Paul Joseph Watson is a great friend of the site. He’s helped spread some of our entries far and wide through his social media, as well as on InfoWars and PrisonPlanet. Not only does he do great work on his own, the guy really helps smaller commentators like myself and many, many others. Yesterday, he again tweeted out one of my posts. It was the update I did on Dan Grilo, a Hillary/Obama shill who lost his job after he trashed military widow Carryn Owens.

Mr. Watson makes an interesting point. Is it right to laugh about this guy losing his job? Should conservatives really applaud when someone loses a gig over an asinine comment? I’m an independent, but for the sake of this argument, I will become trans-conservative. And it’s fair to say I’m an anti-SJW who is against much of the progressive cultural push we’ve seen over the last 5-10 years, so you don’t really have to be a conservative to comment one way or the other.

Chances are, if you read this blog, you’ve seen these sorts of posts before.

I laughed when Alison Rapp got fired. In fact, I might have even called for her to get fired, if I recall correctly, although I didn’t make the same call in Mr. Grilo’s case. Her issue was a little different, since she was talking about pedophilia and stuff like that while also trying to hold down a public relations job with Nintendo, the same company who markets a shitload of products to children. But I saw many arguments in favor of her keeping her job from people who might agree with me on criticizing her in the first place over her radical feminist ideology.

And you can substitute many other cases for Rapp or Grilo. Katie Rich, the Saturday Night Live writer, was placed on indefinite leave from her job after the tweet she made during the inauguration about Barron Trump being a school shooter. Was it right that her career took a hit over a nasty joke likely made in haste on Twitter? She hasn’t been credited on SNL since her dust-up and might never be again.

Should we cheer this?

A large part of me says yes, we should go after our enemies with the same zeal they go after us. They try to get people on our “side” shitcanned all the time. These people don’t care about ruining lives and careers, so why should we care once they put themselves in the crosshairs? I mean, “progressives” and SJWs pretty much invented the outrage culture in the first place. Aren’t they just receiving the rewards they so richly deserve? Many responses to Paul’s tweet said that we were making Grilo play by his own rules, which is the truth. So why should any of us feel bad about him facing the same consequences he wants to make people like us face when we fuck up?

However, he did apologize. Even Katie Rich apologized. Some would say that’s enough. Maybe it is, I don’t know. I’ve certainly said and done some things that mark me out as an “undesirable.” I don’t think it’s fair that my entire life and career be defined by those moments of weakness and indiscretion. Thus, I am a bit conflicted on the issue. Still, I have paid the price in many ways, and in fact I have more to pony up during this calendar year.

Perhaps a lost job or a derailed career is the burden these people need to shoulder for the culture they helped to create?

To be honest, I don’t know the right answer to this question. My position has vacillated, depending on the person and on the incident….and yes, whether or not I ideologically agree with them. What is your take? Do you hold hard and fast to the same standard every time one of these things pops up? Maybe there are mitigating factors you take into account. Or, there could be certain situations and actions you find to be forgivable, while others are not. Is it important to keep one standard, no matter who is the subject, in order to be ideologically consistent?

I’m not sure, but I do know that the topic is a good one for discussion. I wrote 700 words on it while barely scratching the surface.

Now, I’d like to read a few words from you all, if you have the time.

  1. I hear you, Ethan. On the one hand, I am filled with glee at the blood-letting and my only desire is to sink the blade even further, especially given how diligently these fucktards have sharpened it – let’s not let all that good work go to waste!

    On the other hand, I look at what’s happened to Milo and think “fuuuuuuck”…… no one should lose their job over a dumbass tweet or comment. A pattern of consistent behaviour is one thing – a single abusive tweet should earn a spanking and no desert.

    I’m torn, too.

    1. Karma.

      She is a cruel mistress.

      These people who cheer Milo being destroyed will one day have their lives destroyed.

      And I, for one, will not shed a tear for them.

      1. We saw this with Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch. They were attacked by both the left and the Alt-Lite. They had a habit of dissing on the Alt-Lite, and got no support in return when they were attacked. We’re seeing the reverse now, with Milo getting attacked by the Left and TRS. The Left does a better job at appering unified (despite the fact that they are not) then we do.

        The next time anyone to the right of Trump, from Milo to the Neo-Nazis get attacked, circle the wagons. Buffer your defense with the fact that you don’t agree, but make a defense and then attack the attackers with as much force as you can. Salon attacks Milo? Point out that they have had an admitted pedophile as one of their writers. Rolling Stone attacks Mike Enoch? Rip on them about the fake rape case and how they publish rumors, don’t fact-check anything, and are in the process of getting sued over it.

    2. I think the pattern aspect is important. Also, what does the rest of the career say about them, etc. I certainly understand what Paul is getting at, although like you, I think my glee sometimes gets the best of me during times like these lol.

  2. There’s a bit of a difference between:

    Cheering when your enemies are harmed by their own rules.
    Actively calling for said harm.
    Directly causing said harm.

    This article presents all of these as the same.

    As an example from me, I hate Rekt Hook. They embody everything wrong with the whole SJW bullshit and red pilled me about it. I’d laugh and fap furiously if they self destructed. I’d call for said self destruction. I wouldn’t make them actually suicide.

    1. I think calling for an actual suicide or something like that is another thing altogether, although perhaps you meant that as a figure of speech.

      But yea, there’s a difference between laughing about someone getting fired, calling for them to get fired, or somehow causing them to get fired. I didn’t mean to portray them all as the same thing, I simply wanted to touch on all the different aspects.

      They definitely aren’t all the same. As I mentioned in the post, I didn’t call for Dan Grilo to get fired, but I did write a mocking and somewhat triumphant post when he *did* get fired..

  3. I don’t usually take glee so much as satisfaction at the poetic justice well served. The only way we’ll retire outrage culture is if it becomes as oppressive and fraught with danger to the people who have created and promulgated it as it is to those of us they thought they could keep on the receiving end forever.

  4. It’s Karma.

    I do admit I get a bit happy when our enemies get fired, but I never call upon them to be fired, just live up to the standards that they, themselves, put out there.

    So when I see them getting fired for things that have cost other people their jobs, I can relax and go “Karma is a bitch”.

    And how many of us cheered and laughed when Gawker went down? Face it, sometimes people get what’s coming to them and you can’t help but smile and laugh. Maybe you don’t wish them to lose everything personally, but you have to admit it’s Karma when it happens.

    1. What’s up with your “Leftist/GOPe hand-wringing” over wanting to get people fired…folks who, given the chance, would gleefully applaud someone beheading YOU?!?

      You sound as passive as Jeb Bush.

          1. *Yawn* That the best you got, buttercup? Insult me?

            Please, you’re more pathetic than Trigglypuff.

          2. Like I wrote someone else further down (paraphrasing):
            enjoy your noble death…being “right” and being destroyed by the Left in the process.

  5. I neither cheer or feel bad.
    Ask Brendan Eich.
    What ARE the rules?
    I am willing to declare a truce but not unilaterally disarm.
    I’ve heard of no white flag to negotiate a truce, only escalation to violence, or more psychotic behavior (watch the Women’s pussyhat march speeches).

    War is something to be avoided, but once it happens, even if undeclared, the only answer is total victory.

    1. Yep! These other folks here are saying in effect nothing more than the GOPe mott:,
      “I’m glad to lose, lose, lose and keep on losing, as long as I can say I’m ‘right’ and ‘moral’.”

      It doesn’t get more stupid than that…especiall since it IS a matter of survival at this point,
      as you rightly point out.

  6. Ultimately, my position has become one of approval of this behavior on our end. I don’t regard it through the prism of morality, of high road vs low road shit, or consistency. I regard this through the spectrum of total war.

    As it stands, those who are up against us have absolutely no line that they won’t cross, no dirty move that they won’t pull, and no radical stunt that they’re not too crazy to try. They delight in the suffering of others, when those people are their chosen adversary. They completely dehumanize everyone they oppose and reserve not even the most basic and necessary forms of respect for their opposition (which has, admittedly, served our cause greatly as of late)

    I argue that we must, by necessity, subject them to the same form of cultural warfare that they subject us to. They must be made to bare the same burden they place on others through outrage and victim-hood culture. It is only by making them as disgusted with it as we are that it will end.

      1. I’ve always considered warfare through the lens of the least common denominator. Whoever acts the worst sets the bar for what is allowable in the conflict. In a flesh and blood and bullets and bombs style war, one might argue that the moral authority that comes with restraint is what will bring you victory, but this is only true if there are several other parties involved in the war who you can sway to your side through a lighter touch.

        This is a cultural/ideological conflict being fought mostly through legal ploys and community pressure. Everyone already has a side or is avoiding the conflict until it hurts them personally. There’s no reason to use restraint. The only way we win this is by making them so sick of the conflict that they surrender. We can only make them that sick by using their own tactics against them. Everything else simply riles them up.

        1. A couple of observations:

          “…that the moral authority that comes with restraint is what will bring you victory…”
          COMMENT: It’s also dependent on whether an aggressive or passive tactic at any particular point in the conflict will move you towards victory, victory being the ultimate objective of said war.

          “Everyone already has a side or is avoiding the conflict until it hurts them personally.”
          COMMENT: Yep. The Neimöller *thang* (“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist…”)

          “Everything else simply riles them up.”
          COMMENT: True; it only encourages the Left. It’s as if these “we’re better than they are” fools on the Right *want* to put a KICK ME, I’M STUPID sticker on their foreheads. The sad part is their limp-wristedness adversely afffects the rest of us!

          You would have thought these fools would have learned from e.g. the Bushes of the political world…but, nooooo! So, it’s time to ask them to move aside or prepared to be lumped in with the enemy (reference: GOP Establishment).

          1. Honestly? I’ve always chalked it up to them agreeing on all of the things that are actually important to them. Like the issue of immigration. What member of the GOP elite wouldn’t want it?

    1. To elaboate upon what you wrote:

      EXCERPT: “In truth, the only way to stop the left is by arresting their militant component — not for their beliefs, but for their willfulness to incite violence. It is time to give the fascists what they want. They want war, but they defend their violence by claiming free speech. Free speech does not protect war, so take the war to them.”


  7. The answer is you adapt your tactics to the battlefield before you. Whether you prefer to fight dirty, valiantly or not at all is irrelevant. It is the battlefield that decides the tactics for you, not viceversa.

    When they first engaged in chemical warfare during WWI, the act legitimized it for everyone else. You may not like chemical warfare, you may think it’s evil, but once the enemy engages in it your choice in the matter is taken away.

    Unless of course you’re a conservative who, being conservative, is thrilled at the prospect of noble defeat. If you engaged in chemical warfare against conservatives, they’d refuse to retaliate in kind because doing so would undermine their chances of losing with grace.

    Alt Right portal:

    1. Your last paragraph says it all: for decades the Right has in effect been virtue signalling (a more polite way of saying “engaging in cerebral onanism”) on its own by deluding itself that IF THEY behave in a proper, moral, decent manner, they’ll win the fight (INSERT: “bwahahahahaha” HERE) and maybe persuade the othr side to behave more morally in the future.


  8. These people should absolutely be held to their own standards. They wouldn’t hesitate to fire one of “our” own, so we should not hesitate to get theirs fired as well. The is war. You either fight to win or you get killed.

    PJW is acting like a damn cuck. Does he or anyone else who takes this line think the left will go easy on us if we go easy on them? They won’t. They would love nothing more than for us to not fight back and let their aggression go unopposed.

    The Deuce has it right: “The only way we’ll retire outrage culture is if it becomes as oppressive and fraught with danger to the people who have created and promulgated
    it as it is to those of us they thought they could keep on the receiving end forever.”

    I would love to live in a country again where anyone can express his or her political views without fear of getting fired. But that country no longer exists, and it’s not the right who killed it. This is a war the SJW left started, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to allow myself and my political allies to be destroyed out of some misplaced desire to avoid “hypocrisy.”

    As Vox Day often says, don’t confuse tactics for objectives.

  9. As other have said this is war and we crossed the Rubicon quite awhile ago, there’s nothing left for us now but victory or defeat and if we want victory we can’t afford to treat an enemy we know to be dishonorable honorably and expect to win.

  10. I won’t call for anyone to get fired, and even made a site for SJWs who do (, but watching an SJW get the axe is still satisfying. Maybe I’ve been listening to too much Christopher Cantwell, but I enjoy seeing the left’s weapons being used on them. It’s like a form of poetic justice.

    I draw the line at initating this form of censorship, but after they start using it we almost have to use it to avoid a large disparity in tactics. We’re the Alt-Right, not Cuckservatives. When the enemies play dirty, we go into the mud instead of losing. Our children will want us to play dirty and win rather than play fair and lose.

    1. You didn’t make the SJW List. That was Vox Day. Don’t try to attribute his accomplishments to yourself.

  11. Because it is so hard to find work and because losing a good job to something so severe as public stupidity, I do not applaud people losing jobs UNLESS their employment at a specific business is, in itself, posing a danger to broader society through their actions and ideology. Alison Rapp is a good example of someone you can applaud getting fired – not only is she a degenerate who was actively tarnishing Nintendo’s family-friendly image (while being in PR for fucks sake), but her “toxic” (I really am coming to hate that word) ideology posed a direct threat towards gaming culture by normalizing SJW values and principles (if you can call them that). So, to sum up, I feel bad when someone loses their livelihood, because it’s horrible and it effectively silences them (SJWs enjoy that part especially) but there are some people who are doing harm from their position of employment and that needs to be addressed.

    1. Possible replacements for “toxic” ideology:

  12. Karma and own medicine. These parasites would be very happy to ruin and destroy someone’s life for their own political agenda. And they’ll do it by lies, deceit and slander.

    Let them know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of the same blade the SJWs sharpened themselves. Maybe then they’ll learn to stop bullying, lynch-mobbing and harrassing others.

    When a SJW get fired from his/her job, I don’t cheer, and nor do I get any satisfaction from it. I just think: “have some of your own medicine”.

    So fuck ’em.

  13. Yes, I was glad to read the asshole lost his job. I get really really tired of ‘our side’ being held to account when the real hate comes from the left. They fling their ire around with abandon and god help you if you call them on it. Not so on the right. They always want to seem to back down and take the ‘high’ road. They WON’T fight back. So, yes I loved seeing this.

    But, I don’t think people should necessarily lose their job because of shitty, hateful, nasty rhetoric. There is that freedom of speech thing hanging there. For instance, if my employer knew I called all libs retards, I would not be happy to get fired for it. After all, that is just my opinion and it has nothing to do with my employer.

  14. I just laughed at the irony. These heartless people are screaming about hate even though they are a bunch of hateful emotional twats. I laughed when i see ’em getting a taste of their own medicine.

    I mean FFS Hillary is using the Khan family to bash Trump and it’s OK, but Trump just simply honoring a fallen soldier’s widow and that means he’s using her & that makes her look like an idiot? Fuck this asshole!

    That’s right, i laughed, HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

  15. I’d like to live in a culture where stray comments don’t obliterate careers.

    But as long as SJW-types are actively straining to maintain and strengthen these social powers of destruction, they shouldn’t be shocked when the shrapnel affects everyone. Eventually, even patient people will reciprocate in kind.

  16. PJW might be a great guy…but, I wouldn’t follow him into a fight. Compassion for your enemy is weakness and only emboldens future enemies. If you’re not willing eclipse your opponents cruelty they already have an advantage over you by knowing just how far you’re willing to go…they know you’ll always concede the high ground to keep your principles intact.

    This reminds me of our soldiers needing to be shot at first before engaging an enemy…purposefully handicapping yourself. It’s stupid and only demoralizes your forces. Fight with a ferocity that terrifies your opponents and reminds others to think twice about testing your resolve.

    1. The Japanese used that methodology to justify their treatment of American POWs and “no surrender” policies of their own side. Terrorists today use that methodology too.

      What you are essentially saying is “The ends justify the means.” Do you think that’s what should be adopted? Doesn’t that make us no different than the Left?

          1. Your “message”
            has been approved by
            Burma Shave and Jeb Bush.

            *rolls eyes AND face palm*

  17. I think we can be against people being fired over internet comments, but at the same time experience schadenfreude when bad things happen to horrible people. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

    1. Also the real lesson to be learned here is the Clintonian/Obamist establishment wing of the DNC is now afraid of appearing anti-American or anti-vet again. The opportunity that this presents is one of simply shining a spotlight on the sort of rhetoric and behavior we see all the time in the already humiliated and alienated SJW/Prog wing thus causing the former to reflexively clamp down on them and alienate them even further.

    2. WHY be against it?!?
      They are doing their level best to be sure it happens to YOU!
      Why the “in the closet” secretly happy business?!?
      That’s WIMPY to the point of being GOPe/Conservative Inc.!

      1. Because this practice is authoritarian and Orwellian. Free speech should be an absolute. People should be able to say anything without fear for their jobs, no matter which side of the political spectrum they are.

        1. NONSENSE! That free speech may be an “absolute” is a diversion to THE WHOLE POINT that actions rightly have consequences.

          The Left thrives off of the double standard that, while THEIR OWN actions/words are the fault/responsibility of *somebody else* (projection is their raison d’etre), the Right *must* be held accountable for their actions/words.

          You thoughts echo the naivete of the “do your own thing” hippie-era.

          1. “actions rightly have consequences” – I agree, but actions is not the same as words. Conflating the two is a dangerous and downright insane practice. Unless it is a call for violence or shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre nothing should be off limits to say.

            It is the Left who are trying to equate words with violence to establish this authoritarian control over what we say. Look at bill C-16 in Canada – not using their made up pronoun is now against the law.

          2. Well, *thanks* for admitting you want to continue to fight the dirty Left like the GOPe has for decades…with the same (failed) results.
            YOU FIGHT the enemy with the tools in THEIR toolbox.

            What you say about not making “offensive” speech illegal is fine and dandy…
            …and completely irrelevant to the point I’ve made.

            Sort of “virtue signalling” of the Right.

          3. Well, thanks for admitting that you don’t see the bigger picture. If you restrict what could be said in the public space, then you are giving more power to the government. It’s not about Left vs Right – it’s authoritarian vs libertarian and the what you are suggesting is authoritarian and in complete opposition to the First Amendment.

            “What you say about not making “offensive” speech illegal is fine and dandy…
            …and completely irrelevant to the point I’ve made.” – actually it is relevant. What Dan Grilo said was offensive, but not a reason to lose his job.

          4. Your smug, moral superiority reeks of Leftism.
            Get out of the way, or get ready to be steamrolled.

          5. “Your smug, moral superiority reeks of Leftism.” – that’s not an argument, cupcake.

            “Get out of the way, or get ready to be steamrolled.” – I’m not in your way – you are free to do whatever you want. If this was supposed to be some kind of threat it was rather pathetic.

          6. “Threat”?!?

            You are clearly oblivious to current ongoings,
            and prefer to obsess on imagined moral preenings.

            Good luck with THAT, child.

          7. “You are clearly oblivious to current ongoings,
            and prefer to obsess on imagined moral preenings.” – no, I just want to be consistent and not infringe on the right to free speech.

            “Good luck with THAT, child.” – it’s pretty obvious who’s the childish one here.

  18. On the one hand, we probably shouldn’t, because we should be better than the Liberals. But on the other, Liberals deliberately try to get anyone fired if they even have a slight disagreement, so I’m relishing the irony.

  19. I think it’s funny. Do I take particular delight when this cretin loses his job? No. Do I think the employer has the right to fire him? Yes.

    I still think it’s funny.

  20. ” My position has vacillated, depending on the person and on the incident….and yes, whether or not I ideologically agree with them.”

    That is the part that ruins it. Whatever is your choice, you have to be consistent. We criticize double standards took much to use it.

  21. I look at it from a business standpoint since I am a business owner. If one of my employees start using racial or gay slurs or any offensive talk, I have to gage the impact on my business. It does not matter if I agree or not, they may have to be let go. It is not a free speech issue because I am not the government.

    From a moral standpoint, it depends on the reason. Grilo was fired for something he said. Milo is being hounded for something he didn’t say.

    I would say that is the difference, and thus no hypocrisy. I love PJW, but I disagree with him on this.

  22. It depends on what their job is. If its working at Starbucks, then no. But if they have influential job and have proven themselves to be the type to use that position to abuse others than yes.

  23. Frankly, I celebrate the deaths of my enemies, hypocritical or not, they do to you, return it to them.

  24. I have zero sympathy.

    The only way to beat these cretins is to play as dirty as they do. Once the Left resorted to political violence the gloves came off.

  25. It’s a perfectly legitimate stance someone can have on this, that there are some things inappropriate to be doing such as making death threats, supporting pedophilia, or even just being outright rude to customers/readers. People can claim this is demonstrating the “horseshoe theory” in action, but that’s essentially suggesting that acting like acting like an asshole to customers is on par with supporting Trump (or being pro-free speech or whatever other wrongthink).

    While it may be tempting to try and maintain the moral highground by trying to stick to your principles at all times, it can seem a bit ridiculous to do so when all it means is allowing your side to be a punching bag.

    Example: Charles Murray tried speaking at a university. If you support Free Speech you should want to support his ability to speak (especially without having people injured such as happened due to protestors). Yet if you tried sticking to your principles to a ridiculous degree such as Paul Joseph Watson suggests, you could find yourself being led by the nose by your opponents to try and support the protesters right to Free Speech while they attempted to shut down Murray under the reasoning that they’re wanting to use their speech to express disagreement and that it’s wrong to silence them just because you disagree with them.

    As should be plain to see, standing by your principles can result in your opponents attempting to guilt you into going against your principles in order to side with them. It’s worth using some common sense at times like this and appreciating some guy acting like an asshole insulting a widow, actually got fired because of how bad it made the business that would have such a person representing them.

    1. “While it may be tempting to try and maintain the moral highground by
      trying to stick to your principles at all times, it can seem a bit
      ridiculous to do so when all it means is allowing your side to be a
      punching bag.”

      If they are truly your principles, then you won’t care if it makes your side a punching bag. They are your principles; breaking your principles is only self-damnation.

      1. Going against your principles in the ‘name’ of sticking to your principles is not self damnation.

        Another way of thinking of this is attempting to virtue signal rather than practice any virtuous behavior. As being willing to defend a person wanting to limit another person’s speech is not quite the same as wanting to defend someone’s free speech. In such a situation it would be succumbing to the desire to virtue signal or “maintain the moral highground” to go out of your way to defend the person wanting to limit another person’s speech (who is doing so in the name of free speech) when the better action to take is to realize that someone is engaging in ridiculous sophistry to try and convince you to attack your own side or to allow your side to be a punching bag.

        Though I have a hard time imagining that anyone could have misunderstood my original post here considering the pain’s I went to in order to explain my point, so go fuck yourself you dishonest cunt.

        1. “Though I have a hard time imagining that anyone could have misunderstood
          my original post here considering the pain’s I went to in order to
          explain my point, so go fuck yourself you dishonest cunt.”

          No, I understand you perfectly. I simply stand by my principles, which are absolutist in nature. I will not break them, for any reason whatsoever, even if it means my death.

          That’s what being principled means. To do otherwise will result in my self-damnation. I have no interest in abiding in Hell for eternity.

  26. I feel that the punishment is a bit too severe for what he did. Maybe it’s because I’m a leftist, but on the other hand, as a leftist I can say that if you allow yourself to compromise your values… well… it doesn’t end well.

    In any case, I feel that there are very real reasons to call for politicians to be fired or resign and cheer when it happens. However I think that that should be reserved for things such as corruption.

  27. I recognize that every time I point my finger at someone, I have THREE POINTING BACK AT ME.
    Remembering this fact allows more forgiveness for all the other broken human beings.
    I have to be paid to be around my coworkers, so I will let the employer decide.
    The war is not for this world, it is for our souls, and I have lost my share of battles.

  28. Why cheer? and why is it bad or okay? Well, you have to ask yourself, why do you cheer? I guess that is the most important part here. If you cheer because you just dislike the person and you are happy they got fired then I’d say you would be in the wrong… however if you cheer for the fact that said person no longer has a chance to sit in a position of power and ruin it for everyone else… then yes, cheering is okay. Because if you do, then you aren’t cheering that the person was fired, but rather that there is one less person that will oppress other people based on their ideology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.