Make Politicians Cower Again

Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Police Brutality
The elephant in the room is that at least 2 unarmed people were shot by the police and the media is silent. What happened to "ACAB"? Maybe they're not bastards when they're government dogs blind-firing into a group of people who have different opinions. Where the media or leftoids talk about this, they don't call it "police shooting of an unarmed person", they call it "gun violence".

But who shot the gun? No protestors had (brandished or used, and as far as I'm aware of) guns because DC had banned all weapons in a certain radius of capitol hill.

Where were the leftoids sharing the settings to disable video autoplay to avoid watching violent content when videos of George Floyd were going around?

Now it's "They should have obeyed the law". Like any of the other people who got killed by the police, right?

"They shouldn't have been trespassing" Now the leftoids are saying people do have the right to defend their property with lethal force...

Police depriving people of due process by killing them was wrong then and it's wrong now, simple as.

The most disgusting leftoids talk about the shooting the same way self-avowed, honest-to-god white supremacists (and feds) talked about the BLM protests. At first, when I found out one of the victims was a woman, I was curious to hear with the MGTOW/Incel/"Manosphere" reaction would be, but I read enough blatant misogyny from leftoid commenters that I figured the "Manosphere" couldn't do significantly worse.

I call "bullshit" on the facade of "decency" and "love". Then again, what else would I expect from Communists.

Yellowbellies and Lemmings
Similarly, it's funny to watch the alleged "anarchist" and "libertarian" left suddenly become pro-police and pro-government, sharing sympathetic pictures of cowering politicians, complaining about the profaning of the sacred space of the democratic process, saying we need to act civilly and let the government do it's job. The reason it's funny and not surprising is because I know the majority of these people are statist sell-outs who want big government to solve all their problems.

It's interesting to watch "Don't tread on me" Libertarians who normally jack off to the 1st and 2nd amendment suddenly turn into pro-cop, pro-government bootlickers in sympathy for the state. Libertarianism (in America) is like the school reject table. It's where a lot of people end up who don't identify with either mainstream party. It's ideologically diverse (not a bad thing), but it's possible that some people just adopt the aesthetics and talking points of Libertarianism just to have a place to belong. When the heat is on, their true colors show because they're LARPing.

While not exactly out-of-pocket, it's still funny to watch neocons and neocon-adjacents like Mitch McConnell, Kelly Loeffler, and Ben Shapiro complain about the situation they helped create and beg for obedience. I bitched about boomers in the post about 230, but it's the same thing. These people run on this kind of respectability politics where you have to be as boring as possible, don't break the status quo or draw attention to yourself. Being angry about the government, beyond a certain point, is for rebellious teenagers who hate their fathers. A mature adult makes peace with The System.


Il Duce Trump
Leftoids are claiming "Trump is a Fascist and the protest is because his followers want to install him as dictator!" but that's false. The only definition under which Trump qualifies as a "Fascist" is under the Leftist definition of "anyone opposed to Marxist ideas". Otherwise, it's "Hitler drank water!"-level boogeyman nonsense, or thinking it's true because someone said it was.

Maintaining some semblance of a border and not giving everyone everything for free is not Fascism.

But imagine thinking that allowing free speech, press, and the right to bear arms is Fascism.

Fascists expand the government, put political opponents on lists, perform historic and linguistic revisionism, control speech and press, establish robust welfare, propagandize all media, team up with corporations, and have zero tolerance opposing points of view. They convince the people to scapegoat a group and promise them that this will solve all their problems.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
-- Benito Mussolini, noted libertarian, free speech advocate and tolerator of political dissidents

The idea of installing Trump as a dictator/king is equally deranged. Anyone promoting the idea of "King Trump" or a literal "Trump Dynasty" is hard-R retarded, and it's basically just the rightoid cringe fringe. The reason the election is being challenged by most rightoids is partially because of the issue of the 25th Amendment and Biden's suspected senility/dementia, and partially because of a number of anomalies in the election ranging from ballots outnumbering registered voters, statistical aberrations, and instances where Republican poll workers were barred from entering or were "social distanced" to a location they couldn't see the ballots clearly, among a number of other issues.


Tricks and Traps
There's some speculation the whole thing was a set-up. On one hand, leftoids point out that security was more visible for the BLM event in the capitol and that were was a conspicuous lack of tear gas and rubber bullets. Although the police fatally shot at least 2 people instead of gassing them, I can't disagree with the other parts. Once they got into the foyer, they just sort of walked in. Cops were taking selfies. It's possible those particular cops were sympathetic to the rioters.

Apart from stealing computer hard drives (it's not clear which computers they were from, e.g. whether they contain useful info or just a Windows OS), the speaker podium, and doing minor vandalism, the rioters didn't do anything in the building. No fires, no destruction of significant property.

My suspicion based on leftoid reactions is this may be used to justify more online spying, profiling, lists, censorship, snitching doxxing, and infringement of rights. The question is whether it was a spontaneous event or if fed plants were leading the rioters into a trap, but ultimately does it matter?

The government hates us but likes to give us just enough to keep us from revolting. We're just economic units in their corporate games.
 
Last edited:

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
All I can really say about what happened is that it's something that I would expect to see in a third world country, just like election rigging and everything else that goes on in the states these days. Normies are shocked by it, because normies didn't see the footage from the antifa riots during the summer--particularly the nightly sieges of federal buildings--so they would think this is something unprecedented. One thing I can say, tongue-in-cheek, is that if Trump supporters hadn't stormed Congress, I don't think the media would have even mentioned that they were protesting at all. Maybe it's just me, but I get sort of a "stop ignoring me!" vibe from what happened.


About the deaths, my instinct is to withhold judgement until we know what actually happened. Remember how much of a knee-jerk reaction there was to George Floyd's death, and only much later was it revealed that the cause of death was not what it looked like. Or the thing with the jogger. Or the guy at the Wendy's. Don't want to jump to conclusions like those activists always do. I mean, if cops were taking selfies, then what happened to cause them to start shooting? It did look like there were a lot of people, so my assumption is there just weren't enough cops and security guards to stop them. At the same time, it's weird seeing a lot of talking points that are usually directed at antifa now being directed at these protesters. Any time you find yourself using talking points normally made by the other side, you should be careful that you're not falling into a tribal mentality.


The other thing I would caution against is the trap of seeing the 'other side' as a monolith. The ones who took up the 'ACAB' line were not the same people who consume MSM propaganda. In the world of the latter, all violence is bad, and they're just not being told when BLM engages in it. Or they're told in a manipulative way that lets them pretend it's fiery but mostly peaceful. To those people, this would be a shocking event, just like Charlottesville was. To the people who say ACAB, it's a drop in the bucket, business as usual. But to them, facts don't really matter any more than black lives (or any lives including their own), and they'll happily victim-blame if it serves their agenda. The anarchists will continue to agitate for abolishing police, but now that the neoliberals have regained the Executive branch, they no longer need the anarchists to do their dirty work for them, so I expect an increase in policing to stomp out dissent. It's all for the globalist goal of making every country in the world be just like China, and to that end the anarchists are only useful idiots who will be disposed of in the end.


I almost wonder if the next step to this escalation is that we'll start seeing tanks rolling down the streets of DC, Tiananmen Square style. Gorbachev was committed to glasnost, and as a result of his hands-off approach to popular revolt, he got to watch the USSR crumble. Chairman Xi is no fool, he knows that when you play the game of authoritarianism, you win or you die. He's in it to win it. 2020 was like the 4th quarter in a football game, and the pandemic put China at 3rd and long. Rigging the election was a Hail Mary, and the trouble with those is that sometimes they fucking complete for a touchdown. After review, the ruling on the field stands. We'll see how many jerseys they sell next year.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> Normies are shocked by it, because normies didn't see the footage from the antifa riots during the summer--particularly the nightly sieges of federal buildings--so they would think this is something unprecedented.

Certainly not an accident.

> I mean, if cops were taking selfies, then what happened to cause them to start shooting?

The ones in the foyer who let the rioters pass weren't the same ones who shot through the door closer to the chamber. It's possible there were two groups with two different protocols -- like security guards vs. secret service. It's possible the cops who shot the people were acting on their default instructions then told to stand down to avoid an outright massacre, which would have been terrible optics for them and helped the protestors' cause.

I know two people were shot by cops. The one woman shot in the neck - there's abundant videos from multiple angles - and another shot in the chest. Two others died, but there's very little information on them. They and the one shot in the chest died from "medical complications".

The media is now, apparently, involved in a smear campaign of the woman. They continue to refer to the shootings as "gun violence" or "4 shot because of pro-Trump coup" and have posted that the woman was arrested years ago for destruction of property. Oh god I'm gonna play the world's smallest violin.

> At the same time, it's weird seeing a lot of talking points that are usually directed at antifa now being directed at these protesters. Any time you find yourself using talking points normally made by the other side, you should be careful that you're not falling into a tribal mentality[...]The other thing I would caution against is the trap of seeing the 'other side' as a monolith.

Trying to be overly impartial and non-judgmental is possibly part to blame for things being how they are. There's definitely value to putting emotions aside to get outside the echo chamber for an educational purpose, but a worldview created around impartiality and fairness amounts to fence-sitting. It can't stand on its own because it's constructed around finding some middle ground (that doesn't exist) with a more assertive ideology.

We got here because the Marxists confidently asserted their reality and refused to compromise, and everyone else, instead of drawing their own line in the sand, bought into their game and tried to see what's the minimum level of Marxism they had to adopt in order to get along...

Maybe if we try to see their point of view and meet them in the middle we can all get along.

...and it's suicidal to pretend this ideology that has become enmeshed with society through social engineering by many very smart people, that pervades all institutions, frames all debates and discussions, and dictates our language and values with the end goal of destroying and reconstructing the society - we have had plenty of examples of how it plays out in the real world - is equally valid and worthy of consideration to all other points of view. The fact there are degrees of it, from low-information utopians who think landlords are mean and rude, to anarchists who think it should all be one big commune, to open Stalin apologists and Holodomor-deniers who think North Korea is based, makes no difference.

> The anarchists will continue to agitate for abolishing police, but now that the neoliberals have regained the Executive branch, they no longer need the anarchists to do their dirty work for them, so I expect an increase in policing to stomp out dissent. It's all for the globalist goal of making every country in the world be just like China, and to that end the anarchists are only useful idiots who will be disposed of in the end.

100%

> Chairman Xi is no fool, he knows that when you play the game of authoritarianism, you win or you die.

The only good thing about authoritarianism is it's not sustainable. There's not been one yet that has survived more than 80 years and Xi is approaching his execution date. I only hope it's public and on video. Same for the Kims.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
A lot of Empires in history were very authoritarian, and they survived for centuries. I wouldn't say that authoritarianism isn't sustainable, only that it's unsustainable when it's combined with a parasitic ideology that punishes the most productive people. That is to say, parasitic ideologies are unsustainable, and because they aren't based in reason, they need to use authoritarian strategies to acquire power. My fear with authoritarianism is that it actually works, and that libertarianism is the historical anomaly.

Funny that they're giving that lady the black teenager treatment. But not unexpected, considering they had the same hypocrisy with Kavanaugh's accusers vs. Biden's accusers. All I can hope is that enough people will see through this bullshit that these media corporations will finally go out of business.

I agree that Marxism should be given no quarter, but I was pointing to the Nietzschean thing, where you fight with monsters and then become a monster. The way out of the rivalry game is to transcend it. If you participate in it, you only perpetuate it, particularly if you find yourself resorting to the same type of propagandistic statements that the enemy had previously been using. This is especially troubling in a time where all the legitimate channels for airing grievances within the system are being cut off. If the rivalry game isn't transcended, the result can only be either a civil war, or a massacre. That is to say, if you become a mook and follow the Internet-of-Beefs model all the way to its logical conclusion, it becomes a call to violence. Jesus doesn't want mooks, he wants sons.

Granted, Jesus was killed by authoritarians, and it took 300 years for his ideas to actually change the world. On that topic, I think if there is such a thing as an anti-christ, it would have to be Karl Marx. More than a century after his death, his ideas are in the process of changing the world, back to a more Satanic values system. The best weapon against Satan, I think, is to speak the truth.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> A lot of Empires in history were very authoritarian, and they survived for centuries. I wouldn't say that authoritarianism isn't sustainable, only that it's unsustainable when it's combined with a parasitic ideology that punishes the most productive people. That is to say, parasitic ideologies are unsustainable, and because they aren't based in reason, they need to use authoritarian strategies to acquire power. My fear with authoritarianism is that it actually works, and that libertarianism is the historical anomaly.

"Works" depends on the context. What works in cosmopolitan Rome isn't what works on the American frontier. What worked in in the Industrial Revolution won't necessarily work in the Age of Technology

I think most people have a slavish temperament and prefer to hand their freedom over to a religious dogma, charismatic leader, or ideology in exchange for the promise or belief that their problems and pain will be relieved, or they will become unburdened by their own self-determination. It seems like authoritarianism thrives in situations where that impulse is revealed, whether consistently or conditionally -- overly complex societies and urban (low trust) settings where people don't have anything else better to do, and during disorienting hard times or disasters. People become more libertarian in small community (high trust) settings, and after disasters and hard times.

I like a joint as much as the next person, but hedonism has falsely replaced self-determination as the modern definition of freedom. What good is it if you can only say and own what the government says you can, they spy on you, and you have to give them one-tenth to half of what you earn? At that point it's just a distraction.

> If the rivalry game isn't transcended, the result can only be either a civil war, or a massacre. That is to say, if you become a mook and follow the Internet-of-Beefs model all the way to its logical conclusion, it becomes a call to violence. Jesus doesn't want mooks, he wants sons.

Nonviolence isn't is a virtue. Neither is indiscriminate cruelty, but there's not debate on that one.

If I'm in a government re-education center 20 years from now listening to someone like, "I'unno, if we resort to violence, it'll just show we're as small-minded and barbaric as they are. This is a test from God and we need to have faith and everything will work out," I will fucking strangle them on the spot if I even make it that long.

> Granted, Jesus was killed by authoritarians, and it took 300 years for his ideas to actually change the world. On that topic, I think if there is such a thing as an anti-christ, it would have to be Karl Marx. More than a century after his death, his ideas are in the process of changing the world, back to a more Satanic values system. The best weapon against Satan, I think, is to speak the truth.

I'm not sure what "back to a more Satanic values system" means, but I suppose Karl Marx could qualify as an anti-christ because his ideas have replaced religion. They're very popular with fanatics, sycophants, screeching church lady types, and people who need to be told what to do. Marxism is highly proselytized and doesn't coexist with alternative belief systems.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
Strawman aside, I see what you're saying. It feels like a poker game where we (those who see the truth) are bleeding chips and have to decide whether to wait for pocket aces or to go all-in now on the 2-3 of clubs that we're currently holding. My gut tells me that this is not the right hill to die on. But sure, somewhere between now and death camps, it would have to come to violence. Non-violence isn't a virtue, but violence should be a last resort; a continuation of politics by other means, only when those other means have all failed. If they came to invade Canada, I would have no choice but to defend my home. Americans can come to their own decisions regarding their own home.

But that's violence, and I was originally talking about the use of counter-propaganda. It may seem like this is the only way to sway large numbers of people to a worldview, but I think in the end it only makes things worse, by creating a world where the truth cannot survive. It's sort of like the use of steroids in sports. If the Soviets are doping, that doesn't excuse the free world also doping, because all that does is it creates a situation where the only way to compete is to shoot yourself full of junk.

Remember that there are only 70 million or so Trump supporters in the USA. It's more than Obama had in 2008, but it's still less than a quarter of the population. Their position is not quite as strong as some of them want to believe it is. It would not have been possible to rig the election if there had not been almost the same number of anti-Trump voters as pro-Trump voters, so that they could pad in a little extra and turn 49% into 51% in certain key states. It's too close to say that either side truly represents 'the people'. All it represents is a schism.

All of the moderate-minded people who are not yet convinced which side is right (that is, not yet under the influence of any propaganda), if they see both sides resorting to propaganda and sophistry, they will conclude that both sides are wrong, and they will stay out of it. This is the thing that holds Trump back the most; when he talks like an asshole, it plays well with his base, but only with his base and no one else.

What extremists always want is to squeeze the moderates and force them to pick one side or another. So that pressure needs to be resisted, is all I'm saying.

What I mean by a Satanic values system is a bit rambly, so I'll put it in a spoiler tag
I mean a society where the normal way of living is to try to take power by any means necessary: lie, cheat, steal, and have your enemies not kill themselves.

There's an idea I like called multi-level selection, where organisms have two competing sets of evolutionary pressures: individual and group (the group part is a bit fuzzy and could represent lineage, or culture). Individual-level selection incentivizes you to do whatever it takes to acquire the most resources and fill the world with your offspring, Genghis Khan style. Group-level selection is the opposing force that causes societies to collapse when they get filled up with too many psychopaths, while societies where people take care of one another remain stable.

This produces two evolutionary strategies which I think is the basis for the Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path. The LHP strategy is to be a traveling parasite, sucking the resources out of a group and then moving to another before it collapses. The RHP strategy is to devote yourself to keeping the group stable by policing the parasites before they can gain too much influence. I think Jesus discovered a super-weapon for the RHP, which ultimately led to the Enlightenment (or maybe that was Aristotle's doing), and Marx discovered a super-weapon for the LHP, which is the disease of Communism. So we're now seeing a shift from Light to Dark as the yinyang turns, and maybe some centuries from now we'll identify another key figure who figures out how to defeat Marxism and bring everything back to the Light (at the risk of sounding a bit like a Star Wars narrative).

2016: A New Hope
2020: The Establishment Strikes Back
2024: Return of the Patriots (without Tom Brady)

It's all cycles within cycles

1980: The Post-National Menace
2001: Attack of the Muslims
2010: Revenge of the Swamp
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> My gut tells me that this is not the right hill to die on. But sure, somewhere between now and death camps, it would have to come to violence. Non-violence isn't a virtue, but violence should be a last resort; a continuation of politics by other means, only when those other means have all failed.

I wasn't in DC. Sometimes I feel guilty for supporting this stuff while not being directly involved, but I'm preparing for the Right Hill to Die On. It's not like I'm watching this unfold then expecting everyone else to handle it when SHTF. If I go to a protest and get wacked or arrested, it's gonna fuck someone else's life up too, so I'm not allowed to chacha real smooth unless my partner (who has more common sense and moderate political views than me, although I'm a bad influence) chachas real smooth too.

> It's too close to say that either side truly represents 'the people'. All it represents is a schism.

It's "the people" but with two radically different ways of life.

Both groups are voting from their perception, but what's good for the stork isn't good for the fox. Relying more on local and state government is the most obvious way to mediate this, but it's more work, and the NPCs like to just push one button every four years and expect it to solve all their problems.

The Leftist smear campaign on rural America - depicting it as a land of burning crosses where everyone drives their coal-roller truck with a swastika flag on one side and a confederate flag on the other to the weekly lynching and Klan meeting before going home to beat their 18 y.o. cousin-wife, purchased from their uncle-brother at the snake-handler church, who's chained to a stove and pregnant via marital rape, while shooting guns into the air - is creating the perception that allowing "the uncivilized rednecks" to have self-determination is dangerous for the whole country and it must be prevented at all costs.

> This is the thing that holds Trump back the most; when he talks like an asshole, it plays well with his base, but only with his base and no one else.

If in 2024, the Republicans get another candidate who's populist like Trump but presents him/erself in a more conventionally "presidential" way but isn't so boring s/he can't use "meme magic", it's over for the Dems.

> Individual-level selection incentivizes you to do whatever it takes to acquire the most resources and fill the world with your offspring, Genghis Khan style. Group-level selection is the opposing force that causes societies to collapse when they get filled up with too many psychopaths, while societies where people take care of one another remain stable[...]The LHP strategy is to be a traveling parasite, sucking the resources out of a group and then moving to another before it collapses. The RHP strategy is to devote yourself to keeping the group stable by policing the parasites before they can gain too much influence.

Individualism isn't necessarily parasitic, and collectivism isn't always beneficial to the human animal. Individualism could as self-reliance, independence, and non-aggression as much as it could be irrational self-interest. Collectivism could be voluntary cooperation and trying not to make yourself a nuisance, but it could be an oppressive system of strictly-assigned roles and protocols. Of course, there's a lot of shades of gray between being an exploitative psychopath and a non-individual in a collective like the Bruderhoff.

Some things can be both at once. Incentivizing personal responsibility by not incentivizing its opposite is individualistic on one level because it allows someone the right to choose while not imposing the consequence of their behavior on others. It appeals to collectivism by encouraging more people to be voluntarily productive instead of burdening society with their demands for handouts.

I'd argue Marxism is not individualistic (or at least not a good example of individualism) because, while it appeals to the "I Me My Mine" mindset, it can't be instituted without reliance on a society and can't be instituted in the society without a collective movement. There's no such thing as a "solitary Marxist" because it necessarily concerns trying to change society and extract something from it. If you go in the woods alone and try to practice Marxism, there would be next to nothing to do apart from read Capital and not do anything with the ideas.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
Individualism and collectivism aren't what I meant. Those are distributions of power (and responsibility), and I was talking about venues of competition / selection pressure. Collectivist groups generally get corrupted by psychopathic leadership, and Communism is a prime example of that. Or the Spanish Inquisition, or Fascism, or Salafism, or the British Empire or any other empire. Collectivism of that nature is just tribalism. What I meant is that people often have a choice to sell out their community for personal gain (such as when people virtue signal on social media), or to sacrifice personal status for the sake of the community (for example Tommy Robinson calling out the grooming gangs). When a critical mass of people take the first option, it's a collectivist situation, but they are prioritizing their individual-level incentives, and so following the LHP.

Also I should add that the highest form of the RHP is to see all of humanity as the group to be served, which was basically what Jesus did that made him so popular. So maybe that's a way of transcending the Darwinian game. And that doesn't mean globalism either, because what globalists want is to enslave humanity for their own personal enrichment, which is very selfish and LHP, even as they use collectivist tools to do it.

I have always wondered about the words 'solve' and 'coagula' on the arms of the Baphomet, and why 'solve' is on the right arm and 'coagula' on the left arm, when the LHP is the destructive path, dividing and conquering. What you said about individualism and collectivism might be the answer: the LHP is selfish, but it leads to collectivism, as its followers coagulate power, while the RHP requires personal virtue, and so it leads to individualism as its followers dissolve away from peer pressure, or dissolve abusive power structures. I have to think some more about this, as it's still a jumbled mess in my mind at the moment.

If in 2024, the Republicans get another candidate who's populist like Trump but presents him/erself in a more conventionally "presidential" way but isn't so boring s/he can't use "meme magic", it's over for the Dems.
I always thought Tulsi could fill this role if she were to switch parties. But most likely it'll be Trump running again, and a good chance that the primary will be rigged to keep him out. So Trump might be better off just running as Independent, and we can watch the GOP wither on the vine like they were doing before he came along. If he's a 3rd party candidate the media might be inclined to dismiss him as a joke, just like in 2016, and then be shocked by the results once again. But that's a long shot, and more likely 2024 is just another Douche vs. Turd, only with a lot more domestic terrorism in the background that will or won't show up on the news, based on who's doing it.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> I always thought Tulsi could fill this role if she were to switch parties.

If she could give up on her anti-gun stances, she very well could. The movement of the Overton window puts her rather right of center anymore.

> But most likely it'll be Trump running again, and a good chance that the primary will be rigged to keep him out.

I think he'll run again but I'm not so sure he will win.

He didn't get the wall built, which was his main promise.

He didn't do anything to improve the student loans or healthcare system. There are alternatives to taxing people to pay for it and that wasn't even explored. Some people sit there like "MUH FREE MARKET" and chide others about how they could have planned better, learned a trade, or saved and bought fewer avocados and lattes; but it's caused by the government jerking off the banks, insurance companies, hospitals, and universities, it shouldn't be a problem in the first place, and having an entire generation burdened with debt negatively affects the entire nation.

The last taste many people will have of Trump is him saying we're gonna get $2000 checks, and how shitty the COVID bill is because of all the foreign aid and superfluous bullshit included in it, then signing it anyway, as-is, with $600 checks. I think he was set up because UC benefits were tied to the bill's passing. The Dems would never revise the bill, but blame him for people on UC not being able to pay their bills and groceries, as if it had nothing to do with their garbage bill. They want Biden to get credit for the $2000 checks, not Trump. More COVID aid will probably be the first thing that happens when Biden gets in.

After COVID, it seemed like he checked out after a point and stopped caring. It was super serious at first, then I think because COVID became a fucking partisan virtue signaling issue, and the right took the side of COVID-denial and "Masks are literally The Mark of the Beast, a sign of the End Times, and it's just to normalize microchips!!!!", he stopped talking about it. His hands were tied, though, since a mandatory nation-wide lockdown and certain closures are unconstitutional, yet the left and Dems rallied people to think we would be able to celebrate New Years if only everyone in the country were locked INSIDE their houses for a month. At the beginning, he got a bunch of ventilators made, then it turned out they weren't ever used, which didn't help his credibility.

The 2A crowd is fixated on the bump stock ban and says it means Trump is not a pro-2A president. I see it as: everyone was screeching about the Las Vegas psyop and he needed to shut them up. "I'm gonna ban this thing that makes guns full-auto," and people who don't know about guns were like "Ok, seems legit." so it satisfied some people apart from the unconditional anti-gun crowd. The ATF "red flag" raids were also part of this. The riots have caused the center to become more pro-2A, including some self-identified Liberals and Dems.

I suspect Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will run again. Trump seems to have put "Cultural Marxism" into the lexicon of mainstream political discourse. It's something normiecons talk about now. Also, he normalized some other things that are quite real but brushed off as wacky conspiracy theories - he publicly introduced the Democrat-Marxist connection, drew attention to the role of Critical Theory, and talked about the situation in Europe like other Republicans had not done before. Paul had written about Cultural Marxism, but now he doesn't seem so wacky for it and normiecons now know what he's talking about. It's given Cruz a green light to address it as well, and he's been doing that over the past few years.

> So Trump might be better off just running as Independent, and we can watch the GOP wither on the vine like they were doing before he came along. If he's a 3rd party candidate the media might be inclined to dismiss him as a joke, just like in 2016, and then be shocked by the results once again.

Nobody's better off running as a 3rd party or independent. Our voting system deters it because, in reality, a vote for a 3rd party functions as a vote for the "other party". The Libertarian Party got something like 5% of the vote (a HYUGE victory) and if, instead, they got 3% and Trump got 2% more votes, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Then again, Dems would just fabricate 2.5% more ballots at the last minute and tell anyone who asks where they came from they're a Fascist and a white supremacist.

> the Baphomet

It's just a symbol for duality. The symbolism is pagan and, based on how the symbolism relates to pagan beliefs, and does not have an "evil" meaning except where "evil" (more accurately: darkness, strife, death, tragedy, winter, unknown, etc.) was conceptually represented in a dualistic to "good" (light, fortune, life/birth, happiness, summer, familiarity, etc.)

Paganism has less emphasis on "good and evil" as polar opposites - one to be unconditionally excluded, never accepted or invited - and more on balance, or cycles of passing, between/through the two. If the pagan "relationship" can be drawn as two equal-sized rectangles, one black and one white, side by side with opposite-facing arrows between them, the Abrahamic "relationship" is a pyramid with a bronze segment at the bottom, a silver segment in the middle, and a gold apex, and one arrow pointing to the top.

So, yes, the baphomet represents a worldview incompatible with, and in contradiction to, Abrahamic religion, but it wasn't designed with Marxism, pedo cults, or social parasites, etc. in mind.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
Found this discussion with an independent journalist who was there at the capitol. Thought it was pretty good and even-handed.

 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Not gonna lie, I did not watch the entirety of The Godfather: The Director's Cut but around 35 min in, he brought up the point of "It's a sin to report on both sides" which reminded me of the newest issue related to the riots.

Forbes' editor was screeching about how nobody should hire former Trump staffers and how everything they say should be treated as a lie and the CEO or w/e of Mozilla said it's "not enough" to de-platform Trump.

Joseph Goebbels, is that you?

Eventually, once enough rightoids are cancelled and barred from employment, there'll be enough of them to create their own parallel system. It's not the 1940s. The internet is a wonderful thing.

If the ideal is a golden mean where the press is impartial and people of different political stances can put aside their differences to share a school, team, or place of employment, however, this is definitely not that.

Social media echo chambers were bad enough. Having a similar level of political ghettoization in meatspace is worse. Instead of everyone anchored to the center out of the necessity of basic things, it's possible everyone's going to be forced to adopt one complete set of polar views or the other, and have to pretend to believe in things they really don't, just to have a livelihood in one sphere or another.

I'm not gonna change my views on sex (which are quite liberal) just because I think the country should have borders.

It's funny to watch videos of events from the 90s and 00s - concerts, for me - and there will always be some person interviewed like "We're all different, and there's different religions, races, political views, but when you're here you put that shit aside and just enjoy the music". Now, you're more likely to see someone going on a rant in favor of violence against people with different opinions.

We need to go back to jobs saying "We don't care what you do or say when you're off the clock so long as you show up on time and do your job."

It was a better time for everyone.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
I had been hoping to get Eric Weinstein's take on the events of last week, but his podcast went quiet. Turns out he was talking instead on someone else's lesser-known podcast (oddly enough, recommended to me by youtube -- perhaps I've got my algorithm well-trained). I quite like what he says, especially in the first half hour of it. It drags on a bit after that.

 
Top Bottom