Cheat Engine

[1929394839292057839194958]

Time to ignore this guy forever lmao

[Antagonist]

[mdthr]

[Antagonist]

[Channel GannoK]

Antagonist, rather than trying to measure how big Trump's dick is, I know that's what you love to do all hours of the day, why don't you listen to some facts instead of disregarding it. If you don't watch this, you truly are ignorant and are now arguing from a position of ignorance.

I'll even provide a transcript if you're too incompetent to understand spoken logic


Link

[Antagonist]

Kyle is tryna stump the Trump but it is ineffective.

[1929394839292057839194958]

The fact that someone is winning does not mean that they are morally sound, a better candidate or that your arguments for that person are any more sound or that the opposition is any less sound.

I don't know why I've had to say this as many times as I have.

[Antagonist]

[1929394839292057839194958]

Just because someone holds the title of being a top lawyer, that does not make me completely ignore what I've seen. It is UNDENIABLE to me that he incited and encouraged the violence. It isn't even an argument, it is clear as day in video footage on more than one occasion. If you're going to argue that I should ignore what I've seen because someone who works in the industry says legally he didn't or some shit, I don't fucking care what he did legally because I watched him do it full stop. It does not matter to me whether he can be prosecuted for it, he definitely did incite it.

[Antagonist]

[HitIer]

Konr rhymes with boner. hahahah


HAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHHEHHAHAHEHAEHAHAHAHEUGUHGHGHGUHGGHGHUGHGHGUGHGU[/quote]

[1929394839292057839194958]

[HitIer]

This is a story about how your humble narrator attempted to build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. It is also the story of what happened as a result. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming book on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, some people don't seem to mind that Antagonist likes to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships. What an indelicate, salacious world we live in!

Think about that for a moment. Antagonist's expositions were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the “innocents”. Rather, Antagonist's values are neo-depraved by any measure. Given that they're intended to nourish brutal, mutinous ideologies, they come close to being a crime. Antagonist says he's not vindictive, but he's really dour and that's essentially the same thing. I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to pursue virtue and knowledge. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Antagonist has somehow managed to get the media to pay rapt attention to his yawping propositions. I don't know what sort of Jedi mind control he's been using to pull that off, but I do know that the key to summoning up the courage to speak out against the worst types of materialistic, rebarbative ultracrepidarians I've ever seen lies in uniting civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience.

Given that the careless system Antagonist has created is impregnable to reform, it appears that our available options are currently somewhat limited. One possibility is to step back and consider the problem of his asseverations in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. Another possibility is to pass out flyers in public places that illustrate how gutless, malevolent pronks are often found at Antagonist's elbow. This suggests to me that all of the claims I've read regarding the benefits of Antagonist's initiatives have been utterly premature. That is, they always seem to be based on an inadequate exploration of these initiatives, their history, and their possible meanings. I, not being one of the many brain-damaged killjoys of this world, assert it is therefore high time we throw off Antagonist's yoke of credentialism. Let me start the ball rolling with the observation that Antagonist has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches Antagonist's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of Pyrrhonism and how trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. As you listen to Antagonist's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that he likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what Antagonist is pushing is both insensitive and cankered.

Antagonist's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings) and therefore—not surprisingly—he always arrives at that very conclusion. I don't mean to sound like a crapehanger, but I am truly concerned that Antagonist will practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of combative death cult sooner than you think. Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on his disagreeable fibs? I think we do.

If you've ever read a Web site's terms of use then many characteristics of Antagonist's zingers will sound like the “what you're not allowed to post” section. They're unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, and otherwise objectionable. Or, to restate that concept without all the legal jargon, Antagonist is a man utterly without honor, without principles, without a shred of genuine patriotism. That's why I say that he occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to poke someone's eyes out. You probably know exactly what I mean. Hence and therefore, what really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him foster debauchery or he'll break us up into a set of quarreling, wrangling, squabbling factions.

I, for one, have no doubt that Antagonist will cause me to abandon all hope. He has done that before to many others who have dared to disagree with him, and no doubt he will do it again, and again, and again. I allege that my only ability to thwart this clueless effort is to alert the public that Antagonist thinks that his faith in savagism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. My general thesis is that if he successfully prevents us from issuing a call to conscience and reason, we will rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. We will promote the free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints. We will ensure that everyone knows that I know through painful experience that Antagonist's coalition of pernicious poseurs and intolerant agitators is filled with weak-willed, manipulable rampallions who believe Antagonist's story that he's above everyone else. The more I reflect on such things, the more deeply I believe that Antagonist's gibes raise a number of brow-furrowing questions. I'm referring to questions such as, “What exactly is the principle that rationalizes Antagonist's irascible, untoward theories?” It's questions like that that indeed get people thinking about how Antagonist's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only obstreperous answers, deranged resolutions to conflicts. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: I would obviously like to believe that Antagonist acts with our interests in mind. I really would. But Antagonist sure makes it difficult to believe such things. For instance, he wants to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants.

Antagonist shouldn't reduce religion to a consumer item in a spiritual supermarket. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his sophistries are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. If treasonous survivalists really believed in equality, they wouldn't misdirect, discredit, disrupt, and otherwise neutralize his opponents. Now I could go off on that point alone, but every one of us has a role in saving this country from his alabandical guild. We all know that he has put our country in trouble. We may disagree on what to do about it, but we all know that our country is in trouble. May I suggest, therefore, that we ratchet up our level of understanding? Doing so may help even termagant, prodigal menaces see that we all know, in the world that surrounds us, that there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers and haters and hypocritical, linguacious knuckle-draggers who scheme to persuade many of Antagonist's castigators to enter into a one-way “dialogue” with Antagonist. What is often easy to forget, however, is that Antagonist is absolutely determined to believe that sin is good for the soul, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way.

Antagonist's ramblings serve only to make people increasingly doolally. At some point, we'll reach a “doolally event horizon” where everything in the universe will be doolally. At that point, it will no longer matter that Antagonist wants us to believe that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of “insiders”. This of course is nonsense without any empirical validity, but Antagonist so vehemently insists that his rejoinders will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society that this has come to be accepted wisdom, at least by unforgiving reavers. Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, if I am correctly informed, his latest stratagems are particularly deplorable, even by Antagonist's deplorable standards. In any case, he was a clumsy desperado when I first encountered him. He's a clumsy desperado now. And there is no more reason for believing that he will ever cease to be a clumsy desperado than there is for supposing that once Antagonist has approved of something it can't possibly be temerarious.

Antagonist's quarrelsome whinges are barren of worth and bereft of purpose. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Antagonist will retaliate by doing away with intellectual honesty. What he is doing is akin to painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. I'm not saying that facetiously; as people who know me unequivocally realize, I always mean what I say and say what I mean. They also realize that Antagonist piously intones, in the hushed tones usually reserved for sacred words spoken in church, that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. No, scratch that. Let me instead make the much stronger claim that Antagonist must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Antagonist accuses me of admitting that neocolonialism is a wonderful thing. What I actually said is that Antagonist's remarks are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're absolutely supercilious, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, Antagonist's detachment from, or denial of, the truth is not just a political tactic or say-anything-to-please character flaw. It reveals an elemental attitude that he shares with the most scummy rascals I've ever seen: confusing, befuddling, and neutralizing public opposition.

Plan to join Antagonist's camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door. Antagonist is typical of rotten Fagins in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his holier-than-thou attitudes. Having reached this letter's desition, I just want to leave you with the thought that Antagonist's voluble, blowsy form of isolationism has been spreading across the country like plague through a circa-1348 European town.

[Antagonist]

[HitIer]

I know surprisingly little about Trump incites violence. I know nothing about its background or origin. I do not know when Trump incites violence was created or what it has done besides hornswoggle people into voting against their own self interests. Nevertheless, I can tell you all that you need to know about it. Permit me this forum to rant. Trump incites violence contends that education should teach the precepts of Tartuffism and the duties of man towards self-aggrandizing pseudoscientists. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates.

In theory, Trump incites violence's eulogists avouch that the masses are muzzy-headed and unfit for citizenship. But in reality, the very genesis of Trump incites violence's garrulous communications is in Pyrrhonism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that it will eventually itself be destroyed by Pyrrhonism. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must interfere with my efforts to oppose Trump incites violence and all it stands for. Trump incites violence does that even when its liberties aren't being threatened.

If Trump incites violence had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages “before technocracy” it wouldn't be so keen to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that it may be generating. Maybe it'd even begin to realize that it justifies its hectoring surmises with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don't accept Trump incites violence's claim that its ruderies are Right with a capital R then it will lionize illiberal mumpsimuses. My friends, I must say to you that I myself want nothing more—or less—than to adduce abundant evidence that two-faced analphabetics have exerted care always to use high-sounding words like “pericardiomediastinitis” to hide Trump incites violence's plans to glorify apolaustic adulterers (especially the callous type). To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise. Everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that we desperately need to stop Trump incites violence's encroachments on our heritage. It's not enough merely to keep our heads down and pray that Trump incites violence doesn't snooker people of every stripe into believing that lying is morally justifiable as long as it's referred to as “strategic deception”. As I like to say, if you set the bar low, you jump low. Trump incites violence habitually reads negative meanings into innocuous remarks. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.