Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 112

Thread: The disintegration of the American empire

  1. #41
    Fuck this toxic snake pit Fluffy Princess Unicorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    5,763
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
    Tbh though, this may be controversial, but I do believe that America NEEDS to crash and burn in order to make room for something better.
    USA's biggest problem is probably the fact that the founding fathers intended to prevent one corrupt person from possessing too much power when they setup our government system. This backfired, as now the government is filled with corruption and one person trying to implement changes that are much needed, can't actually implement them, because the people with their wallets being fed by the issues don't want to see that change implemented. There's a clog at the very heart of things. That is part of why I think capitalism is going to be the downfall of the USA at some point. The country is essentially choking on the consumption from its own greed.


  2. #42
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    OK, so a determined electorate can get a billionaire who's friends with his opposing candidate elected if he wins the Republican nomination. And it has to be the Republican nominee, because as Sanders' campaigns showed us all, Democrats just cheat whenever a candidate the leadership doesn't like gets too popular.

    If those conditions are met, people can disrupt the status quo by putting another faction of the bourgeoise in some degree of power. What astounding change! After all, Trump did...well, I'm not sure. Assassinated an Iranian, I suppose. Presided over the further decline over this country. Built some fences near Mexico. Real power to the people moment there.
    It's still a ray of hope. Remember, Hillary's campaign outspent Trump's, which means that money wasn't the only deciding factor. And the reason that Trump won, in large part, was his ability to mobilize populist sentiments.

    Besides, what's the alternative: staying home and doing nothing?


    TVs themselves are telling people to vote, and it's not like voting is difficult, especially if you mail in. As for Rupert Murdoch, liberal cable news is no better, and Democrats control probably 90% of MSM. Maybe there's a conspiracy to make Americans stupider, but both sides tell them to vote and spend obscene amounts of money trying to convince people how important it is.

    Are you saying that the GOP is the only authentic voice of democracy in this country, or are you telling me that this is what democracy in action looks like? Because that video is what happens to candidates who genuinely threaten the status quo.
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're asking to me pretend that the Democratic party is principled, then I won't. I'm not a Democrat, and neither liberal nor conservative elites appeal to me. Frankly, speaking as a non-American, both sides of the American culture war seem a little weird (and so would my country's culture wars seem to Americans, probably).
    Last edited by xerx; 11-23-2021 at 04:12 PM.

  3. #43
    The Morning Star EUDAEMONIUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    gone
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,130
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This place is a shithole getting shittier. I don't care about the fall of the American "empire", I just want intact bridges, a reliable electrical grid, and clean drinking water. These are the things that we may not have in the future.
    The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.

    The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".

  4. #44
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noir View Post
    Well yeah, you're comparing the US to all kinds of places (and problems), including a Third World country with extremely high crime rates, poverty, and a currency that is worth less than x5 the USD...and has a complete idiot, Bolsonaro, in charge (the one president who may actually be worse than Trump, and tried saying that Brazilians have a natural immune system against COVID as an excuse to avoid shutting things down, but thankfully the individual states closed things anyway). What you're not comparing to is places like Norway, Netherlands, Iceland, New Zealand, Canada, etc. which are some of the places considered to be the best countries in the world to live in presently.

    Idk, this logic is such a mess I wanted to facedesk...politely...with a friendly smile. :/
    You're saying that just because they all have problems, that means the USA is doing okay.
    1) Other countries listed are not equivalent in rank (as already mentioned), and there are other 1st world countries not listed.
    2) Others having something crappy going on =/= USA not having enough going on for it to be sinking, nor USA doing OK. It's like someone saying, "This car's tire is low." Then someone responding, "well, these other random cars have [problems of varying severity], and one of them has a flat tire, so I think this low tire is OK." It doesn't make sense, does it? You wouldn't say that, you'd simply put air in the tire to repair it, so it doesn't end up flat.


    Idk, I don't have much time today or else I'd add my other points. I think this is sufficient for making my point though.
    I'm comparing it to other major powers, which are large and often militaristic societies, and which have social dynamics that are different from small countries like Norway. The USA is doing as well as other countries in its tier. And the USA is about as likely to likely to disintegrate as those other countries, which isn't happening any time soon. It's certainly a possibility in all of the aforementioned cases. A partial disintegration is certainly conceivable (like the spectre of Northern Ireland leaving the UK), as is the retrenchment of overseas commitments, the loss of spheres of influence, the loss of military bases, and so on. But a full-on disintegration of a centuries old political entity, with deep cultural and economic ties between its constituent regions, is a bigger shift than people realize.

  5. #45
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    It's still a ray of hope. Remember, Hillary's campaign outspent Trump's, which means that money wasn't the only deciding factor. And the reason that Trump won, in large part, was his ability to mobilize populist sentiments.
    Again: Clinton was a war criminal, a regular criminal, and an obvious monster, with the charisma of a wet paper bag to boot, who was the only other choice. If you see it as the people's will to narrow down the choices to Clinton and Trump, then you must believe the people are fucking morons, and I don't know what value you see in "democracy." Next in 2020, according to your worldview, the people decided to replace their former choice with the walking dead. The average Joe on the street believes passionately that there is no one better to be President than a decomposing corpse, and the election stands as a historical monument to the tolerance of liberal society, extended even to the undead.

    No, money spent isn't the only deciding factor. People aren't that mechanized yet; they don't just calculate to the cent how much was spent and sell their vote to the higher bidder. No matter how much Burger King spends on advertisement it can't convince most people its burgers are better than McDonalds'. But both are terrible, and in this analogy you have no choice but to pick one to eat every day for the next few years. That isn't a meaningful choice.

    Besides, liberal media effectively supported Trump during both the Republican primary and the election, giving him free advertising, because they thought that the idea of Trump becoming President was so ridiculous it would cause people to vote for Clinton -- and Clinton was a candidate who probably did better the less she was exposed to media coverage. It was a miscalculation, but it was effective support from the propaganda machine.

    Besides, what's the alternative: staying home and doing nothing?
    Liberal ideology at work. "We can't do anything except vote; therefore voting is doing something."

    Yes, doing "nothing" is preferable. By refusing to participate in the charade you refuse to support it.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you're asking to me pretend that the Democratic party is principled, then I won't. I'm not a Democrat, and neither liberal nor conservative elites appeal to me. Frankly, speaking as a non-American, both sides of the American culture war seem a little weird (and so would my country's culture wars seem to Americans, probably).
    I'm asking you to see that elections are fixed when there's actually danger to the status quo. Which is what the video I linked shows. The Democrats are one of two choices; if the issue is that they aren't "principled" enough not to fix their elections, the only conclusions are that either the Republicans are the only voice for true democracy, that the US doesn't have one, or that the term is meaningless.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 11-23-2021 at 06:36 PM.

  6. #46
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Again: Clinton was a war criminal, a regular criminal, and an obvious monster, with the charisma of a wet paper bag to boot, who was the only other choice. If you see it as the people's will to narrow down the choices to Clinton and Trump, then you must believe the people are fucking morons, and I don't know what value you see in "democracy." Next in 2020, according to your worldview, the people decided to replace their former choice with the walking dead. The average Joe on the street believes passionately that there is no one better to be President than a decomposing corpse, and the election stands as a historical monument to the tolerance of liberal society, extended even to the undead.

    No, money spent isn't the only deciding factor. People aren't that mechanized yet; they don't just calculate to the cent how much was spent and sell their vote to the higher bidder. No matter how much Burger King spends on advertisement it can't convince most people its burgers are better than McDonalds'. But both are terrible, and in this analogy you have no choice but to pick one to eat every day for the next few years. That isn't a meaningful choice.

    Besides, liberal media effectively supported Trump during both the Republican primary and the election, giving him free advertising, because they thought that the idea of Trump becoming President was so ridiculous it would cause people to vote for Clinton -- and Clinton was a candidate who probably did better the less she was exposed to media coverage. It was a miscalculation, but it was effective support from the propaganda machine.
    You say that Clinton lost because she's an obvious monster with no charisma. If we grant that, then she lost because of her platform, political history, and self-presentation. It means that she lost, via a popular poll, in spite of her large support within the establishment.


    Liberal ideology at work. "We can't do anything except vote; therefore voting is doing something."

    Yes, doing "nothing" is preferable. By refusing to participate in the charade you refuse to support it.

    I'm asking you to see that elections are fixed when there's actually danger to the status quo. Which is what the video I linked shows. The Democrats are one of two choices; if the issue is that they aren't "principled" enough not to fix their elections, the only conclusions are that either the Republicans are the only voice for true democracy, that the US doesn't have one, or that the term is meaningless.
    On the contrary, by refusing to participate, you're helping to cement the establishment's boldest claim: that government should be entirely in the hands of a professional class of managers, technocrats, and business persons — the people who contribute the most to political life being, therefore, the people who deserve to decide its outcomes.

    Nevertheless, there are different ways to refuse to vote:

    1. Refusing to vote because no candidate is suitable, yet being outspoken or politically active in trying to change what's being offered. This is still a form of participation, perhaps a necessary one provided that there's no urgency to vote for the lesser of two evils.

    2. Refusing to vote out of apathy or due to a fundamental disagreement with electoral politics. This isn't a form of participation.
    Last edited by xerx; 11-24-2021 at 04:34 AM. Reason: punctuation

  7. #47
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    You say that Clinton lost because she's an obvious monster with no charisma. If we grant that, then she lost because of her platform, political history, and self-presentation. It means that she lost, via a popular poll, in spite of her large support within the establishment.
    OK, I'll grant that Trump wasn't the establishment's first choice. But A) he only won because of strategic miscalculation on the "establishment's" part, and B) he himself was the establishment, and was completely usable by the establishment, and if there was even a chance he weren't he would never have been elected.

    You seem to be pretending that I'm saying voting makes literally no difference to the outcome of any race. My point is that it's not a meaningful difference. If a manager tells employees they can either accept a pay cut or work longer hours, and the workers vote for longer hours, that's not a victory for the workers, no matter if the manager would have preferred they accepted the pay cut. In the same way, when people are offered a "choice" between two rulers, it makes no difference if the majority of our ruling class would prefer one side to win rather than the other. Even when we select the other candidate, the establishment still wins, and everyone else loses.

    "Democracy" exists because it settles disputes between various factions of the ruling class without much bloodshed while dispelling class consciousness among the lower classes. It's a relatively minor concession, because the only fight is between elite and elite -- who would fight anyway, and need some way of resolving their disagreements -- and it ensures non-elites are pacified into not coming for them all as a class. Yes, if you think the elections aren't crooked -- which in America isn't a sure bet -- the people are permitted to choose which faction they'd like to rule them. But they don't get to name their own candidates, nor their own terms. Notice that the best example of an "anti-establishment" candidate you can come up with is a billionaire whose opponent was close enough with him to attend his wedding, He did quite a lot for certain factions of the elite (e.g. investors in private military contracting, oil, or agriculture) but did jack shit for anyone who wasn't an elite. Do you think this is just coincidence? "The people" are just dumb enough to consistently choose time and time again candidates who do nothing for them? If you honestly believe that Trump was the person Americans thought was best suited to be President, do, or Joe Biden for that matter, why not just advocate a nuclear holocaust of the country? Clearly we're retarded.

    On the contrary, by refusing to participate, you're helping to cement the establishment's boldest claim: that government should be entirely in the hands of a professional class of managers, technocrats, and business persons — the people who contribute the most to political life, being, therefore, the people who deserve to decide its outcomes.
    What are you smoking? How do you think we got a professional class of managers, technocrats, and business persons in the first place?! They all snuck in when everyone forgot to vote during one election season or the other? All you can do is say that we should do the same thing we've always done; the very thing that landed us in this position, as if you can cast out Satan through the power of Satan.

    "Vote, vote vote," as people vote for falling standards of living. People vote every goddamned election. The problem isn't that we need to do more of it.

    2. Refusing to vote out of apathy or due to a fundamental disagreement with representative democracy as a system of government. This isn't a form of participation.
    Yes, and that's a good thing.

  8. #48
    Hot Scalding Gayser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The evolved form of Warm Soapy Water
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    14,902
    Mentioned
    661 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Adam Strange is right- both sides being bad for damn sure doesn't mean both sides are equally bad. A world of barren nothing ((wrong-wing Faah the Laaawd ignorant dumbfucks)) vs an actual world albiet with some complicated, messy problems we will all figure out with time and effort. I'll take the actual world, thanks. The SJW gays vs straights/blacks vs whites thing is a red herring - nobody is a big strong man for making fun of that as any 2-year-old toddler could. It's about a barren no-world versus an actual world and I'll take the real world for $500, Alex.

  9. #49
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    TIM
    ENFp-C
    Posts
    1,133
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    as well as a potentially resurgent and rearming Japan.
    Can somewhat confirm. The JSDF just bought a bunch more of the new F-35s. I saw a number of them last time I was on the airbase. I think there's even more on the way too. They're also renovating their aircraft carriers to be compatible with them. I think the first stage of renovations might already be finished(?)
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  10. #50
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    OK, I'll grant that Trump wasn't the establishment's first choice. But A) he only won because of strategic miscalculation on the "establishment's" part, and B) he himself was the establishment, and was completely usable by the establishment, and if there was even a chance he weren't he would never have been elected.

    You seem to be pretending that I'm saying voting makes literally no difference to the outcome of any race. My point is that it's not a meaningful difference. If a manager tells employees they can either accept a pay cut or work longer hours, and the workers vote for longer hours, that's not a victory for the workers, no matter if the manager would have preferred they accepted the pay cut. In the same way, when people are offered a "choice" between two rulers, it makes no difference if the majority of our ruling class would prefer one side to win rather than the other. Even when we select the other candidate, the establishment still wins, and everyone else loses.

    "Democracy" exists because it settles disputes between various factions of the ruling class without much bloodshed while dispelling class consciousness among the lower classes. It's a relatively minor concession, because the only fight is between elite and elite -- who would fight anyway, and need some way of resolving their disagreements -- and it ensures non-elites are pacified into not coming for them all as a class. Yes, if you think the elections aren't crooked -- which in America isn't a sure bet -- the people are permitted to choose which faction they'd like to rule them. But they don't get to name their own candidates, nor their own terms. Notice that the best example of an "anti-establishment" candidate you can come up with is a billionaire whose opponent was close enough with him to attend his wedding, He did quite a lot for certain factions of the elite (e.g. investors in private military contracting, oil, or agriculture) but did jack shit for anyone who wasn't an elite. Do you think this is just coincidence? "The people" are just dumb enough to consistently choose time and time again candidates who do nothing for them? If you honestly believe that Trump was the person Americans thought was best suited to be President, do, or Joe Biden for that matter, why not just advocate a nuclear holocaust of the country? Clearly we're retarded.
    I have no illusion that Donald Trump isn't just another swamp creature. But it isn't really true that he did nothing for his constituents. For one thing, he has filled the courts with conservative judges that are friendly to the evangelical right. These judges will have enormous control over who gets to vote, who gets sent to jail, who gets to join a union, and so on. Donald Trump may have only recently materialized, but the conservative revolution that he helped to materialize did not. It has been in the works for generations, overseen by an array of determined businessmen and activists.


    What are you smoking? How do you think we got a professional class of managers, technocrats, and business persons in the first place?! They all snuck in when everyone forgot to vote during one election season or the other? All you can do is say that we should do the same thing we've always done; the very thing that landed us in this position, as if you can cast out Satan through the power of Satan.

    "Vote, vote vote," as people vote for falling standards of living. People vote every goddamned election. The problem isn't that we need to do more of it.

    Yes, and that's a good thing.
    OK. Suppose that everyone did stop voting, stopped participating in electoral fundraising, and stopped going to party rallies. Suppose also that the next election saw a voter turnout of 0%. Suppose that people stopped cross-examining corruption because of the expectation that the next politician would be crooked anyway.

    Will elites now begin soul-searching to find out why their policies failed to attract support? Will it stop them from showing up to their jobs the next day? The bureaucracy will continue along, whether it has popular support or not. And the results of the non-participation will be paraded as proof that people are indifferent to the problems of society, and that they should be managed and overseen by professionals for their own good.

  11. #51
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @FreelancePoliceman: what's your strategy for changing the status quo, by the way?

  12. #52
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat View Post
    Can somewhat confirm. The JSDF just bought a bunch more of the new F-35s. I saw a number of them last time I was on the airbase. I think there's even more on the way too. They're also renovating their aircraft carriers to be compatible with them. I think the first stage of renovations might already be finished(?)
    Yeah, Japan was forbidden from having aircraft carriers but was allowed to have "helicopter carriers" (it has four, IIRC).

  13. #53
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,228
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    My greatest fear is the gerrymandering that will keep minority Republicans in power forever.

    They wouldn’t gerrymander if they believed in Democracy, but they don’t. They only say that they do. Their actions tell a different story.

    I’ve said it before, but about 40% of the population does not feel comfortable living in a democracy. They want strong rulers who will crush their enemies by any means possible, because the ends justify the means. Mostly crushing the people who don’t look like them.

  14. #54
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    TIM
    ENFp-C
    Posts
    1,133
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Yeah, Japan was forbidden from having aircraft carriers but was allowed to have "helicopter carriers" (it has four, IIRC).
    It only has two, the Izumo, and the Kaga. They are both being renovated to allow for the F-35s to take off and land on them. The US has agreed to continue recognizing them as "helicopter carriers" though because aircraft carriers have been judged unconstitutional, and remain so. They are getting around this for now because the JSDF will not be operating the F-35s stationed on the carriers, the USMC will. Meanwhile, all of the JSDF's new F-35s will be operated out of land bases. Functionally none of this really makes any difference though. Japan operates basically in tandem with the US in military affairs, and all the weirdness is just to get around their constitution which prevents them from fielding a force which could be deemed capable of invading other countries
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

  15. #55
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    I have no illusion that Donald Trump isn't just another swamp creature. But it isn't really true that he did nothing for his constituents. For one thing, he has filled the courts with conservative judges that are friendly to the evangelical right. These judges will have enormous control over who gets to vote, who gets sent to jail, who gets to join a union, and so on. Donald Trump may have only recently materialized, but the conservative revolution that he helped to materialize did not. It has been in the works for generations, overseen by an array of determined businessmen and activists.
    ;
    "Who gets to vote --" generally citizens are allowed to vote, unless I'm missing something. "Who gets sent to jail --" Again, Biden was the architect of the prison state the US is today. Also, how does sending certain people to jail help the average Republican constituent? "Who gets to join a union --" A) Democrats abandoned and sold out unions under Clinton, and have maintained their course since; B) this doesn't help working-class Republicans. I'm doubtful business owners comprise a majority of Republican voters.

    OK. Suppose that everyone did stop voting, stopped participating in electoral fundraising, and stopped going to party rallies. Suppose also that the next election saw a voter turnout of 0%. Suppose that people stopped cross-examining corruption because of the expectation that the next politician would be crooked anyway.

    Will elites now begin soul-searching to find out why their policies failed to attract support? Will it stop them from showing up to their jobs the next day? The bureaucracy will continue along, whether it has popular support or not. And the results of the non-participation will be paraded as proof that people are indifferent to the problems of society, and that they should be managed and overseen by professionals for their own good.
    No, the bureaucracy most likely wouldn't immediately collapse. But a population that doesn't vote is a population that obviously doesn't give a shit what the media say, and at that point things aren't going to be continuing along as they were. There will be no one in front of whom to parade, and you're at least right that the elites will have more important matters to attend to than soul-searching.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    @FreelancePoliceman: what's your strategy for changing the status quo, by the way?
    Before you can make change you need to understand your situation. Buying into voting obscures your understanding of reality, and therefore your ability to effect meaningful change. Refusing to vote, and convincing others likewise, is a first step.

  16. #56
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    "Who gets to vote --" generally citizens are allowed to vote, unless I'm missing something.
    "Who gets to vote --", referring to redistricting and gerrymandering. There is also the incidence of voter suppression against minorities (I don't know enough about that to go into detail, sorry).


    "Who gets sent to jail --" Again, Biden was the architect of the prison state the US is today. Also, how does sending certain people to jail help the average Republican constituent? "Who gets to join a union --" A) Democrats abandoned and sold out unions under Clinton, and have maintained their course since; B) this doesn't help working-class Republicans. I'm doubtful business owners comprise a majority of Republican voters.
    You're making the mistake that all radicals make, which is to assume that everyone secretly wants the same thing. They do not, irrespective of whether or not it clashes with their personal interests.

    Many regular people (including minorities) support the police out of a belief in law and order, and some support the police force because they have family that works there. Many regular workers hate unions for being antithetical to business interests, whether this is because they're aspiring businesspersons or for some ideological reason.

    RE. Biden: you don't have to tell me about his poor track record WRT to representing the class interests of the working poor.


    No, the bureaucracy most likely wouldn't immediately collapse. But a population that doesn't vote is a population that obviously doesn't give a shit what the media say, and at that point things aren't going to be continuing along as they were. There will be no one in front of whom to parade, and you're at least right that the elites will have more important matters to attend to than soul-searching.

    Before you can make change you need to understand your situation. Buying into voting obscures your understanding of reality, and therefore your ability to effect meaningful change. Refusing to vote, and convincing others likewise, is a first step.
    Well, I disagree that it'll work, but suit yourself.

  17. #57
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    "Who gets to vote --", referring to redistricting and gerrymandering. There is also the incidence of voter suppression against minorities (I don't know enough about that to go into detail, sorry).
    "Voter suppression" these days in the States usually refers to making it a mild inconvenience to vote. The fact that significant numbers of people will abandon their right to supposedly rule themselves if it takes an extra hour out of their lives every few years should tell you something about how much good it's perceived to do.

    In any case, so what if they do? Democrats do the same when they're in power, and no matter what happens, another corporate stooge will be democratically elected according to the will of the people than another one.

    You're making the mistake that all radicals make, which is to assume that everyone secretly wants the same thing. They do not, irrespective of whether or not it clashes with their personal interests.

    Many regular people (including minorities) support the police out of a belief in law and order, and some support the police force because they have family that works there. Many regular workers hate unions for being antithetical to business interests, whether this is because they're aspiring businesspersons or for some ideological reason.
    Yes, ideology can blind people to their interests. Instead, the rich employ it to convince the poor to support the interests of the rich. This isn't a stunning endorsement of democracy. No matter which way they vote, the poor vote for the interests of one faction of the rich vs. another, but not their own.

    RE. Biden: you don't have to tell me about his poor track record WRT to representing the class interests of the working poor.
    Good, because you don't think Trump did either. Well, Trump and Biden were the only options we got. No matter which was elected, the "working poor" lost; the rich won.

    Well, I disagree that it'll work, but suit yourself.

    But we know that voting doesn't.
    We've been trying voting for quite a while now. Why should it suddenly start working? I say: give it up, and try something else.

  18. #58
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    America's best days were behind it as soon as the Globalist pigs highjacked the economy....now thanks to that Globalist Pig Biden (aka dementia joe the creepy molester) and really the history of Globalist Piggery beginning with that Garbage Nafta Deal orchestrated by the worst and dumbest president in history, Bill Clinton...even just scoring a deal on a used 4 x 4 (winter beater) so I can throw my car into Storage for the Winter is a pain in the fckin ass, as the Supply Chain has been astronomically fucked due to US dependence on other countries to supply electronics necessary for building more trucks. People blame the pandemic...its not the pandemic stupid, its globalism and oh the pandemic, another ingenius result of globalist pig exploiters like "Oink Oink" Kathie Lee Gifford bending over for China.

    Basically the globalist pigs sacrificed America's Standard of Living in order to increase the standard of living for other countries and especially China...that's what the fuck it came down to. Now thanks to the globalist pigs the middle class is on the verge of extinction....These robots being churned out by colleges are now 100+ grand in debt and have an earning capacity between 60-85k a year. That's a fckin joke. 85k a year, better learn to starve and cohabit apartments with paper thin walls and cheap floors. 150k a year still gotta starve a bit. Standard of living fckin skyrocketed while the job salaries and opportunities really went the fck nowhere. As globalism took greater hold of the democratic party the democratic party morphed into the identity politic cesspool it is now and the average american consumer turned into an impractical as fuck retarded spender. Kiss the middle class goodbye.

  19. #59
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    "Voter suppression" these days in the States usually refers to making it a mild inconvenience to vote. The fact that significant numbers of people will abandon their right to supposedly rule themselves if it takes an extra hour out of their lives every few years should tell you something about how much good it's perceived to do.
    In my country, you can register to vote online and they send you a special voter ID in the mail. It's super convenient. And the physical piece of identification, which gets sent every election, is a nice reminder to vote in the election.

    The fact that a significant number of people abandon their right to vote is a problem, but it's a cultural one, not something that's fixed in place.


    In any case, so what if they do? Democrats do the same when they're in power, and no matter what happens, another corporate stooge will be democratically elected according to the will of the people than another one.

    Yes, ideology can blind people to their interests. Instead, the rich employ it to convince the poor to support the interests of the rich. This isn't a stunning endorsement of democracy. No matter which way they vote, the poor vote for the interests of one faction of the rich vs. another, but not their own.

    Good, because you don't think Trump did either. Well, Trump and Biden were the only options we got. No matter which was elected, the "working poor" lost; the rich won.


    But we know that voting doesn't.
    We've been trying voting for quite a while now. Why should it suddenly start working? I say: give it up, and try something else.
    We know that voting works to create restraints on corruption, as is evidenced by the numerous examples of open, egalitarian, social democratic societies (like Switzerland, to name one), which don't have such a strong culture of fatalism and indifference towards their civic privileges.

    FreelancePoliceman, politicians don't have a choice in whom they serve. The types of policies that they're forced to support are limited, quite literally right out of the gate. They serve the interests of their best-mobilized constituents, because promising to serve those who are cynical and apathetic would make them lose their next election. I can't prove this, but they probably don't even have a choice on whether or not to be corrupt.

    The evangelical right has been one of the best-organized factions in recent American history, and they have managed to shape the modern Republican party's stance on most cultural issues.

  20. #60
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    My greatest fear is the gerrymandering that will keep minority Republicans in power forever.

    They wouldn’t gerrymander if they believed in Democracy, but they don’t. They only say that they do. Their actions tell a different story.

    I’ve said it before, but about 40% of the population does not feel comfortable living in a democracy. They want strong rulers who will crush their enemies by any means possible, because the ends justify the means. Mostly crushing the people who don’t look like them.
    Cute. If you think there's any real difference in regards to who holds power and that "Minority Republicans" are the problem, well, I got this amazing bridge in Brooklyn I just acquired and am very willing to sell to you at a price so low you'd easily mistake me for a con man!

    Yeah, the gerrymandering can, will, and does ensure few if any seats in the House are actually "up for grabs" as it were. The deeper question is whether or not that actually matters. Primaries are a thing and as a macro-level presidential election was rigged successfully, well, a greater justification of my pessimism you'd be hard pressed to find.

    After all, if I can rig the biggest election of a "democratic" nation and institue an administration damn near half (if not more) of the people who voted will swear upon the graves of their forefathers was rigged? And actually get shit done for the PTB?

    Yeah, that recent trial in Kenosha was a major bullet dodge for the woke cultists. You don't want to see what happens when right wing Gammas rightfully conclude they got nothing to lose. Hell, you're a Gamma NT yourself. Surely you were at least secretly relieved when that verdict got handed down. The next Civil War is coming but now we got the next year or two to prepare over the next few weeks or months.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazaam View Post
    Adam Strange is right- both sides being bad for damn sure doesn't mean both sides are equally bad. A world of barren nothing ((wrong-wing Faah the Laaawd ignorant dumbfucks)) vs an actual world albiet with some complicated, messy problems we will all figure out with time and effort. I'll take the actual world, thanks. The SJW gays vs straights/blacks vs whites thing is a red herring - nobody is a big strong man for making fun of that as any 2-year-old toddler could. It's about a barren no-world versus an actual world and I'll take the real world for $500, Alex.
    Your wording is confusing to me. Would you rather operate under the aegis of the "woke" or the aegis of their so called opponents? I ask because this is a very relevant data point for me. Are you an "istophobe" protean right wing austrian painter or are you instead a proud wielder of the hammer and sickle who is, was, and always shall be on the "right" side of history?

    Inquiring minds wish to know .

  21. #61
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Cute. If you think there's any real difference in regards to who holds power and that "Minority Republicans" are the problem, well, I got this amazing bridge in Brooklyn I just acquired and am very willing to sell to you at a price so low you'd easily mistake me for a con man!

    Yeah, the gerrymandering can, will, and does ensure few if any seats in the House are actually "up for grabs" as it were. The deeper question is whether or not that actually matters. Primaries are a thing and as a macro-level presidential election was rigged successfully, well, a greater justification of my pessimism you'd be hard pressed to find.

    After all, if I can rig the biggest election of a "democratic" nation and institue an administration damn near half (if not more) of the people who voted will swear upon the graves of their forefathers was rigged? And actually get shit done for the PTB?

    Yeah, that recent trial in Kenosha was a major bullet dodge for the woke cultists. You don't want to see what happens when right wing Gammas rightfully conclude they got nothing to lose. Hell, you're a Gamma NT yourself. Surely you were at least secretly relieved when that verdict got handed down. The next Civil War is coming but now we got the next year or two to prepare over the next few weeks or months.



    Your wording is confusing to me. Would you rather operate under the aegis of the "woke" or the aegis of their so called opponents? I ask because this is a very relevant data point for me. Are you an "istophobe" protean right wing austrian painter or are you instead a proud wielder of the hammer and sickle who is, was, and always shall be on the "right" side of history?

    Inquiring minds wish to know .
    that Rittenhouse trial was a fckin woke joke...that kid never needed to be arrested or put on trial. It was not even a close call....only a complete tard could draw the conclusion that Rittenhouse was not acting in self-defense. That prosecutor's license needs to be stripped for that sham kangaroo circus he attempted to orchestrate, and that Judge deserves a medal for not letting that cunt prosecutor turn that trial into a political shit show .

    leave it to Cokehead Al Sharpton to try and turn it into a racial issue, because it happened during the protests of the Jacob Blake shooting.

    This whole "woke" culture thing is gay as fck. Watch Aaron Rodgers speech when he made fun of the woke culture wanting to stick him into a "cancel culture coffin", not long after the Woke Pink team cheered on the firing of the Raiders head coach Gruden, after like so many black guys, athletes, coaches, including the great coach, Tony Dungy, came out and said the guy was absolutely not racist. but the woke culture is fast asleep when a so obviously white girl like Meaghan Markle delusionally claims that, as a black woman, she is the victim of racism when in fact that is impossible because she is so obviously NOT BLACK or the woke culture is comatose to Racist Joe's segregationist policies back in his KKK heyday that even his own VP called him out for and the Woke culture is comatose to the delusion that Poop for brains Kamala Harris perpetrates of her being a poster-girl of the black struggle in America in spite of her upper class Jamaican-Indian decent. It is ironic how ASLEEP the WOKE culture actually is

    Woke means Broke. Loser. To be Woke means to be as Broke as a Joke because that's what woke represents....the rise of the jobless shitbum aka Bernie Sanders' hero, whose woke to not what losers they are but to the fact they are not being thrown enough free handouts
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 11-27-2021 at 01:08 PM.

  22. #62
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Republicans are questioning the integrity of the system because they lost the last election. Questioning the legitimacy of elections, doctors, and legal scholars, however rightly or wrongly, is the strategy that's deployed by the weaker side. COVID restrictions, vaccinations, immigration, and globalization are all deployed as fodder — indiscriminately — to insinuate the predominance of some nebulous liberal establishment, as though the 'globalist elite' is only comprised of liberals and not also conservatives that have conservative cultural beliefs.
    Last edited by xerx; 11-27-2021 at 09:56 PM. Reason: clarification

  23. #63
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Republicans are questioning the integrity of the system because they lost the last election. Questioning the legitimacy of elections, doctors, and legal scholars, however rightly or wrongly, is the strategy that's deployed by the weaker side.
    More specifically, conservatives perceive themselves as the weaker side. Way too many conservatives are professional victims, especially of alleged cancellation. They make SJW's seem like rugged heroes from Norse mythology.

  24. #64
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    More specifically, conservatives perceive themselves as the weaker side. Way too many conservatives are professional victims, especially of alleged cancellation. They make SJW's seem like rugged heroes from Norse mythology.
    Or as a recent podcast that Father Chad Ripperger was a part of put it, conservatives/Devout Christians are in an abusive relationship with their partner and they're acting like a basic bitch abusee. See, for instance, the abuser (i.e. liberals and SJWs) accuse them of istaphobia or being a racist and they then respond by saying "What? I'm not a racist/istaphobe! What the hell gave you that idea!"

    EXACTLY what they ought not to say. To break the abuser's hold over you you must never address the issues they bring up. Instead, address them. Don't defend yourself for the very act legitimizes their accusations. Instead, ask them a relevant question pertaining to them. For instance, if someone calls you a racist or something you clearly aren't ask them "Have you always had a problem with convicting people of something they're not guilty of?" and/or "Have you always had a problem with lying to people?" over trying to prove to them how you're totally not a racist or whatnot. Put the focus on them instead of yourself. They want the focus to be on you so they can assert control over you. NO! Fuck em'! Put the focus on them so you get to assert control over them! Watch with glee as they recoil in pain and horror at the fact you've figured them out and they have no way of countering it in any way that matters spiritually.

    Hell, in an abusive relationship the circle of lies is essentially complete. You know (if you're smart) that they're lying about/to you, and they know you know they're lying, but hey, if they can force you to labor under that false assertion and to act as though it's true anyway then hell, what does that fact matter? Outcome's still the same as they want so what's it matter that you know they're lying about you? The enemy is demonic and operates under demon logic. The "conservatives" don't get this because they too don't like the implications and obligations God's existence entails. Like I've said elsewhere they don't really oppose the liberals in any way that truly matters. Their morality is the same, but the conservatives only disagree on what, to both of them, are superficial matters (e.g. whether or not children should be involved in Pride parades or if the age of consent ought to be 18 instead of 14).

    If demons are real, so is God. If God is real, well, that means quite a lot more...

  25. #65
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Republicans are questioning the integrity of the system because they lost the last election. Questioning the legitimacy of elections, doctors, and legal scholars, however rightly or wrongly, is the strategy that's deployed by the weaker side. COVID restrictions, vaccinations, immigration, and globalization are all deployed as fodder — indiscriminately — to insinuate the predominance of some nebulous liberal establishment, as though the 'globalist elite' is only comprised of liberals and not also conservatives that have conservative cultural beliefs.
    Yeah, and Democrats questioned the integrity of the system when Trump won, pretending that Russians somehow pull the levers of American elections, while ignoring the foreign state politicians have to swear allegiance to before being even considered for federal office in this country.

    If you think elections here are fair and/or transparent I have a bridge to sell you. People question the elections because they're crooked. Every election should be questioned -- or, better yet, people should just realize their votes don't matter, because the fact that they're crooked isn't even the real problem. Though to someone who subscribes to liberal ideology and therefore believes the only problem with democracy is when it's "unfair," the deafening silence of politicians on the problems with our voting systems should be raising alarms that we don't have a "real" "democracy." Yet as soon as it's the Democrat winning every liberal ideologue is talking about how stupid conservatives are for believing in a deep state. What I don't understand is that even establishment media occasionally acknowledge the problems with voting machines, but believing any interests are actually taking advantage of them -- you must be stupid! Yeah, the CIA once infiltrated mass media disseminators or began their own outlets to spread propaganda, and sure, there's no indication they ever stopped, but believing they didn't is the mark of a crazy person. The FBI killed political radicals a few decades ago, but they wouldn't now; why don't you trust the experts?
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 11-28-2021 at 08:05 AM.

  26. #66
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,228
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Yeah, and Democrats questioned the integrity of the system when Trump won, pretending that Russians somehow pull the levers of American elections, while ignoring the foreign state politicians have to swear allegiance to before being even considered for federal office in this country.

    If you think elections here are fair and/or transparent I have a bridge to sell you. People question the elections because they're crooked. Every election should be questioned -- or, better yet, people should just realize their votes don't matter, because the fact that they're crooked isn't even the real problem. Though to someone who subscribes to liberal ideology and therefore believes the only problem with democracy is when it's "unfair," the deafening silence of politicians on the problems with our voting systems should be raising alarms that we don't have a "real" "democracy." Yet as soon as it's the Democrat winning every liberal ideologue is talking about how stupid conservatives are for believing in a deep state. What I don't understand is that even establishment media occasionally acknowledge the problems with voting machines, but believing any interests are actually taking advantage of them -- you must be stupid! Yeah, the CIA once infiltrated mass media disseminators or began their own outlets to spread propaganda, and sure, there's no indication they ever stopped, but believing they didn't is the mark of a crazy person. The FBI killed political radicals a few decades ago, but they wouldn't now; why don't you trust the experts?

    Yesterday, after losing to them eight times in a row, the Michigan Wolverines football team beat the Ohio State Buckeyes, 42 to 27.

    My IEI cousin in Tucson, who is an Ohio State fan, was narrating the game to me here in Ann Arbor, Michigan, over text because I don't have a television. Nor do I watch sports:

    "I think the referees have bets on the game. Only calling penalties against the Buckeyes."

    "Teams just got into a big fight. Michigan started it but OSU got penalized."

    "You can watch the game on Fox."

    No, I can't. I don't have TV.
    Finally, after Michigan won,

    "This has not been a fair game. That's the difference. You have to calculate the human decisions by the "impartial" referees."


    :\

    I blame Fox News for all this.
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 11-28-2021 at 04:33 PM.

  27. #67
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Yesterday, after losing to them eight times in a row, the Michigan Wolverines football team beat the Ohio State Buckeyes, 42 to 27.

    My IEI cousin in Tucson, who is an Ohio State fan, was narrating the game to me here in Ann Arbor, Michigan, over text because I don't have a television. Nor do I watch sports:

    "I think the referees have bets on the game. Only calling penalties against the Buckeyes."

    "Teams just got into a big fight. Michigan started it but OSU got penalized."

    "You can watch the game on Fox."

    No, I can't. I don't have TV.
    Finally, after Michigan won,

    "This has not been a fair game. That's the difference. You have to calculate the human decisions by the "impartial" referees."


    :\

    I blame Fox News for all this.
    I'm afraid I don't follow.

  28. #68
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Yesterday, after losing to them eight times in a row, the Michigan Wolverines football team beat the Ohio State Buckeyes, 42 to 27.

    My IEI cousin in Tucson, who is an Ohio State fan, was narrating the game to me here in Ann Arbor, Michigan, over text because I don't have a television. Nor do I watch sports:

    "I think the referees have bets on the game. Only calling penalties against the Buckeyes."

    "Teams just got into a big fight. Michigan started it but OSU got penalized."

    "You can watch the game on Fox."

    No, I can't. I don't have TV.
    Finally, after Michigan won,

    "This has not been a fair game. That's the difference. You have to calculate the human decisions by the "impartial" referees."


    :\

    I blame Fox News for all this.
    I get what you're saying and it is a fundamental symptom of decline and disintegration. Fact is both sides used to have faith in the overall system such that even if they "lost" they thought they lost fair and square and just dealt with it and moved on. That is to say, they thought the referees were doing their job. In football they actually are, as their equivalents are in pretty much all the fields that matter save for things like higher education and the like. Y'know, racial quotas and the like ain't exactly fair to the (let's not mince words here) White, Jewish, and East Asian male students who get high GPA's and SAT scores and thus ought to get into MIT and the like but don't anymore because there just isn't enough "diversity" there and the color of your skin and particular genetic sequence matter more than actual merit don't ya know. Though it might swing back to that as I hear they've caught on and just started saying they're minority women and daring the admins to boot them out because of their self-professed "identity".

    Tangent aside, the fact remains a critical amount of people on both sides no longer have any faith in the current system as it is. I wouldn't blame just Fox News however. I'd blame the entire MSM. Stoking the flames of division and hate for both the bidding of their masters and for the raw ratings. Bad news sells. Inflammatory headlines and coverage gets people's emotions riled up and drives them to keep watching. If you're watching CNN or NBC try to take a step back and observe how they cover the news objectively. The whole Rittenhouse affair is a textbook example of this. If you think they were impartial go back and look at their coverage and the language they used. Yeah, not a lot of "fact driven impartiality" to be found on either side. Why? Because the PTB want us divided and fighting amongst ourselves. They're also all in lock step. No shortage of clips showing different talking heads saying exactly or almost exactly the same things the others are saying. That ain't a coincidence.

    Sad fact is quarterly profits and YOY gains matter more to the owners of these big media companies than the cohesion of our or any nation. International money men don't give a fuck about civil unrest or even war if they can turn a profit over it (and they do). Divide and conquer as they say, and damn have they done an amazing job at dividing us all.

  29. #69
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because I think it relevant to this conversation I shall post two vids by a Youtuber that I think actually demonstrates my points. That is, that people on both sides are failing to maintain any sense of objectivity. A very clear symptom of late stage Empires in decline where it's all about the short term to the detriment of the long term.

    Ask any ancient Chinese Scholar who deserved that designation as they pleaded with the emperor to not go down the path literally every last other late stage emperor did as they uttered the most expensive words history has to offer. In one form or another that decadent emperor who was about to get wasted told that earnest scholar (probably a Gamma NT) "this time it's different" and had him executed for daring to question his decisions:





    I will say that if Kyle "traded" with his assailants I'd have just cynically accepted it ceteris paribus. That is, if the politicians didn't try to enact a crackdown on gun rights and the like using it as the justification. If the dude that killed Kyle in this alternate universe walked after Kyle took out one or two of his friends I'd have just accepted it and moved on. Sad Kyle died but he died a warriors death and I gotta hand it to the dude who landed the killing blow with a handgun.

    That was a crack shot. Whether guided by the divine or demonic it was still all part of God's plan. Hopefully Kyle died in a state of grace (if he died there) and his assailants did as well. I pray for the salvation of my enemies. Would that they earnestly did the same. Sadly, their dark faith knows only condemnation over forgiveness and redemption...

    The Woke Cultists of the Death variant are the most pitiable creatures on the planet. They vehemently reject those who would save them. They've already rejected a hand offered so freely they'd even die upon a cross for a stranger...
    Last edited by End; 11-30-2021 at 04:31 AM.

  30. #70
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Yeah, and Democrats questioned the integrity of the system when Trump won, pretending that Russians somehow pull the levers of American elections, while ignoring the foreign state politicians have to swear allegiance to before being even considered for federal office in this country.

    If you think elections here are fair and/or transparent I have a bridge to sell you. People question the elections because they're crooked. Every election should be questioned -- or, better yet, people should just realize their votes don't matter, because the fact that they're crooked isn't even the real problem. Though to someone who subscribes to liberal ideology and therefore believes the only problem with democracy is when it's "unfair," the deafening silence of politicians on the problems with our voting systems should be raising alarms that we don't have a "real" "democracy." Yet as soon as it's the Democrat winning every liberal ideologue is talking about how stupid conservatives are for believing in a deep state. What I don't understand is that even establishment media occasionally acknowledge the problems with voting machines, but believing any interests are actually taking advantage of them -- you must be stupid! Yeah, the CIA once infiltrated mass media disseminators or began their own outlets to spread propaganda, and sure, there's no indication they ever stopped, but believing they didn't is the mark of a crazy person. The FBI killed political radicals a few decades ago, but they wouldn't now; why don't you trust the experts?
    I never said that elections were absolutely fair. In fact, gerrymandering alone is enough to dispute that claim. What I actually said was that organized factions can imprint their ideology onto political parties; that they can go on to seize control over government; and that politicians aren't particularly incentivized to placate non-voting contrarians, hence the lack of representation for radical views, which take time to infiltrate the mainstream (Evangelical Christianity used to be politically sidelined).

    If anything, I agree with what you just wrote: American democracy (which is exercised just as much through the court system) is slowly being eroded. But I wouldn't frame the situation as gothically or in such absolutist terms. Democratic forces are operational enough to effect a reversal, and there's no need to embrace a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  31. #71
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Yeah, and Democrats questioned the integrity of the system when Trump won, pretending that Russians somehow pull the levers of American elections, while ignoring the foreign state politicians have to swear allegiance to before being even considered for federal office in this country.
    IIRC, it was over the Russians' propagandistic use of puppet social media accounts, not the actual rigging of ballot papers or the hacking of voting machines (correct me if I'm wrong).

    To be honest, the former claim sounds credible. I have no doubt that political operatives are mass-posting on Twitter right now, attempting to create bitterness and rivalry, in order to entrench both sides in increasingly irreconcilable political positions. It is easy to exploit lizard-brain tribalism to push people into adopting ever more eccentric beliefs. The notion that any country with geopolitical interests — Russia, China, or even the United States — wouldn't exercise realpolitik, especially when given an opportunity to act anonymously (and with plausible deniability), badly underestimates the belligerent instincts of political leaders and intelligence agencies.

    I'd go further than that. I suggest that American political agencies and private firms are themselves operating troll farms, and that a significant percentage of social media posts are written by paid agents. I even suspect that the slogan "Defund the Police" was started by trolls, professional or otherwise, and taken up uncritically by online lefties. I say that because it's an unusual slogan that's easy to misinterpret, needs to be repeatedly explained and qualified, and sounds uncannily similar to the better counter-slogan "Defend the Police". It feels deliberately crafted to be as counter-productive as possible.

    Anything to do with sexual morality (especially the transgender issue) is also perfect fodder for inflaming and directing strong emotions (of both sides).

    Why not add 'click farms' to that assessment. Every time I watch a conservative or conservative-adjacent Youtube video, the very next suggestion is always a Jordan Peterson video. Every time. It's quite suspicious. It's not implausible that he (or someone else on his behalf) is paying a company to manufacture clicks in order to exploit Youtube's algorithm.

    I do disagree with the liberal framing of Russian meddling in at least one way: Russia's alleged exploitation of social media was still democratic (and poetic justice, depending on your view, for America's history of meddling in other countries). The fact that people choose to believe 'fake news' isn't an institutional problem; it's a cultural one.

  32. #72
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Or as a recent podcast that Father Chad Ripperger was a part of put it, conservatives/Devout Christians are in an abusive relationship with their partner and they're acting like a basic bitch abusee. See, for instance, the abuser (i.e. liberals and SJWs) accuse them of istaphobia or being a racist and they then respond by saying "What? I'm not a racist/istaphobe! What the hell gave you that idea!"
    What's istaphobia?

    EXACTLY what they ought not to say. To break the abuser's hold over you you must never address the issues they bring up. Instead, address them. Don't defend yourself for the very act legitimizes their accusations. Instead, ask them a relevant question pertaining to them. For instance, if someone calls you a racist or something you clearly aren't ask them "Have you always had a problem with convicting people of something they're not guilty of?" and/or "Have you always had a problem with lying to people?" over trying to prove to them how you're totally not a racist or whatnot. Put the focus on them instead of yourself. They want the focus to be on you so they can assert control over you. NO! Fuck em'! Put the focus on them so you get to assert control over them! Watch with glee as they recoil in pain and horror at the fact you've figured them out and they have no way of countering it in any way that matters spiritually.

    Hell, in an abusive relationship the circle of lies is essentially complete. You know (if you're smart) that they're lying about/to you, and they know you know they're lying, but hey, if they can force you to labor under that false assertion and to act as though it's true anyway then hell, what does that fact matter? Outcome's still the same as they want so what's it matter that you know they're lying about you? The enemy is demonic and operates under demon logic. The "conservatives" don't get this because they too don't like the implications and obligations God's existence entails. Like I've said elsewhere they don't really oppose the liberals in any way that truly matters. Their morality is the same, but the conservatives only disagree on what, to both of them, are superficial matters (e.g. whether or not children should be involved in Pride parades or if the age of consent ought to be 18 instead of 14).

    If demons are real, so is God. If God is real, well, that means quite a lot more...
    Out of curiosity, what wouldn't you consider to be a 'demonic' political ideology?

  33. #73
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    What's istaphobia?
    Y'know, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, etc. Basically, they say you have a phobia/fear of anything and everything different or whatnot just because you don't agree with things like letting men who claim to be women to be put into the women's prison system. Look at California to see how that's turning out. You won't see that shit on CNN lemme tell ya.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Out of curiosity, what wouldn't you consider to be a 'demonic' political ideology?
    It'd be better to say it to be demonically influenced rather than just outright demonic. I'm no priest/theologian so I cannot offer up a 100 percent kosher Catholic political ideology. I can say that wokism/communism is demonic however. I am getting more and more partial to some form of Monarchy if you asked me what I'd like to see happen. At least then the common folk have a clear person to blame over failures and bad decisions. It has been theorized (and I agree with this one) that the PTB made the switch to democracy because they figured out how to maintain control over it by and large and because it enabled them to muddy the waters in regards to shame and blame.

    After all, "Just vote the bums out if they fuck up" and/or "We all voted for this!" Whereas if you got a King and an Aristocracy it's "Rise up against the tyrannical Counts!" and "Kill the false King in the name of our true Lord and King Jesus! Viva Christo Rey!" The blame for bad decisions is very clearly delineated in such a system and nowadays we got sniper rifles and calibrated scopes. Yeah, no wonder the PTB made the switch. Of course, with modern tech and surveillance that threat can be theoretically totally mitigated so now they're trying to switch back because it is an easier system to manage (so long as kings and nobles can't get sniped by disgruntled peasants). Dumb fools place too much trust/faith in tech however. That last point assumes it always works 100 percent of the time.

    Has any technology, especially complex and advanced technology, that you use on a regular basis ever worked every single time you've used it? Hell, the self-checkout machines at the grocery are a prime example. Have any of them been shut down, closed, or broken in your life? If you answered yes than you see the PTB's problem as the shit they're thinking will work 100 percent of the time is way more complex than even that. Thankfully they don't because sin makes you stupid and boy oh boy do they sin mightily and with glee in their hearts to boot.

  34. #74
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nancy Pelosi Opposes Banning Stock Buys by Congress Members: "We're a Free-Market Economy"

    What a surprise!

    Same woman purchased $1 million of Tesla stock in anticipation of regulation in favor of Tesla

    Pfizer is the 6th most popular stock among Congress members; the 7th is Johnson & Johnson


    I re-read some earlier posts in this thread. By "disintegration," I primarily mean a social collapse, though this is connected to economic/political/military decline. No matter what the country's resources are like, without a functioning society they can't be taken advantage of.

  35. #75
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    It'd be better to say it to be demonically influenced rather than just outright demonic. I'm no priest/theologian so I cannot offer up a 100 percent kosher Catholic political ideology. I can say that wokism/communism is demonic however. I am getting more and more partial to some form of Monarchy if you asked me what I'd like to see happen. At least then the common folk have a clear person to blame over failures and bad decisions. It has been theorized (and I agree with this one) that the PTB made the switch to democracy because they figured out how to maintain control over it by and large and because it enabled them to muddy the waters in regards to shame and blame.
    Why tradcaths want a form of government God himself said was bad and shouldn't be desired I'll never understand.

    Re. the bolded, you might like Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher (PDF, EPUB). Anyway, this seems to be essentially right, but I would say that the powers-that-be have little interest in ruling or impressing any kind of ideology or vision for their country or the world except to the extent it makes them money. In the past there was a sense of noblesse oblige. I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue this survives in any way except as a vestigial remnant that's becoming more eroded every year. This is much of why I believe we're declining: we don't have a proper ruling class, but a band of thieves who care about nothing except their families' wealth.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 12-16-2021 at 04:29 AM.

  36. #76
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Why tradcaths want a form of government God himself said was bad and shouldn't be desired I'll never understand.

    Re. the bolded, you might like Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher (PDF, EPUB). Anyway, this seems to be essentially right, but I would say that the powers-that-be have little interest in ruling or impressing any kind of ideology or vision for their country or the world except to the extent it makes them money.
    I'll look into those links. However, I must disagree with you on that last point. The PTB would have a very great interest in imposing a religious/ideological vision upon their subjects if they were really smart. Remember, the flow of information/action in this sphere is Religion>Culture>Politics. Your faith determines your culture and your culture will determine political policy. That is, what policies you'll accept vs. ones that'll cause you to rise up in revolution.

    For example, "Get Woke go Broke" is merely a cope from this perspective. Money is but a means to acquiring/making a meaningful expression of power and if you have enough of it little else matters as you're just that gosh darn powerful. I've mentioned it elsewhere but the concept of "Generational Wealth" is very much in play here. At a certain point, you don't even need to give a flying fuck about "making" money in the sense most of us understand the concept. If you had 10 trillion dollars banked up somehow "making more money" wouldn't mean a damn thing to you if you were an otherwise rational being (as you could literally buy the "right" to print more money and give it to yourself first somehow and thus "make" all the money you could ever want regardless of "market forces" and the like). Indeed, if "losing" 1-2 trillion meant you finally got rid of that old enemy who otherwise would gain a massive advantage over you if they got to keep existing for another 10 years you'd spend it and eliminate them because it was worth the immediate loss in money to ensure the bigger loss of power you may have faced was never even risked.

    I thank you for this one. I've a better understanding of quasi-identical relations now. We both "get it" but the reasons are radically different and our perspectives should cause some form of hostility, but I just can't get hostile. For some reason I understand where you're coming from and I really do get that perspective. I disagree with it harshly but I can't fault you for it and thus I cannot work myself into any form of rage over this misunderstanding.

    I will just say that Mammon is a lesser being in that hierarchy. Money for money's sake no matter who you fuck over pleases the Great Enemy, but sacrifices to Moloch please him even more. C.S. Lewis had a great quote regarding how a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. For that tyrant does what he/she does not just/only to make a buck, but in the honest and sincere belief that they are doing "The Right Thing" as it were.

    They've stopped caring about money long ago. It may have been about that for a time, but that time has long since past. They're in the moral business now. They've got more than enough money to stop caring about creating more at this point. Mammon has given way to Moloch...

  37. #77
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    I'll look into those links. However, I must disagree with you on that last point. The PTB would have a very great interest in imposing a religious/ideological vision upon their subjects if they were really smart.
    Maybe that's true, but that "if" is carrying the weight of the world on its shoulders. Having known a few Ivy Leaguers, I'm not impressed with the quality of our upper classes.

    For example, "Get Woke go Broke" is merely a cope from this perspective. Money is but a means to acquiring/making a meaningful expression of power and if you have enough of it little else matters as you're just that gosh darn powerful. I've mentioned it elsewhere but the concept of "Generational Wealth" is very much in play here. At a certain point, you don't even need to give a flying fuck about "making" money in the sense most of us understand the concept. If you had 10 trillion dollars banked up somehow "making more money" wouldn't mean a damn thing to you if you were an otherwise rational being (as you could literally buy the "right" to print more money and give it to yourself first somehow and thus "make" all the money you could ever want regardless of "market forces" and the like). Indeed, if "losing" 1-2 trillion meant you finally got rid of that old enemy who otherwise would gain a massive advantage over you if they got to keep existing for another 10 years you'd spend it and eliminate them because it was worth the immediate loss in money to ensure the bigger loss of power you may have faced was never even risked.
    OK, but such people don't act rationally, wouldn't you agree? The rational response to owning a few million dollars is to stop worrying about making more money, but that's not what you see happening. The problem is that, being animals, we have animal desires, and unless the human in us masters them, the animal masters us, and the human becomes a slave. Simply understanding where our own desires originate is essentially tantamount to liberation, and the reverse is true as well: to continue to feed your greed, you must blind yourself.

    I thank you for this one. I've a better understanding of quasi-identical relations now. We both "get it" but the reasons are radically different and our perspectives should cause some form of hostility, but I just can't get hostile. For some reason I understand where you're coming from and I really do get that perspective. I disagree with it harshly but I can't fault you for it and thus I cannot work myself into any form of rage over this misunderstanding.
    Sometimes I get that feeling when talking to ILIs, except that hostility and rage don't seem to be as common for me, lol.

    I will just say that Mammon is a lesser being in that hierarchy. Money for money's sake no matter who you fuck over pleases the Great Enemy, but sacrifices to Moloch please him even more. C.S. Lewis had a great quote regarding how a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. For that tyrant does what he/she does not just/only to make a buck, but in the honest and sincere belief that they are doing "The Right Thing" as it were.
    What is Moloch? Ideology?

    They've stopped caring about money long ago. It may have been about that for a time, but that time has long since past. They're in the moral business now. They've got more than enough money to stop caring about creating more at this point. Mammon has given way to Moloch...
    How do you see this happening? I don't see this at all.

  38. #78
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    By "disintegration," I primarily mean a social collapse, though this is connected to economic/political/military decline. No matter what the country's resources are like, without a functioning society they can't be taken advantage of.
    That's reasonable. Even worse than a spectacular collapse, it could just keep trundling along in zombified form forever, unable to be fixed, unable to fully die or to be put out of its misery. See cyberpunk fiction for reference.

  39. #79
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    It'd be better to say it to be demonically influenced rather than just outright demonic. I'm no priest/theologian so I cannot offer up a 100 percent kosher Catholic political ideology. I can say that wokism/communism is demonic however. I am getting more and more partial to some form of Monarchy if you asked me what I'd like to see happen. At least then the common folk have a clear person to blame over failures and bad decisions. It has been theorized (and I agree with this one) that the PTB made the switch to democracy because they figured out how to maintain control over it by and large and because it enabled them to muddy the waters in regards to shame and blame.
    Eh, I dunno.......

    "Wokism" is predominantly a movement that's supported by certain factions within the elite. The destruction of the unions during the latter part of the twentieth century, the Left's rightward shift (towards social democracy) after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the Left's adoption of radical individualism (driven by consumerism and much to the detriment of collectivist ideologies like communism) probably sanitized the Left at least somewhat, making it more palatable for the same elites to colonize.
    Last edited by xerx; 12-17-2021 at 03:41 AM. Reason: +added

  40. #80
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    1,857
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    OK, but such people don't act rationally, wouldn't you agree? The rational response to owning a few million dollars is to stop worrying about making more money, but that's not what you see happening. The problem is that, being animals, we have animal desires, and unless the human in us masters them, the animal masters us, and the human becomes a slave. Simply understanding where our own desires originate is essentially tantamount to liberation, and the reverse is true as well: to continue to feed your greed, you must blind yourself.
    You are largely correct but you're missing a few key data points or, at least, you are probably not realizing how vital the data points you are overlooking are. In a very real sense, they are acting very rationally. Again, as Mammon gives way to Moloch rationality gives way to blind, fervent and religious zeal.

    Not everyone is Catholic so I'll spell this out for everyone going forward. "Mammon" is the demon of Greed. Get paid above all else! Sell out your own family for a pile of gold.

    Moloch, however, is even worse. Want to survive or have a good life in this world? Offer unto me your children whom I will gladly consume with fire. Carthage was all in for Moloch and it's likely the reason why "Cathargo Deldenda Est" was uttered by the Romans and carried out to the point of salting the Earth of that accursed land. Earnest and well meaning Pagans can into basic bitch morality and yeah, the Romans didn't like that shit one bit. Kinda telling whose legacy the wokies are most intent on dragging through the mud I'd say. How dare anyone have the gall to stop the child sacrifices to Satan!

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Eh, I dunno.......

    "Wokism" is predominantly a movement that's supported by certain factions within the elite. The destruction of the unions during the latter part of the twentieth century, the Left's rightward shift (towards social democracy) after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the Left's adoption of radical individualism (driven by consumerism and much to the detriment of collectivist ideologies like communism) probably sanitized the Left at least somewhat, making it more palatable for the same elites to colonize.
    Why then do the wokies love the Mohammadians? The followers of Islam are some of the most homophobic and misogynist people you could ever imagine. Why then do they seem to join hands in common cause against the likes of me? Simple. Once you realize their true enemy is Christ it all makes sense. The enemy of my enemy is my "friend" after all.

    Or at least, they are an ally. I forget who said it but the quote "The Left doesn't have friends. The Left has allies" really put it best. All those groups pushing for "leftists" ideologies absolutely hate each other to the very marrow of their bones and once that common enemy is vanquished they will engage in a genocide so complete and unmerciful it'd make enen the funny mustache man puke!

    However... for now they do have that most potent of glues that can hold most any ragtag bunch of degenerate fools together. A common enemy. That enemy is Christ. Take from that what you will...

    Also, as I did mention the Funny Mustache Man, the Holy Church did do it's best to try and kill the fucker. They may have failed but fact remains they did try and try in earnest. The Church had one hell of an intel network going for it at the time and it used it to try and kill the funny mustache man on many an occasion. They did fail, but holy hell did they try to off the bastard even as bishops shook his hand and thanked him. As they say in one fictional universe: "The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife!"
    Last edited by End; 12-17-2021 at 04:45 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •