covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The Soviets having the bomb soon afterward was also directly due to the efforts of a network of spies that were predominately Jewish.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Other than CNN telling you that it's so, is there actually any post-1991 evidence that Russia is, in fact, our "long-term adversary"
They don't have gay pride parades.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
He is the son (oh no, should have said "child" to be in tune with our elites) of two elite parents - the top of what our system selects for - both professors at Stanford.
This isn't a generational change overall, it's a generational change in that our elite is awful and is getting worse because it's been excluding people who aren't highly conformist progressives for a long time and has tightened this. Not coincidentally, the amount of genetic detritus elevated to "elite" status has gone up radically.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Irredeemable human detritus are progressive clients and they serve Regime ends.
They drive sane, productive people with families out of cities allowing the cities to be used as vote banks in statewide and federal elections
They satiate the bloodlust of progressives who at the minimum fantasize about using them against their enemies - "don't drop the soap" (said to a guy going to jail for tweeting)
They're so destructive and incapable of living in the modern world that they require a whole host of jobs to do basic tasks for them - jobs filled by progressive clients
"Helping" people in the culture that they come from is seen as a noble good because of how bad the worst of them are and this justifies the utter insanity of the progressive urban money machine - "we need more money for dem programs"
On an even more abstract level the discomfort caused by contemplating this drives a bunch of charity due to cognitive dissonance - charity motivated by the silent idea of solving the "root causes" - "why do they act like that?!?"
producing a law-and-order backlash like we haven't seen in centuries
Must deal with the root causes for it to work - progressives who created this situation.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Things like blacks pushing people in front of subway trains don't happen randomly or in a single step. It takes years of wearing down the barriers that used to be in place to keep behaviors like that in check - even lifting those barriers didn't immediately result in the things in this thread (any item in there is a thousand times worse than the dreaded racially assigned bus seating):
https://twitter.com/GodCloseMyEyes/status/1414619671056297984
First you attack the cultural confidence which is reinforced by things like bus seating, then people test the new limits to see what's actually permitted (as people do when the rules are uncertain) and when the new rules turn out to be "everything is permitted as long as you're attacking enemies of the Regime" then you get an orgy of violence.
Even asking the question of "did this specific change produce that specific result" is asking the wrong question. The motivation for that change was ostensibly because the old rule wasn't permitted in the legal framework. On a technical level that assertion is absurd - "oh that rule was there but no one knew it for 50 years" - but even that's not important; grant for a moment that this wasn't just a transparent power grab - did it produce good results? This wasn't an isolated change and it wasn't made as one or thought of as one - it was a cultural revolution to change the way of life of a lot of people. Was it a positive change? Was it such a positive change that it justifies the crimes detailed in one single town in that thread above? Why? Just to live more in line with what a document says when no one who signed that document would even have understood it to imply the rules imposed? Absurd.
The fact that it wasn't actually justified by holy document is just the cherry on top of the disingenuousness sundae.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Do you think we should reimpose racial segregation or not?
We have racial segregation and it's ever more competitive as the legal system more and more reflects the progressive view that blacks are not subject to anything as mundane as "law".
Legal segregation would be an improvement over that system; do I think that's what should be imposed? Not necessarily - an Ottoman-style millet system would work as well as would Singaporean style legal environment - loads of workable options but they have to begin with the clear reality about the vastly different evolutionary backgrounds of the different species involved.
Segregation and "unequal treatment" (we have equal treatment now?
Yes.
you sure?)
Yes.
This does not match up with reality. The sheer volume of evidence that there's an entirely separate legal system for blacks where cops are sent out to arrest them when they make too much trouble but then they're let out vs the legal system for non-blacks where there are massive penalties for criminal conduct and downright glee on the part of prosecutors for getting to finally prosecute someone who isn't the usual was old enough to be described by Tom Wolfe in the 80s as the "hunt for the great white defendant". Almost every crime story you read about on the New York Post's twitter feed includes lines about how the latest perpetrator of a horrible crime had been "arrested 37 times before on felony charges". There are dozens of whites murdered by blacks every month with no spectacular media coverage and in fact, often times no charges filed in totally egregious cases like a firefighter defending a woman in a convenience store who gets executed by the attacking woman's boyfriend and wasn't charged - or the gas station robber in California who killed a clerk and wasn't charged because it was self defense when the clerk shot at him. Contrast that case to...
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
I admire the skillful tap dancing you are doing, but this is merely using a lot of circumlocution to avoid stating your premise explicitly. If you believe that forced segregation and unequal treatment is the only practical way to avoid "cities that don't drive whites out through targeted robbery, rape and murder," then you need to make that argument explicitly, you don't get to handwave in the direction of "results" and therefore claim that forced segregation and unequal treatment was justified based on what you perceive to be the downstream effects of not doing that.
There's no "tap dancing" going on here. Segregation and "unequal treatment" (we have equal treatment now? you sure?) aren't "the only practical way to avoid" [ethnic cleansing and people getting pushed in front of subway trains by "serial random assaulters"] but they are a way of doing so - certainly one that produced demonstrably better results. You seem to be operating under a very strange impression that what matters is that the proper procedure must be followed with zero concern over whether the procedures produce good results. This is an outgrowth of the mindset implanted by operating in a society run on the ideology of the bureaucrat - no one can be faulted for anything as long as proper procedure was followed. Though this seems normal to many people today, it is actually quite insane.
Actually, no, it isn't, because that's an infinitely generalizable argument. "Stopping rape and murder is more important than the details of the rules." "Stopping terrorist attacks is more important than the details of the rules." "Stopping narcotics trafficking is more important than the details of the rules."
Sure, all those things are true technically.
Stopping rape and murder - more important than any societal rules because these are of the highest priority of men to stop and if you society does not stop them then you make an enemy of all capable men who will quietly step out of society which then make it impossible for your society to do anything as you lose all forms of cooperation.
Stopping terrorist attacks is more important than the details of the rules - plainly obviously true. Preventing military attacks on civilians is the most basic of government functions so it can have a prosperous society.
Stopping narcotics trafficking - this is only a problem that's downstream of about a zillion things that the current bizarre government we have does.
you are arguing for a position that can only be defended and implemented through the laws in existence.
There are no laws in existence - there's only who / whom. That's not a reflection of the only possible state of affairs but it is a correct description of what we have now and I'm not going to pretend that it isn't.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
If I understand correctly, your argument is that forced segregation and requiring blacks to sit in the back of the bus was actually just because without those measures, blacks are criminals who make cities unliveable?
Breaking it down into specific rules which are questioned on the basis of the justice of the particular rule changes the framing of the question from one that is fundamentally about results - "we care that we have cities that don't drive whites out through targeted robbery, rape and murder" to one about process and procedure - "the most important thing is that our procedures be found valid by a cabal of people - but those people aren't responsible for the results of the system as a whole". Yes, without a framework of many rules - none of which is individually necessary or sufficient - blacks wage a continual war of aggression against whites. Stopping that is more important than the details of the rules. Having to sit in the back of a bus is a small price to pay to live in society where order hasn't broken down entirely such that someone on the bus is smoking meth which is the end result of subjecting every particular rule to scrutiny and finding an exceptional case where that rule seems unjust.
You may believe that blacks should be treated differently based on your moral or social principals, or you may believe blacks are extra-prone to criminality and this justifies treating them as such, but that's not a legal principal that can be found under the Constitution.
I could say that this is just as much found in the Constitution as any of the things that the Regime has found in it in since FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court and Earl Warren decided to totally re-write American law but instead I'll be honest - I don't care at all if it's "a legal principle that can be found under the Constitution" because I have observed that my enemies don't care about that either and they don't care about having a functioning society either. Turning the legal system into a game of who can lie most convincingly about what is found in a document when it plainly isn't there has run its course - the incentives for playing such a game are nothing but bad.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
It certainly didn't work out for them when they didn't do that.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
ACLU was formed as the legal defense fund for CPUSA - they haven't betrayed their principles.
https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf
The famous cases like Skokie Illinois was classic "signal boost people that make the other side look bad" (only works when you have total control of the press) combined with "create a reputation for our organization as principled that will allow us to be more effective a boosting left wing causes".
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Amazingly "optimistic" of you to think they didn't do any due diligence rather then that they did it and didn't care at all.
They had to watch the video to edit it down to what they showed.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The obvious exception is South Africa, which had much earlier settler colonialism as opposed to the later and more popular extractive model. Looking at the societies that have emerged post-decolonisation, a really striking fact is how much more violent South Africa is than any other country in the continent, even those that have experienced recent military conflict. I'm talking specifically here about murder rates, by far the most reliable measure of violence even in extremely badly-run societies (ie most of Africa). South Africa is notably more violent than almost any other African country; in some cases up to 30× more (note that oppression is colourblind, and SA's only large competitor in the murder stakes is Nigeria, anothe country cursed with intense ethnic conflict, and jockeying, alternating subjugation of the Yoruba by the Hausa historically, and the inverse now).
Sub-Saharan Africans in RSA aren't native to the region and so don't even have traditional African levels of crime control. That's what you're seeing the effect of.
An interesting counterfactual for you is this; what do you think would be the state of the US today if reconstruction of the slave regions had been completed in earnest and totally?
Detroit but with hot weather - the same results as you got when progressives actually did get to use their pets to enact their violence revenge fantasies on their class enemies.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
But I think it goes deeper than that - I don't think the right currently has a cohesive ideological framework (at least that I can articulate or grasp) for dealing with society's ills in the same way that Reagan did (cut taxes/regulation, business does great and the lower strata of society will prosper along with everyone else) or that woke people do (patriarchal white supremacist ableist society needs to be checked for the lower strata to prosper).
Do you think that's fairer, or still off the mark?
That's fair from my perspective but it's also necessary due to the asymmetry between the left and right.
The left is the side of "do something [that just so happens to make the problem it's claimed to solve worse and enriches my team and hurts my enemies] then never look at the results of that something but use the failure as evidence that the problem was not enough progressivism".
It can and does work piecemeal (even if you think my above description is "uncharitable") - you can support "more money for better teacher pay" and "more enforcement of diversity quotas in employment" and "more money for addict services" and etc. because each of those is ultimately a parasitic drain on private society - parasites are only in competition if the host is terminal.
On the other hand, the right has to come up a positive vision of what society should be and how it should be ordered - can't have a monarchy and some kind of restored republic so the only thing the right can agree on is that the left has to be stopped from doing more things.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Great, it's technically criminal.
Now lets see if the paper that the law is written on will enforce that prohibition.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Empires require expansion, and there are few good provinces left for the US to incorporate
The reason empires require expansion is because the parasitic imperial class grows (it takes an interest in the system as a whole to slow this growth and everyone in the system is interested only in maintaining his position in the system - hence, no one checks the growth of the parasitic load). The US empire is mainly a system of parasitism on Americans rather than one where foreign conquest yields returns.
Even the foreign clients are much like domestic USG clients - an excuse to take money from Americans, take a cut and give it to the foreign client in exchange for their main service - hostility to USG enemies (Americans).
This makes the historical comparisons difficult - this is rather a unique historical situation.
Of course the one way that USG actually does collect a benefit from running its empire is that the empire uses dollars and USG controls those and can issue them at will - that acts as a silent tax on the entire empire that can't be evaded.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
There was some such overlap during WW2, but I imagined they somewhat purged themselves for obvious reasons after the break with USSR?
Why would you think that instead of the opposite?
There were communists in the OSS and CIA when the US was supposedly in a conflict with the USSR - IOW, when there would have been pressure on them to hide that fact.
After the collapse of the USSR there's been a CIA director who voted for CPUSA - any pressure to hide radical left wing affiliations is long gone.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Based on some recent discussion in the CW thread (I believe), it seems like a lot of the specific issue of "pushing people in front of trains" is schizophrenics going off their meds. Their behavior is not based on a logical reasoning process and therefore cannot be influenced by a cultural more that (allegedly) allows some people to get away with such behavior.
Yet somehow it happens now and didn't happen 10 years ago. "He was arrested 36 times for violent assaults and let go each time" has something to do with it as well as noticing that "deranged men" (euphemism used in one of the news reports by the only source willing to actually notice these things happening) are sane enough to shove smaller, less dangerous people in front of subway trains. Oh look, there is a logical reasoning process going on there related directly to cause, effect and consequences. Calling the person "schizophrenic" doesn't remove that and if it did then that's all the more reason to immediately execute those people as an uncontrollable danger to everyone around them.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
More accurately, everyone wants the ends - the society that would exist that way but almost every erosion that progressives put through was individually popular.
"Cut cost disease" is exactly the same as "get rid of public sector feather bedding" AND "get rid of 'reasonable environment protections'" AND "get rid of simple rules to ensure justice in hiring", etc.
Ultimately it's a case that the framework of rules that progressives push for that is somewhat popular simply because it permeates all society is "everything must be approved of by a committee using lots of words to ensure fairness". None of it changes without a cultural change and it takes something pretty extreme to change a culture that way.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
But no, you can't because then you have a dispute between progressives who say "the law is so unfair because mostly blacks get arrested" and a pathetic side who says "the law is even handed" - which concedes the frame that if the law was somehow unfairly applied, they'd concede and just allow the progressive pro-crime position. Of course, progressives are able to find some case that they convince themselves is unfair and GOPe types cuck on it as is their job.
On the other hand, if a society has an attitude of "we don't care if you find some specific unfairness, things happen and massive amounts of crime are way way more unfair" then the progressive gets shut down.
You'll note that crime did get driven down in the 90s and this low crime drove progressives into a frenzy and they desperately reversed it as soon as they were able.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
For Hoteps, it's an even better find: white people are literally less pure humans than Black people. My distant European ancestors literally interbred with a dying outmoded pre-human hominid species, and my Nigerian friend can quite frankly state that his did not, that he's a pure human! Yakub vindicated! The white man's own science has found that the white man isn't a real human, but a hybrid chimera!
Not actually correct though since Africans have between 9 and 19% DNA admixture from a ghost hominid population.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
(It's actually not at all clear to me that the subset of right-wingers who claim to value sexual propriety orders of magnitude higher than anything else are actually best served by opposing "the Cathedral". All things considered, the woke tribe is pretty puritan in its own ways
Yes, the woke tribe is very Puritan when it comes to any healthy sexual expression - their rules are basically "if it forms families and produces children it is to be condemned and if it makes that less likely, it is to be promoted".
"Less sex" isn't a terminal right-wing value.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
They put him in a position where any move was a losing one.
Cover it up, get him on the cover-up and then it becomes (stupid) conventional wisdom - "the cover-up is what gets you" (which doesn't apply when you're (for example) Sandy Berger who only got two years probation for removing and destroying classified material from the National Archives). If he doesn't cover-up then they get him on the crime and never mention this floating hypothesis that "the cover-up is the real crime".
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Prediction before reading is that they think affirmative action is no big deal as far as getting low IQ blacks - ("it's about the underfunded schools!") into college but also totally essential to overcome the inherent systemic racism enshrined in powerful institutions such as college admissions committees.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The implication here is that we mainly have an epistemology crisis.
Most people aren't going to be as competent and trained in argumentation to spot these evasions but a big problem our society has is that even our "elites" can't spot them when the evasions are done as long as they're being done for reasons the NYT would support.
Implicitly their epistemology is "believe the implication of the NYT - don't look for the missing factual content or added non-factual content".
Very few people can reason out an epistemology on their own - most need to be educated in it. At the very least almost everyone needs to read about it and to do that one would have to find the right reading material. This means there's a lot of power in getting to set the ground rules of evaluating claims and installing a faulty epistemology - look at wikipedia and how it launders progressive claims through the "reliable sources" rule. The wikipedia rules are rules for deciding what should get printed on the site which implicitly makes them rules about discerning truth.
Progressives want to install rules like "trust the NYT" (which wikipedia has as a literal rule) because progressives known that other progressives control those institutions. Progressives still have a back door of "ignore the NYT when it says things we don't want to hear", of course.
Because the rest of your framing is wrong.
Rosa Parks was one person but her case ended up helping the many not-sympathetic individuals who were kept in check by broad rules. If you want to assert that the system that produced order was "unjust" you also have to own what Detroit and Newark and Camden and Gary look like without that "injustice".
That's the problem with test cases - they present an implicitly false case intentionally designed to confuse people and play on sympathies. The legal principles would have been the same if the case was about Corner Man and it would have been much less deceptive.
More options
Context Copy link