e., not with super human powers, which she is never depicted to have, but by exploiting his deviant sexual proclivities. (Back when the show made some modicum of sense.) She uses a disguise to circumvent Trant's defenses and catch him by surprise. But the NK is no mere man. He is without human affection and cares not for the pleasures of the flesh. He's an indiscriminate killer whose known rule of warfare is the destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions without distinction. He takes no prisoners. He cannot be inveigled or seduced. You cannot gain his trust and become close to him. He is shown to possess extra sensory perception and cannot be fooled by disguises. To kill even a mortal man with such attributes would be profoundly difficult. To kill an immortal being, with superhuman strength, reflexes, and perception in such a manner is essentially impossible (even with her acquired skill set).

There's a profound disparity between how Arya kills Meryn Trant in Season 5, which is grounded in reality and has an explanation, and how Arya kills the NK in Season 8 which is/has neither. We're shown how she gets the drop on Trant and it's basically believable. We're not shown how she gets the drop on the NK and it's absolutely not believable. Which really illustrates the extent to which the writing, and regard for detail in general, has degraded over time. Arya's actions evolved from doing things that were credible and in conformity with her character's history and motivations, to doing something that was neither and a flagrant deus ex machina. She even upstages the main character, ostensibly born and resurrected from the dead, to kill a villain she dispatches instead; thereby making her a Mary Sue also. Unlike Trant the NK was never on Arya's "list." She killed him, not because her character had any legitimate reason (or desire) to do so, but purely because the writers thought the viewer wouldn't expect it.

Arya killing the NK definitely wasn't what I was expecting, but being unexpected and being good are two different things. And Benioff and Weiss, just like Johnson, don't seem to understand that. They decided to have Arya kill him because no one will expect that, with no regard for the fact it would be underwhelming in addition to unexpected. "Subverting" expectations is easy. You could have had Sam jump out from nowhere and kill the NK. You could have had The Mountain jump out of nowhere and crush the NK's skull. You could have had Thor come down from nowhere and cleave him in twain with his axe or incinerate him with a lightning bolt. You could have had the NK realize the error of his ways, have a change of heart, and offer his aid in the war against Cersei (ultimately becoming one of Jon and Dany's best friends). All of these things would have been unexpected, and therefore would have subverted my expectations, and they all would have sucked. And they would have sucked for the same reason Arya killing him sucks; they all not only subvert my expectations but also subvert the narrative the show's been building for years. They would subvert Jon's entire character arc (with whom we've been commiserating since we first met him).

The video above really serves to illustrate how connected to and invested in this character people (of all backgrounds) have become. Benioff and Weiss didn't just subvert our expectations. They defecated all over them.

Because we all know how personal stopping the NK was to Arya. All of the tension was built with, and therefore released by, Jon facing the NK. Thus watching Arya kill the NK was kind of like having sex without climaxing, rendering the arc of both characters the narrative equivalent of epididymal hypertension. 

The NK's death would have been infinitely more satisfying if Jon played a role in it, and maybe distracted the NK so Arya could kill him, or vice versa. Jon makes it to the tree, and end's up dueling with the NK, and loses. He gets stabbed and falls. And then as the NK is about to strike Jon down, Bran inexplicably stands and lunges at the NK causing the NK to turn to catch him. Jon then stabs the NK through the thorax with his Valyrian steel sword. All the NK's forces fall. Bran removes his face to reveal Arya. It was her sitting in the chair the whole time. I realize this deviates from established show lore, but so does pretty much everything that happened in this episode, and thus the writers themselves clearly don't care about it. So, whatever. 

But I surmise that just like Johnson with Snoke, in the eyes of vacuous fanboys we will be to blame for not liking something objectively awful, as opposed to the dumb asses truly responsible for it. Subverting expectations can be good, if done intelligently and in moderation. But when you subvert them too much, too often, all you end up with is disappointment. Which was exactly what I felt, to a significant degree, after watching this episode. 

Those extras in the back are wights (zombies). I posted this image to illustrate I wasn't exaggerating when I said the NK and Bran were literally surrounded by his undead army, and because you can actually see that clearly in this image. Unlike screenshots from the show, seen above, which are so dark it's often hard to make out much of anything. (Seriously, click on those images. Those are actually some of the brighter shots.) 

In order to subvert my expectations, Jon Snow, erstwhile implied to likely be a messianic figure who would play some integral role in all of this, proved virtually nugatory by comparison. He should have been named John Doe as a foreshadowing of the sub-bastard narrative triviality he would ultimately be in this conflict. It seems neither he nor Dany were the prince/princess that was promised. Or are we now expected to believe "Azor Ahai" shall come to save the world from the vindictive, and nigh menopausal, Cersei Lannister?

Arya killing the NK is just one example of a much broader issue I've been noticing in the show however. Before I conclude, I can't help but observe how prominent male characters (e.g., Jon and Tyrion) have become increasingly incompetent, if not bumbling buffoons (e.g., Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, etc.) who consistently need to be saved by stronger, more sagacious women, who now control pretty much everything that matters. Once again, it rather reminds me of another work of fiction I shan't name. (But it rhymes with The Last Jedi.) The entire world was saved by Arya. Jon was saved by Sansa who, after Jon's betrayal by bending the knee to Dany, seems the de facto ruler of the north in the hearts and minds of the people. Jaime spent most of his life a thrall to Cersei before traveling north, and then upon arriving ends up serving under Brienne. Tyrion, and now Jon too, are thralls to Daenerys. All the real power is held by women, deciding the fate of the world, and surrounded by servile male sycophants. Both Dany and Cersei are, as is so often the case now, female characters written like male characters. They have little in the way of discernible female personality traits. Rather, they're highly ambitious and preoccupied with accruing status, power, and conquest (typically male attributes). It seems as though since parting ways with the books, the political views of Benioff and Weiss have increasingly crept into the show, manifest in the number of strong female characters increasing while conversely the number of strong male characters has decreased. As much as I liked Jorah what was he if not a friend zoned sycophant?

What the hell happened to this show? It went from something really well thought out, to let's have a fat guy fall over to kill this guy, and let's have Dany land her dragon for no reason here to kill this guy, and then let's have Arya effectively teleport here to kill the main villain, etc., etc., etc. My hopes and expectations for the rest of the season, and the finale, have been significantly lowered and deflated by this episode. The NK frankly died a ridiculous, one dimensional, vacuous comic book or cartoon character caliber villain, apparently purely so the show's makers could prop up Cersei (the clearly lesser threat) as the main event in subsequent episodes. He was more a caricature than a character in comparison to any other antagonist in the show aside from Euron. And far too few "fans" seem bothered by that.

Anyway, in closing, I hope I'm wrong about everything. I hope Benioff and Weiss have some genius masterstroke that completely defies and exceeds my expectations. I'll be the first to admit it. Or, maybe they deliberately lowered the bar with Episode 3, so that even mediocrity serves that purpose in the end. I guess we'll all find out.

Why I'm no longer a Republican Part 8: The GOP is the other Democrat Party

Admittedly, I wasn't hostile to Trump in the very beginning. People can change. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. And that's what I told a friend who called and queried me over multiple social media posts expressing support of Trump's rhetoric in the infancy of his campaign. (And when I say infancy, I mean just that, the very beginning.) That would soon change however.

It would be one thing if Trump likewise claimed Obama had no obligation to disclose his personal documents; that they're no one else's business. But he did the exact opposite of that. He offered five million dollars for Obama to do what he will not. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Donald Trump is perhaps the biggest fraud in presidential history, and most certainly the biggest fraud in Republican presidential history. He is the most vacuous, crass, tergiversatory GOP candidate, and now president, ever. And he is all of those things because, as I said for most of his campaign, he is a leftist Democrat who merely ran on the Republican ticket to keep far more legitimate Conservatives with far superior records (like Cruz and Paul) out of the white house. Trump is a demagogue of the worst sort unsurpassed in the annals of demagoguery. And a prime example of this is his flagrantly self-serving evolution on the electoral college.

What this illustrates to any non-partisan shill, is that Donald Trump is a Democrat (a proponent/supporter of "democracy"). That Donald Trump sought to be the executive of a government he could not even correctly identify much less understand. That his position on this issue changed purely out of personal interest as opposed to principle. And his supporters don't have a problem with Trump only figuring this out over two years into his presidency, despite incessantly proclaiming during the campaign of Barack Obama, that the presidency is not a position suited for "on the job training." In other words, ignorance of nuance was unacceptable when Barack Obama wanted to be president, but is now perfectly acceptable now that Trump is president.

At this point some shill will likely observe that Trump's tweet was from 2012, and seek to undermine the validity of this observation by claiming it too old to be relevant, and/or that Trump's disposition may have changed well before he was a candidate. As if Trump wasn't peddling this same erroneous and subversive tripe during his campaign.

Imagine someone claiming field goals are stupid and shouldn't be in the game. And then they win the national championship with a field goal, and subsequently begin claiming that field goals are great. Trump's change of heart has no more basis than that. He now realizes the next championship (election) will likely be another close game, and that he may once again only win by a field goal (electoral college). So now it's in his interest to tout its virtues. And his supporters, being mindless sheep, will mirror whatever his position is at the time. And that's not hyperbole in the slightest. I saw Trump supporters on social media, with my own eyes, shifting their position on the electoral college (and therefore completely contradicting themselves) in tandem with Trump.

But such is now the state of the GOP that, just like the Democrat party, they prefer an executive who could not pass a grade school civics test, because he mirrors their partisan prejudice, to one that could but does not. The reality is Donald Trump was never a Republican, and neither are his supporters, because they don't know anymore than he does what that is.

Few probably remember when Trump in another spectacle of demagoguery, seeking to capitalize on the recent San Diego shootings (perpetrated by a Muslim), called for the murder of the families of terrorists. The fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, and even children of those who engaged in terrorists attacks should be the target of retribution killings, he argued. And all of a sudden the same party that opposes abortion, and ostensibly holds the killing of children to be an egregious sin, had no problem drone striking toddlers in their cribs for the sins of their fathers. Trump quickly backtracked on that stance (as he has so many others), after it received extensive negative media coverage. And while this is not as significant as the electoral college, it illustrates his capricious and opportunistic nature all the same. Trump's position on any given issue is whatever benefits Trump at the time; the paradigmatic leftist/Democrat comportment. This is likewise seen with his shifting on gun control, in which he's repeatedly taken anti-gun stances following a shooting, because it benefits him personally/politically to do so. If adopting an anti-gun position behooves him at any moment, particularly after a highly (excessively) publicized shooting, Trump clearly has no qualms about doing so.

Donald Trump is doing precisely what I said throughout his campaign; subverting the GOP from within. A Democrat has taken over the Republican party and is lunging it to the left, which allows the Democratic party to posture itself even farther left still to provide a specious distinction between the two, and construe the GOP as to their "right." (Something that will always be technically true, and have merit in the eyes of the ignorant, even if it's only slightly less Socialist than the Democratic Party.) They are not "opposition" parties whatsoever however. Both are working in reciprocity to herd the American people ever farther left and bring them more in conformity with Marxist principles.

As stated in the past repeatedly, this is evinced by how Donald Trump has achieved wide scale Republican support, for things the average Republican would have never accepted under a Democrat president. It was Donald Trump that raised the age to purchase an AR-15 to 21. It was Donald Trump that proposed suspending due process and confiscating firearms, and red flag laws are now proliferating across the nation under his administration, with virtually no Republican voter acknowledgement much less opposition. It was Donald Trump that passed a 100% unconstitutional bump stock ban (violating his oath of office), which again is scarcely acknowledged, and even defended by his supporters.

Despite instance after instance of Trump betraying his word, and adopting positions contrary to the traditional platform of the party he leads, Trump supporters continue to proclaim him a "promise keeper."

Except for releasing his tax returns, repealing Obamacare, protecting gun rights, etc., etc., etc. What about those promises, Lara? What about when Trump told the NRA, "I will never ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" And then on national television said he supported suspending due process and confiscating people's firearms. What about when he said, "No longer will federal agencies come after law abiding gun owners?" And then passed an unconstitutional law that turned many of them into felons.

The key language in Trump's statement, which none of the partisan bigots who adore him could discern, was "law abiding." And that distinction, as we've seen, is merely an executive decree away under President Trump. The "law abiding" today, by executive mandate, are rendered criminals tomorrow; hunted by the very federal agencies from whom Trump promised protection.

As I've said in the past. Red Flag Laws and arbitrary executive gun control legislation are the real legacy of Donald Trump which none of his supporters will acknowledge.

"If the president may arbitrarily ban firearm parts and accessories like a bump stock, what's to stop him from doing the same with any other part or accessory? If the president may ban bump stocks because he personally deems them unnecessary or too dangerous, then what's to stop him from banning red dot optics, vertical grips, picatinny rails, upper receivers, extractors, firing pins, et al.? Answer: Not a damn thing. Once conceded to have that power, and that he alone is arbiter of to what extent he wields it, the precedent is established. And worse every subsequent president will be presumed to have that same power. But Trump lemmings can't be bothered to think that far ahead." - Me, December 16, 2018.

And what did Trump supporters do if not promptly concede he has that power (regardless of what the Constitution says)? It's only natural that the next Democrat president will assume they have the same authority (and then some). 

Trump supporters speak of "saving" the country. But I ask who will save us from their stupid asses? This throng of ignoramuses who, when proposed by a "Republican," support the very things they oppose from Democrats. Even now, all these people who sat silent for, and outright supported Trump's egregious attacks on the Second Amendment, vehemently denounce any Democrat merely following Trump's example. 

So basically Kamala Harris wants to do the exact same thing Donald Trump did and pass gun control laws as president. Despite the fact only congress has the power to pass laws. Despite the fact even congress may not pass such laws per the Second Amendment. Kamala Harris is doing nothing more than proposing what Donald Trump has already done. Yet here's an excerpt of some reactions to her proposal from Trump supporters.

I can't post all of the comments because there's literally thousands of them. But the vast majority are from people who are highly critical of her proposal, even implying violent resistance is the solution, while simultaneously supporting Donald Trump who did exactly the same thing when he arbitrarily raised the age to purchase a rifle and banned bump stocks. 

Firstly, this is an all too paradigmatic problem with Republicans. They're always "compromising" (ceding in increments) our rights away. The left is forever advancing to get everything it wants, while GOP is forever "compromising" to keep ever smaller portions of what it had. And notice the argument used by this Trump supporter. It's basically just a different way of saying no one "needs" a bump stock. In other words, when Donald Trump imposes gun control laws, his supporters use the exact same argument as leftists to defend it. No one needs a bump stock = no one needs a thirty round magazine = no one needs an AR-15 = no one needs a gun. I mean, any woman "worth her salt" won't use a gun to fend off a rapist anyway, but should be able to do so with hand to hand combat. Right?

Secondly, this isn't a matter of necessity. Rights are not contingent upon a "need." You have the freedom of speech, for example, whether you're using it or not. You have it whether you need it or not. Necessity reverses the intended paradigm, and makes the people answerable to the state, as opposed to the state being answerable to the people. This is a common deceptive subtlety of leftist reasoning. It presumes the people must ask their government for permission to have and/or exercise a right, as opposed to government requiring permission from the people to govern.

Thirdly, far from Trump giving them nothing, he's given the enemies of the 2A something profoundly dangerous. Precedent. The fact is congress, and not the president, is conferred the power of legislation by the Constitution. But even the federal congress is prohibited from passing such legislation by the 2A. The federal government, much like religion with the 1A, is denied any power to regulate private firearms by the 2A. That's what it does; it divests the federal government of any power to that end. Trump has not only violated this Constitutional protection, he's done it in the worst way possible, i.e., unilateral autocratic decree. Trump, and his supporters by their acceptance of such, have acceded to the legitimacy of not only federal regulation of privately owned firearms, but unilateral executive regulation of privately owned firearms. This will benefit future Democrat presidents, far more anti-gun than Trump, immensely. As seen with Kamala Harris already openly stating she will utilize the precedent established by Trump to a far more significant degree. Trump supporters are simply too myopic and obtuse to make such simple deductions.

Again, if you wouldn't want your enemies having such power, then you should not want your allies having it either. (Because once established all it takes is one election to transfer that power from your ally to your enemy.) Again, we see Hamilton's admonition being vindicated right before our eyes.

"It is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Federalist #25.

But we don't need to wait for the Democrats to regain control of government to have our rights subverted. Even now the GOP openly works to abridge the right to bear arms nationwide, just like Democrats, but unlike when proposed by Kamala Harris there is abject silence from the Republican constituency. It's not "tyranny" anymore, nor is it even worth acknowledging, when done by a Republican. 

What is the cause of such abject stupidity and hypocrisy? The Founders tell us. At essentially the birth of our Republic, George Washington warns us about the "baneful effects of the spirit of party," which he states "is itself a frightful despotism."

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - John Adams, Oct 2, 1780. 

With Republicans under Trump, more than ever, the criteria for being a "good" or "successful" candidate or president is (just as with Democrats) based upon subjective nonsense and nothing that matters. It's predicated upon the extent to which he seems to be insulting and wounding the other party (even when he's really not), as opposed to his conformity with and fidelity to the Constitution. Though they love to mock AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), the average Trump supporter is no more knowledgeable of these matters than she is, and has far more in common with her ideologically than they realize or would ever admit. Thus, their aversion to AOC and Democrats in general is far more rooted in partisan prejudice than principle, and if she ran as a Republican and disparaged her ostensible Democrat rivals, Republicans would embrace her just as they did Trump.

Even the "Russian collusion" over which the two parties have been endlessly bickering is a direct byproduct, according to Washington (in his Farewell Address), of hyper-partisanship. 

"It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

"Foreign nations, too, would not fail to avail themselves, in pursuit of their own interests, of every opportunity to foster our intestine divisions, since they might thus more easily command our trade, or monopolize our products, or crush our manufactures, or keep us in a state of dependence upon their good will for our security." - Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of The United States, Exposition of the Constitution - The Preamble, 1840. 

Basically, party enmity will allow foreign powers to influence and even subordinate our country, by exploiting the domestic distrust and animosity of the parties for each other. They can go to one, or both, and offer assistance against the other in return for something (contrary to our collective interests) for example. And they will find venal partisans who, wanting to "win" elections more than anything, will betray their constituents and country. So, if there is foreign meddling in our elections (which is not at all impossible), it's not the other party that's to blame, or even the foreign power, but the blind loyalists of the two party system here in the U.S., whose hyper-partisanship and desire to win at any cost facilitates such machinations.

In closing, I am a Republican (a supporter of the Republican form of government), but I am no longer a member of the Republican party (because it's not). If I wanted to be in a party of abject partisan hypocrites I'd have joined the Democrat party long ago. Because what other explanation is there for the following quotation but fanatical partisanship?

That's right folks, the first candidate to ever talk about his dick during a nationally televised debate, the guy on his third wife (having cheated on the first two), the guy who grabs women's vaginas, the guy who screws porn stars and bribes them with fortunes not to tell anyone, is the most "Biblical president" Michelle Bachmann has seen in her life. And thus, as the Trump presidency was always intended to do, it has rendered the "Evangelical" right and GOP hypocritical farces bereft of all credibility. They will makes deals with devils, and forsake God without compunction, to "win." Give them the choice of an angel, and a pimp they're told has the best chance to beat the Democrat, and they will side with the pimp. They've unequivocally proven that, by electing Republican Bill Clinton, to beat Hillary Clinton. No longer is fornication or adultery a sin to the GOP. If it means them winning elections, it's "Biblical" to bang your neighbor's wife, to bang prostitutes, to bang whomever you please. Mark my words, it's a matter of time before the "Evangelical" GOP is supporting an openly homosexual candidate, because he's the one with the "best chance of winning." Sodomy too will become "Biblical," and perhaps much sooner than you think. (The GOP's political strategy these days is to counter sin with sin, and as such they will need a commensurate response to Democrat candidates like Pete Buttigieg, to cite as proof they're "tolerant," "inclusive," etc.; i.e., Democrats.) 

The Founders advised us to choose only wise and virtuous men for office. Men free of reproach, without scandal, and not given to vice. And both parties have completely abandoned that notion. Hell, the GOP in the last election out of 16 candidates favored the most politically ignorant, lascivious, scandalous, and compromised one among them. Because they'd rather sell their souls to win, and die prostitutes, than lose with their conscience and integrity intact.

What hope is there for such a party? What hope is there for such a nation?

The Church of Marx

I have long observed and warned about the creeping of Marxist rhetoric, masquerading as "Christian" precept, into America's churches. It's gotten so bad I long ago began referring to the modern church as the "spiritual arm of the Socialist party." And Matt Chandler's farcical "sermon," along with others dispensed at the It Takes A Village Church, are but more abject proof of that fact.

There's essentially no acknowledgment of the pious and noble Christian ethos that gave birth to our Republic and freedoms within the vitiated liturgies of modern American churches whatsoever. Quite to the contrary, they often undermine, if not outright rebuke such. The once masculine institution, that inculcated the values of moral enlightenment and liberty, has been supplanted by a matriarchal social club that disseminates a hyper-effeminate theology of interminable capitulation and fatalism. And this is perhaps nowhere better illustrated than Matt Chandler.

I actually called Matt Chandler's church (on the phone) after seeing this video. Naturally, I was unable to speak to him. I spoke to some proxy on staff, who shan't be named (as the purpose of this contribution is not to induce their harassment), but shall henceforth be referred to as Joe. I asked Joe many questions in an effort to procure the church's official position and that of it's staff on "white privilege." And for the better part of half an hour Joe basically assiduously equivocated. Joe, inexplicably, didn't know much of anything about the ideological disposition of his organization, nor was capable of articulating such to any meaningful extent. (An all too typical circumstance.) I asked Joe where Christ's position on "white privilege" could be found in the Bible, and what precisely that position might be, but received no definitive answer. Joe, basically, just told me The Village Church's (TVC) objective was to lead people to Christ. I inquired in what capacity "acknowledging and addressing white privilege" served that purpose, and when exactly combating such became a precept of the Christian religion, but again received no real answer. 

The most I got from Joe, during that nearly half hour of dialogue, was "yes" to the question does white privilege exist. Though, when asked to articulate why he believed that, I was again denied an answer. All Joe did was refer me to a sermon by someone in their church named Beau Hughes. So I looked it up and read it. Beau's sentiments in his sermon, are basically identical to Matt's in the video above, and in a preceding sermon given by Matt.

"In terms of race in the United States, as the majority, we’re going to talk about white transparency, white normativity, and white structural advantage. [....] If you live in America and have grown up in this mainstream culture and subcultures, then, as a white person, you can live your entire life and never really have to think about being white. You don’t need to feel necessarily guilty about that, but you do need to recognize that’s a unique advantage you have as a white person and an advantage that sociologists actually have a name for. That’s called white transparency.  

Korie Edwards, who’s a sociologist at the Ohio State University, wrote a wonderful book our elders are reading right now called The Elusive Dream [...] and she uses this definition of white transparency. She says, Finally, white transparency is "the tendency of whites not to think…about norms, behaviors, experiences, or perspectives that are white-specific." [In other words, white transparency] is a lack of racial consciousness.' [....]

White transparency, then, feeds into the next little category that sociologists call white normativity. Again, I’m going to quote from Edwards. She says, 'White normativity reinforces the normalization of whites’ cultural practices…such that how whites do things [...] Their understandings about life, society, and the world…are accepted as "just how things are."' In other words, when we’re the majority, our practices, preferences, and perspectives don’t feel to us as uniquely anything. [...] If you’re the majority and are walking in transparency, it doesn’t feel like a unique way to look at things or do things. It’s just the way everybody looks at things or does things." - Beau Hughes, Racial Reconciliation. 

Which are themselves flagrant Marxist drivel one can find likewise dispensed by any other number of radical leftists, such as "Standard White: Dismantling White Normativity," by Michael Morris.

"Whiteness serves a normative function by defining the expected or “neutral” range of human attributes and behavior. Other racial categories emerge as deviations from this norm, which places them outside the protection of the law and civil society." [....] Transparency—that is, “the tendency of whites not to think about whiteness, or about norms, behaviors, experiences, or perspectives that are white-specific”—presents a further complication in addressing white normativity. White privilege helps to create transparency. [....] 

Because society treats whiteness as neutral, the benefits that accrue to whites are taken as givens. Those benefits pass almost unnoticed, because they are simply the way the system is supposed to work. Put another way, the status of whites represents how our social, political, and legal systems are meant to function—and validates that functioning—while the status of other groups represents those systems’ inevitable imperfections. White normativity does much of its work by defining the perspective from which acceptability is judged. [...] In this way, white normativity poses a more insidious threat than overt racism." 

Notice the conspicuous similarities; both have the same philosophical foundation; i.e., are derived from the same ideology. And according to that ideology even when a white person is not being actively racist through oppressive laws, violence, rhetoric, etc., they are still racist due to "lack of racial consciousness," which is even more racist than racist comportment. Basically, you're racist for not making race the transcendent issue in your life and seeing everything through the prism of race. Truly, this is the sort or deranged asinine tripe that only a Marxist mind could conjure. No matter what you do, you're racist, and/or a blight upon the world. The problem is not so much that you're actually "being" racist in any particular way, because even that is racist, conveying that the problem is that you exist at all. 

It's worth noting that the listed "areas of expertise" listed for Korie Edwards on Ohio University's website, are "Gender, Race, & Class." (You know, the sort of things in which radical leftists tend to take interest and/or specialize.) Korie is also listed as a "Social Problems Advisory Editor" by the Society for the Study of Social Problems In Pursuit of Social Justice. 

The "SSSP" publishes an "Agenda for Social Justice." The 2012 Agenda contains these excerpts.

"Target and redistribute goods and resources to people who originate from traditionally excluded, disenfranchised, or other 'disprivileged' groups that have historically been the victims of discrimination." - Agenda for Social Justice: Solutions 2012, Critical Diversity Policy Reform.

Take from those that have and give to those that (allegedly) don't; the quintessential Marxist credo.

"Based on the premise that those who start at the bottom have farther to go in order to make it to the top, educational institutions should select those from disprivileged backgrounds when choosing among equally or near equally qualified applicants according to conventional indicators. [...] In addition, colleges should include in their admissions criteria special consideration for applicants who have endured residential instability (e.g., homelessness, migratory work patterns, etc.) or other residential hardships." - Agenda for Social Justice, ibidem. 

A system based upon favoritism of the "disprivileged" (typically proletarian groups) as opposed to merit. Children living in better circumstances through no fault of their own, should be passed over, for children living in less fortunate circumstances. When two applicants with comparable scores are being considered, choose the illegal immigrant to advance "social justice" under the specious rationale they've suffered more adversity, even if their scores are lower.

"Resist attempts to reverse diversity policies. Diversity has been a governmental issue since people of color, women, members of the LGBT community, and other previously excluded or disadvantaged groups have pressed the government for greater inclusion. [...] It is important to demonstrate to organizational members that diversity is institutionally beneficial. [...] Although such differences may lead to some communication barriers and group conflict, diversity increases the opportunity for creativity and the quality of the product of group work." - Agenda for Social Justice, ibidem.

Again, the inherent stupidity illustrated is remarkable. They promote diversity as "beneficial," and then proceed to concede precisely why it isn't. It causing communication barriers and conflict is precisely why it's not beneficial, in a business environment, or any other. As someone who's had to work with multiple people who speak broken English, not only does it decrease productivity, cause conflict and division, but it's even a safety hazard. Not only is it far more laborious to train such people, but I've experienced several instances in which a coworker who wasn't a native English speaker (perhaps for fear of being thought ignorant), engaged in blatant dissimulation by claiming to understand instruction they did not. Something which, if taken at face value, could have resulted in expensive damage to equipment or worse. Simply look at our country, in which excessive ideological and cultural diversity has produced interminable bickering, conflict, and erosion of the rule of law to see the same thing illustrated on a macro level. "Diversity" hasn't produced unity or wide scale benefit for society. Rather, it produces enervation, foments discord, and acts as sand in the works.

Ultimately, the goal of the SSSP is more diversity, and particularly of the more radical sort. As it says in its Agenda, "Go beyond just celebrating diversity." It overtly supports "homosexuality" and "transgenderism." One of its "featured abstracts," is from yet another leftist Sociologist, Jaime McCauley, entitled "A Family Affair: Reclaiming 'Family Values' as Movement Strategy in Same-Sex Marriage Activism." Within which she promotes profoundly manipulative strategies to advance "gay rights."

"In the months before a crucial vote on same-sex marriage Massachusetts activists identified legislators who have lesbian or gay family members and arranged for these family members to meet with their politically powerful relatives in hopes to sway their vote in favor of same-sex marriage. This level of political knowledge and access allows the Massachusetts movement to make successful moves in order to advance their rights." 

Thus the SSSP is plainly naught but a cabal of radically leftist/Marxist academics. 

Anyway back to Korie Edwards, whom Beau cites in his sermon, and which he claims the elders of The Village Church are all reading. Korie likewise is going to be a speaker at an upcoming 9Marks event. A quasi-Christian organization the president of which is "progressive" (Marxist) pastor Mark Dever. 

Other speakers at 9Marks include leftist Judy Wu Dominick, who lamented following the election of Donald Trump, that "I stood alone on my deck and wept." The ostensible pervasiveness of white racism seems a recurring motif in Judy's prosaic contributions for various "Christian" publications. She describes how she became a radical leftist, ashamed of becoming Americanized, and "crusaded on social media and at the dinner table" for others she likewise deemed oppressed racial and ethnic minorities. Ultimately, she realized that peddling her insidious racial screed under the banner of Christ (i.e., subverting the church from within) by construing it as "loving" your enemies, was a far more effective means of procuring leftist proselytes.

Who better to help me acquire a "better understanding of whiteness" than an Asian woman? As usual, the audacity of leftist condescension is astounding. Imagine if I were to put on an event called "addressing blackness," for the purpose of helping others achieve a "better understanding" of blackness.

I don't have time to research every single one of these people. But from what I understand, not a single Republican speaker will be participating in (was invited to) this event, and only about 1% of said speakers are white. Superbly illustrating and vindicating my longstanding claim that the term "diversity," when used by leftists, is merely a coded synonym for "anti-white" or "less white." Or less male, Christian, heterosexual, American, Republican, et al., depending on the nature of the organization or situation. Basically whatever is the opposite of the "traditional" demographic or "normative" value system, because as I have long said the goal of "diversity" is reduce the number of all things traditionally American, and supplant them with all things not traditionally American. Typically under the pretext of egalitarianism, fostering "unity," and the myth that diversity for the sake of diversity somehow makes everything inherently better. 

Simply injecting people of all types and from all walks of life into an institution, or a nation for example, is no more beneficial to such than tossing socks of all colors and types into to my sock drawer benefits my sock drawer. All that accomplishes in a best case scenario, is a drawer full of socks you don't need for any particular reason, present merely for the sake of being "different" than the socks you do need. It does effectively displace, extirpate, (and if done long enough ultimately supplant) your regular socks (traditional element) however. That is the real objective. It's not to achieve racial "unity," but to erode and extirpate traditional culture and values, with the ultimate goal of replacing them with the cultures and values of other peoples. It's a form of socio-political ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by the left who, in order to establish a truly Communist state, must first eliminate the extant system of governance, and those who sustain it, or at least marginalize them in power and number to the extent they can no longer obstruct it.

The goal of Matt Chandler and Beau Hughes is to gradually replace white Christians with non-white Marxists. Why else would they all be reading and citing a racist Marxist Sociologist in their sermons? They're conducting leftist social engineering in their church. Because the notion that America is inherently and irreparably racist is a core ideological tenet of Marxist theory.

"Their foremost weapon to maintain their dominance is racism. [....] Institutionalized racism provides billions in extra profits for the capitalists every year due to the unequal pay racially oppressed workers receive for work of comparable value. In every aspect of economic and social life, African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Arabs and Middle Eastern peoples, and other nationally and racially oppressed people experience conditions inferior to that of whites." - Communist Party Platform. 

This is why the SSSP, with which Korie Edwards is affiliated, recommends to "redistribute goods and resources to people who originate from traditionally [...] disprivileged groups," i.e., away from whites, fundamentalist Christians, heterosexuals, men, etc., and to African Americans, Latinos, Arabs, women, Muslims, etc. It's the natural result, in terms of policy, of subscribing to the Marxist platform in principle (depicted above).

There is perhaps no more quintessential tool of Classical Marxism than class warfare, which advancing the notion of "white privilege" serves to foment, by dividing Americans into racial classes; thereby turning "privileged" whites into a racial bourgeois, if you will, and the non-privileged people of other races into non-white proletariat. A socio-political rift, and form of class enmity, that's similar in function and purpose to the traditional Marxist strategy of inciting the poor (proletariat) to hate the rich (bourgeois). 

It should also be understood that incessantly elevating every other culture and people, is merely an indirect way of demoting and deprecating white culture and whites, which will without question foment division and resentment among whites. Exposing the notion its proponents are seeking "unity" fallacious. The reality is they want whites to be the object of derision, and to confiscate their wealth and redistribute it to themselves, because they're profoundly envious and malicious human beings. (And because that's what Socialists do.) Indeed, "white privilege" is naught but a synonym for envy, in much the same manner the proletariat of old was easily inveigled because it was envious of the bourgeois. 

Frankly, this shouldn't even require research. It's pretty much a given that the vast preponderance of academics are Marxists, particularly in the Sociology department, and yet Matt Chandler and Beau Hughes are apparently completely oblivious to this and peddling the works of such subversives on par with sacred writ from their pulpits. Or they do know, and are doing it deliberately, because they agree. (As Joe said he believes in white privilege.) Those, as is so often the case, are the only two options. Ignorance or complicity. They're either lucid subversives, advancing the Marxists agenda of their own volition, or their "useful idiots."

So what we're seeing is the same process that's been occurring for decades in politics. The slow and gradual subversion of the state is being mirrored in the church, as vacuous leftist demagogues have ascended to (and monopolized) positions of prominence within the church just as they have the state, the message of both being largely identical in substance. The language has merely been modified to be more palatable in and to a church setting and audience. Which frankly takes little more than talking about "love" and mentioning "Jesus" a lot. Pastors are encouraging congregations to place "unity" over principle, and therefore to embrace as equal adherents those who support infanticide, under the pretext that God cares more about unity than stopping genocide. God, who obliterated two whole cities for the practice of sodomy, wills you to embrace those that openly and actively support, or even unrepentantly practice that same behavior, because church "unity" is of paramount importance. 

As Beau Hughes states in his sermon.

"Our Father cares deeply about racial diversity and unity, and as His sons and daughters, we should care deeply, too." - Beau Hughes, ibidem.

Sounds like a perfectly "Christian" disposition. Right?

"The Communist Party seeks to build broad unity to achieve the strategic and tactical goals of the working class. The major obstacle to working class unity is capitalist class-promoted racism, which must be fought by all. Full unity will only be built when substantial numbers of white workers participate in the fight for full equality and against racism, based on an understanding of their self-interest in class unity. [....] The problems of exploitation, oppression, and survival facing humankind can only be solved, ultimately, by the elimination of the exploitative system of capitalism. Our survival depends on a transformation to socialism. [...] That means building unity for peace, for protecting and expanding democracy, for living-wage jobs, for universal health care, for real equality for all those who are nationally or racially oppressed and women, for an end to the political control of the ultra-right over our political institutions. - Communist Party Platform, ibidem.

See, "unity" is very important to Communists also. It appears in their platform about 80 times. Conversely it appears in The Bible (KJV) 3 times. Now, "unity" in and of itself is not a Marxist concept, but the notion it requires "addressing" or "dismantling" "white privilege" absolutely is.  

Now go back to the beginning of this contribution and watch Matt Chandler's video again. How many people do you think, without juxtaposition against its Marxist origins and inspiration, would recognize it for what it actually is? Virtually none. Because just as in the political arena the modus operandi of Marxists is the Trojan Horse. They conceal their ideology within other, accepted belief systems and principles, to prevent people from realizing they're being indoctrinated into another ideology at all. And thus Beau simply construes the Communist Party's platform as God's agenda, inducing the misconception that Christianity and Communism are aligned, ultimately resulting in their conflation among the ignorant. 

In closing, these men are not pastors, they are (either by ignorance or design) Marxist subversives. Anyone resting his ass upon the pews of their humanist "church" (as Marxism is a secular ideology) is imbibing a racist, anti-white, subversive ideology pretending to be Christianity. And as such I advise you not only leave, but knock the dirt off your shoes as you do so.