SoonToBeBanned
No bio...
User ID: 2653
SoonToBeBanned
7d ago
ICE isn't enforcing immigration and borders tho.
I find this attempt to lawyer the fine points of what happened to ultimately justify it wrong headed. It was wrong before it started, this situation should have never happened in the first place and desperately trying to rules lawyer down to the second obfuscates that. There are so many dangerous incompetences and failures of legitimate governances and good police work from the start, that are not remotely justified. That said:
and that is a textbook deadly threat that warrants deadly force in response.
No. Again, you try to hide from the fact that a car went to stationary to pulling out (after ICE decided to randomly start assaulting the woman). That's not fast, and it's in fact it's texbook running away from a high pressure situation (which ICE caused) because you're scared. If he didn't sidestep, he was at risk of maybe getting his foot run over and breaking it or getting a bruise on his side. If you reeeealy stretch maybe she could have actually killed him by getting him pinned over the wheel and drive over him repeatedly. I do think if a parked car started in front of you and started pulling out your adrenaline would spike (this is probably key), but I don't think it's all that super dangerous or hard to sidestep, which is what he did.
And no, it does not "warrant deadly force." Why would shooting a car help, if you thought it was coming right for you? It might work, but it might make the situation worse. Unless the car is far away from you and you can dodge it easily anyway, look a movie showdown, shooting a car to kill is objectively the wrong thing to do. You shoot someone in a car you don't want to get away or to have vengeance on, not to control and stop a car. The best you can say is that the ICE agent was stupid and didn't think in the split second. But it's not the right response for self defense pragmatically, let alone morally justified.
""""Cops"""" should not be able to create I-get-to-murder-for-free situations for anyone they don't like in a car, where they get to declare a car a "lethal weapon" in a non falsifiable blanket statement. A car is actually rarely a deadly weapon. And there should be expectation and standards of behavior and bravery for cops. Being hyped, jumpy, or feeling subjectively scared is not the same as being actually dangerously threatened (which is different than being threatened unilaterally in a situation you can do nothing about and didn't cause). People that can't handle that or tell the difference shouldn't have been allowed to touch a gun or be given the imperium of the state monopoly on violence, especially against citizens.
SoonToBeBanned
7d ago
This is pure "scissor statement" video, isn't it?
No, this happens literally every single time a cop or state thug (note, I am not thinking of America when I write this. I have been lead to believe I have to spell things out very painfully on the Motte. To be more precise I'm thinking of the USSR "police" gunning down the public, like in Death of Stalin) kills someone. There is always a substantial group that will justify it, hell or high water. People will always see what they want to see. And it's on predictable lines that are in no way connected to whatever reality a story or video has. The contents of the video mean nothing. It would have to be the most perfect black and white public broad daylight execution you could imagine, complete with Nazi tattoos and maybe some casual rape, before the usual state violence apologist contingent would begin to think critically about the officers. Even then, I'm not sure. There's nothing special about this.
I don't know what posses people to be like this, but it's a thing.
SoonToBeBanned
7d ago
She was accelerating her car towards him at close range;
A lot of disingenuousness around this. Yes, cars move. There is literally no way to move a car other than to "accelerate" it. The car in question went from stationary, to moving - it might have even hit 7 mph. A stationary car will also "accelerate" "at you" if you stand in front of it when it starts.
SoonToBeBanned
7d ago
Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
How would I provide evidence? It's a personal belief based on a lifetime of experience and thought about the subject, from my own perspective. Is there supposed to be some peer reviewed paper on "Republicans are all doody heads"? There isn't one and never will be, regardless of any truth or falsity. Cut it out with these isolated demands for rigour that you know can't be met.
Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible.
Uh huh. And I'm sure you would moderate and demand SOURCE?! for statements about how "Cultural Marxists" have infiltrated institutions and are destroying western civilization. That's sarcasmistic, I know you haven't. Or Liberals/leftists believe X. Or, to hit on the subject I replied to you elsewhere with, "Hamas are blood thirst terrorists."
You're full of disingenuousness and nonsense. Of course posting about general groups is tolerated and even celebrated. Just outgroups, not things you identify with and get pissed off are being criticized. E.g. if you were an Islamist mod things might be flipped but the behavior would be the same. Everyone that criticizes Hamas gets modded. Everyone that says "American Republicans are all warmongers and puppets of Israel" flies by because everyone that thinks differently gets banned and "we all know" that's obviously true.
There's nothing I can say to you. I repeat myself, it's my personal beliefs, endorsed by no one, meaning nothing. There's no way to say them other than the way I did. Honestly, if you people hate it so much, just don't engage or block me.
consensus building
This is a particularly hilarious accusation to bring up. Are you saying I, the constantly mod warned and downvoted, is the one interested in consensus building here? Seriously? By preaching against the choir? Who am I building a consensus with? No, if anyone is doing that it's.....
Late pointless reply. I intended to respond to more people but lost all will to post and deal with this.
We don't moderate content.
You obviously do. You just label content i.e. things to the left of you as "breaking rules." It's very easy to imagine things you want to see. Show me the man, I'll show you the crime. But I don't think you'll ever own up to it.
You also can't Fedpost (violates the "recruiting for a cause" rule)
And here is the example of intentional bad faith reading. I'm not sure what the definition of "fedposting" is exactly, but I was just stating my opinions in the moment. What else is there to do? I'm not planning or promoting anything. I am saying words, my own internal thoughts, largely for myself.
I, at the time, considered Donald Trump a high level traitor. That's dangerous and very bad. That was my honest belief. The traditional legal, when fully prosecuted, punishment for treason is death. That's U.S. law, it was law all the way back to ancient Rome. Ironically Donald Trump himself agrees with me. We just have different ideas of who is the traitor. And I do think the death penalty is appropriate for serious damaging traitors, but this is not a fucking threat ok?! It's a personal statement, and more legal oriented than anything.
"recruiting for a cause" This in particular is absurd. What cause? I'm a poster on an Internet forum. Apparently I need to say this, though I think it should be obvious, I was not planning to assassinate Trump or any other politician. I was not threatening anybody. Again, I was saying words - online. I do not think ranting to a known hostile audience (on an Internet discussion forum!), in public, with no follow up, is a good way to recruit for an evil plan to assassinate. Not that I want to anyway. Also, to be clear no one on theMotte or its administrators would or do would endorse such a thing, nor do I. Good lord.
But this is the rub of badfaith reading and undesired speech/content interpreted as beyond the pale and therefore illegal speech/thought. Because I, or someone else, could say that the head of Hamas is a threat to the prosperity of the Palestinian people and peace in the mideast, and we need to start thinking about political solutions that end with the death of Khalil al-Hayya. Which is not something I actually totally disagree with. I'll say it out loud, I denounce Hamas and don't think the death or their leaders is a tragedy. Or I could say this about Ceausescu, how his end was a good for Romania and the people that executed him did the right thing. Or maybe Kim Jong-un. Note, this is not an endorsement for killing anybody, it is words on a forum by a nobody with no aspirations. Apparently I have to say this painfully - every time. Anyway, that could be said, because you agree with it, as does the mob here. But Trump? Suddenly triggered. And triggered is an excuse to willfully read in a way that you can torture yourselves into thinking some "rule" has been violated. Seriously, a fucking cause? Again, what fucking cause?
By the way, did you or anyone else on theMotte denounce "fedposting" or political violence when Hamas leaders Ismail Haniye or Yahya Sinwar were assassinated, not legally in a human rights tribunal or for treason, by Israel? I don't think so. And discussion in the form of approval probably washed over like nothing. Funny how that works. But don't mistake me for thinking Hamas leaders dying is some tragedy. I'm saying, I see you. Even if you don't see yourselves.
Yes. But the thing is I get banned for contradictory things. I'm permabanned on /r/law for defending Donald Trump (I think it was either the Stormy Daniels sham trial debacle or saying he has a legal right to control the border), here I was banned and threatened with a future permaban for speaking ill Donald Trump. I was recently permabanned from /r/fantasy for pushing back against someone that was making things political and responded, keeping things political admittedly, with a post that implied the word fascism is used too liberally and irrationally (it was one of those "somehow punching Nazis is bad now?? posts). Here I'm already getting pushback and "fight me" posts for saying the word fascism at all - and implying fascists might be bad.
So what's the common line? Yes, I am the baddie. But it's not the content of ideas or character. It's having a very angry and abrasive tone of voice in writing, being a contrarian that speaks against the tribe in whatever tribe I'm in. Not liking circlejerks. The other common line is that the modern post-smartphone Internet is incredibly siloed and stuffed to the gills with ninnies that want to destroy people that vaguely disagree with them. And people like me that want to think in confrontational dialectic can't last.
It didn't use to be this way, and I don't think I've changed that much from the days of forums. So yes, I say it's the world, and you, and the children that are the ones that are in the wrong.
What mod history? It was a first post.
Nevermind, I'm dumb and can't read.
Edit: Thanks for changing it.
It wasn't a one time thing. Because I'm so used to being snarled at, downvoted, or just banned for posting my honest thoughts I eventually noticed my posts, not just the first one, were being shadowbanned. I think they eventually got manually reviewed and approved but I'd say about 1/3 never made it. Mind you I got started around Oct. 7 blow up, so that changes some things but still. No doubt the mods that were reviewing my anti-Israel posts and allowing the ones that went through through were patting themselves on the back as modern day Voltaires, but, again, not all Israel criticism was deemed a good enough fit.
And everyone has a ghost first post that has never seen the light of day? I don't believe it. And a moderator later said that it was personally nixed, so that further clarifies it wasn't normal.
There is no set definition of Fascist. It's never been rigorously defined (that I know of) by its self described proponents. And yes, it's overused as a snarl/witch accusation. But I think Umberto Eco's Ur Fascism is a good start. Nevertheless I think it's occasionally worth saying, and sometimes points at a real thing. It's a word for a very real phenomenon that happened in the 1920-1950s among certain world leaders. Mussolini just might have been a fascist.
So one definition I'm using here is a fascist is not a standard conservative. Literally Hitler is not von Hindenburg or Helmut Kohl. George Bush II, as much as I hate him, is (probably) not a fascist. Same for most basic bitch Republicans. Trump? I'm not so sure now. Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon? Probably. Peter Thiel, I don't know but I heard yes. Curtis Yarvin? Yes.
Outside of the somewhat vague checklist from Eco, I'd say some of features of fascism are an intense proclivity and desire for fratricide as well as mass massacre of the outgroup. This which fantasizing about mass industrial killing tons of Americans is cosigned by JD Vance. I'm def one of the ones that will end up in neo-Auschwitz for being one of the ill defined "cultural Marxists" by the way, excuse me if I don't have tons of patience for this cute routine (wHaT is FAsCism huh?!) like I should be too stupid to know who my enemies are. Jack Posobiec is one of those actual fascists not just conservatives. Love of plainclothes, secret, and or facially covered police and sham judiciaries are a seeming best hits for the fascist. Andor was a good art depiction of fictional fascism, as a real and distinct thing and if you can't see any parallels by certain real people and their yearnings, well that's on you. You know, the types that are at best nonplussed about sending people to black site torture prisons on spurious charges because they are identified as outgroup, who cares about their suffering, and surely the fact they've been targeted at all means they deserve something, and more.
Fascists are also weird. I don't know how else to say it, they really are and you know it when you see it. Does this look normal to you?. Absorbing scifi and mystics into your supposedly serious political ideology is weird. Himmler, Evola, Mussolini, these are weird or unique dudes, who share a psych profile in one way or another. Thiel, Trump, Moldbug, weird people. Speaking of that last one that wants to mass mulch people that are not him into biodiesel from the all powerful comfort of his blogging and coding chair, doesn't he also want a all powerful corporate neo-"feudalism?"
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini
Maybe that's a little fascist.
But per my original post, fascism is also notably bold, and innovative, in a way. Annexing the sudetenland, the March on Rome, wanting all slavs to be a future slave race for your 1,000 empire, neo-paganism in a very Christian society, industrial death camps for you international race war. They're doing things - out there things. Normal high functioning sociopaths of basic conservatism leaders don't do these kind of things, because they're not normal, even if they wouldn't feel bad about it. Fascists change their society and tradition. So on the question of "why would Trump do this?" "Why would anyone just kidnap a head of state like a common robber, and seemingly not care about the consequence or even comprehend it's not normal?" Well.....
Please show me an equivalent wave of nationalizations that occurred in Sweden.
The nationalizations happened long ago, and as noted started to privatize in the 90s. These are not the same timelines, so you won't see the same. Sweden used to be more socialized, Venezuela used to be more marketized and started changing more dramatically under Chavez (and the USA freaked out). But the point is they are both mixed economies at this point and not profoundly different. Do you have objective evidence to the contrary? Randomly listing cherry picked set a state owned enterprises (oooh scary) is not a substantive comparison.
Under Chavez/Maduro, Venezuela nationalized
I'm just going to list Chinese SOEs because that's easier for me, and I don't think you're willing to call modern China a socialist success story. Though I'll say right now you're right that there would appear to be more state owned enterprises in Venezuela than Sweden.
- (SIDOR)/Baowu
- banking (including Banco de Venezuela) / Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
- gold mining / China Minmetals Corporation
- telecommunications / China Mobile
- electricity / State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC)
- fertilizer / China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina)
- cement / China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC)
- transportation / China Railway And so on.
Here is a gish gallop wiki link of Swedish state enterprises.
I tried asking an AI (Grok) to compare the private versus state aspects of comparative nations on the whole. Because I neither have the skillset nor the will to dig through hard stats myself, especially just for this post. Here's what it spit out, if you're curious:
Image summation if bottom text is annoying
Sweden
| Indicator | State/Public Share | Private Share | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government expenditure as % of GDP | 49% | N/A | This represents total government outlays (including transfers, welfare, pensions, etc.), showing the state's role in redistribution. It does not reflect direct production. |
| Government final consumption as % of GDP | 26% | 74% | This measures the public sector's direct contribution to GDP production (e.g., public services like education and healthcare). The private sector (including households and businesses) accounts for the rest. |
| Public sector employment as % of total workforce | 29% | 71% | Includes employment in general government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Sweden has one of the highest public employment rates in the OECD. |
| SOE turnover as % of GDP | 8% | N/A | SOEs (e.g., Vattenfall in energy, LKAB in mining) have a combined turnover of SEK 531 billion, representing a small but strategic state ownership in key sectors. Their direct value added to GDP is estimated at 2-3%. SOEs employ 137,000 people (2.6% of total workforce). |
Overall estimate: The state (including public services and SOEs) accounts for roughly 25-30% of the economy in terms of production and employment, while the private sector dominates the remaining 70-75%.
Venezuela
| Indicator | State/Public Share | Private Share | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government expenditure as % of GDP | 18% | N/A | Total government outlays (including transfers and subsidies); lower than many economies due to fiscal constraints and underreporting. |
| Government final consumption as % of GDP | 12% (estimated) | 88% | Direct public sector contribution to GDP (e.g., services like education and defense); adjusted estimates amid economic volatility. Private sector dominates the remainder. |
| Public sector employment as % of total workforce | 24% | 76% | Includes general government and SOEs; informal employment is high (44%), blurring lines. |
| SOE turnover/contribution as % of GDP | 15-20% | N/A | Dominated by PDVSA (state oil company), which accounts for 95% of exports and an estimated 15-20% of GDP. Other SOEs in mining and energy add 5%. |
Overall estimate: The state (including public services and SOEs) directly accounts for roughly 25-35% of the economy in terms of production and employment, with the private sector handling 65-75%—though much private activity operates under heavy state regulation and informal conditions. Key sectors like oil are almost entirely state-owned.
China
| Indicator | State/Public Share | Private Share | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government expenditure as % of GDP | 33% | N/A | Total government outlays (including transfers, subsidies, and investments); moderate compared to welfare-heavy economies. |
| Government final consumption as % of GDP | 17% | 83% | Direct public sector contribution to GDP (e.g., services like education and defense). Total final consumption is 56% of GDP, with households at 40%. |
| Public sector employment as % of total workforce | 25-28% | 72-75% | Includes general government and SOEs; private sector supports 80-87% of urban employment. |
| SOE turnover/contribution as % of GDP | 25-40% | N/A | SOEs generate significant value in strategic sectors; more recent analyses suggest 23-30% value added, though revenue figures can overstate due to costs. |
Overall estimate: The state (including public services and SOEs) accounts for roughly 30-40% of the economy in terms of production and value added, while the private sector dominates 60-70%—though private firms often face state influence via regulations, subsidies, and partnerships.
SoonToBeBanned
12d ago
The only thing that saves me is my infrequent posting.
And it's also a reference to how I am constantly banned for speaking my mind on Reddit, and how I don't think this place will be any different. It hasn't been. That post was immediately read in bad faith by some mod with an attitude and used as an excuse to freak out, self preen, and ban the scary wrong think. Surprise surprise. And you know, my very first post here was censored. You can't read it to this day, as far as I can tell. So I was banned before I even started, in a way. I wasn't pessimistic enough.
I stand by the name.
SoonToBeBanned
12d ago
I don't particularly disagree with you on the foreign policy angle, but if you consider Venezuela a success, how does a failure look like in your mind?
I don't consider it a success. I think it's been pretty successfully contained, so shout out to USA foreign policy in competence, be it good or evil. But I think it could have been successful as a contagion in the earlier days of Chavez, which lead to a target obsession.
Weird, as a Trump-adjacent """fascist""", I'm pretty sure I want them to leave Venezuala and Iran alone.
Well maybe you're unique then. Good for you, at the risk of being cringe, independent thinking is too rare. But really I mean the leaders of the Trump admin, like Stephen Miller, are fascists. I don't think the common fan base of Trump is all "fascist" (which isn't a word that has a strong definition, so what would that mean for the common man?), though some could probably be called that. I do think they are jingoistic even if they pretend to be anti-war, and they will be impressed military muscle flexing.
Really? You're that surprised? Or is this some sort of Socratic starting the dialog by just asking questions thing.
The USA has been hostile, demonizing (in a propaganda sense), and desperate for hostile state action against Venezuela for like nearly 2 decades now. The USA still has an imperial mindset where they consider South and Central America to be "theirs" in a sphere of influence. And they hate that Chavez was too socialist (by their perception), and failed to either jump or fall over dead when the USA commanded otherwise. The fact the rabbit keeps getting away with it alone seems to have created and Elmer Fudd like target obsession. One might also speculate the Venezuelan success might be a contagion that furthers socialist (really "social democracy") popularity in the Americas and a successful model of defiance of the USA imperial authority. One of the first things Chavez did was create a very close alliance and collaboration with Cuba, a persona non grata by the CIA/USA's standards, for example.
Again, sphere of influence matters. I've seen no indication Venezuela is more socialist than Scandinavia (which is in fact socialist - or at least used to be. But so embarrassingly successful that there has been a fairly successful history rewrite and brainwashing campaign, post 2005 or so, by neoliberal "experts" to convince people it is akshually like super capitalist) but Sweden is not in America's sphere of influence, so it doesn't get as mad and obsessed about regime change. China is definitely out of America's sphere of influence, so the USA's opinion about the fact Xi calls himself a literal Communist, or the fact he is a flagrant dictator that subverted the oligarchy that was going means jack shit. The latter aspect of Xi isn't actually important but Venezuela propaganda always pretends the USA actually cares about democracy so it should be noted to just get a measuring check on what Big Brother says versus what The Party actually does in revealed preferences. Anyway, with Venezuela, it's different, because the USA thinks it has an entitlement to tell them what government they're allowed to have.
Ultimately though: Trump is erratic, and probably mentally feeble from age if not insane. And he's surrounded by weirdo fascists. He just does things. He is flagging in the approval rates disastrously. He has not improved economic standards of living and he's not going to. There is a lot of indication that the party will be severely chastened in the midterms. He might even end up in jail by the end of his presidency, instead of subverting democracy by pulling a Maduro, like he clearly seems to want. At the same time, we still don't know about Trump's full involvement with a hostile foreign state spy (Mossad) that was involved in controlling/blackmailing American elites and politicians, by "raping kids" and general sexual coercive prostitution. He's admirably tried to flood the zone to get the goldfish public to forget his troublesome involvement with that, not think about the implications of it, but it's still not over. He needs a distraction.
So we get a Falklands War situation.
Finally, for the fascists surrounding Trump, the response might be a win win, based on calculated risk and win. A total successful foreign interventionist coup might distract the public with more zone shit. It might impress his base that are otherwise realizing they're miserable with vicarious jingoism "we are strong" vibes. And if "the left" responds with protests, then that just further validates his base which runs on "do whatever the enemy doesn't like" and general hatred/loathing as a political ideology.
Haven't you noticed how badly Trump and his fascist admin wants to provoke domestic chaos/violence, if not ideally "terrorism?" Remember when he was clearly trying to provoke an internal American shooting war by sending armed military to "blue states" with deliberate antagonism and a "go on and try something" mentality? How he would lie about Portland being in total chaos that needed strong statist militarized goons, responding to him, instead of local authorities? Unfortunately neither the locals of the likes of California protesting his brutal ICE policies nor the, let's face it likely low IQ, armed goons themselves took the bait. But this time... maybe? Provoking internal chaos and tribal factionalism could be Trump's ace in the hole to subvert democracy and cancel elections he's going to lose, if not run for a third term. Gotta "save the Republic." He and those around him are increasingly looking cooked otherwise.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot, it really is about oil. It's always at least partly about oil. People hate that it's so black and white. It really is a major factor.
SoonToBeBanned
12d ago
If you repeatedly antagonize your neighboring superpower, you get what you get.
What the hell are you talking about? It's the USA that has been constantly antagonizing Venezuela and interfering with it. They've fairly successfully attacked the quality life of all Venezuelans by economic war via aggressive sanctions.
This will also no doubt further fracture the Republican base in a major way, as interventionist neocons clash with America-First isolationists.
This implies American "conservatives" and Republicans have ideology. They do not. There is no indication of this, and plenty to the opposite. The Republican base runs on "vibes" and hatred of the other to give a sense of unity and "doing something." And has a massive proclivity towards political personality cults and authoritarianism. They'll be fine - for now. Our glorious tribe leader did something, it was even a success that feels tough, and enemy tribe doesn't like it = it was good libtards. Hell yeah!
It's not intense enough. I'll go further.
Trump is a traitor to the USA, and we need to start seriously discussing imprisonment or a bullet to the brain. I'm serious.
I don't know if he's just a natural slave, so addled by age that he's easily manipulated and totally confused, or he really is compromised by Kremlin agents, but either way, he is not an American. He is a Russian (and Israeli, let's be real) stooge that has infiltrated the highest levels of American government.
What's more galling and troubling is his pathetic followers are so fucking stupid, immoral, and spiritually weak that they will mindlessly follow his treason. This hasn't been said much outloud because it's too "unkind" and extreme, but it's time to face the music. One of the definitive characteristics of modern "conservatism"/Republicanism is stupidity (for white people), and a low capacity for morality, and most of all, an extremely weak ability to think for oneself. A highly servile disposition prone to seeking out daddy/leader figures. NPCism combined with resentful hatred, insecurity, and confusion.
What that means, disturbingly, is one traitor in the Alpha Brain leadership means now a legion of NPCs, on display right here, mindlessly "sanewashing" and realigning their "thinking" with the new gibberish. They betray and try to sabotage America, their own home, too, because they can't think better for themselves. Fucking enraging and beyond pathetic. The most powerful nation in the world, a puppet of some semi-3rd world dictatorship shithole in the east (and that one less 3rd worldish nation in the desert). All because a huge segment of the USA chooses to be, or naturally is, mental invalids.
Or maybe it's what was just said, but Trump is such a narcissist he thinks he can pull a straight up "we have always been at war with Eastasia." Maybe just as a power move or something. Again, depressingly, he is at least right with some. I guess that could also be it.
SoonToBeBanned
10mo ago
He's gambling with WW3
What is it with Russian shills and this stock phrase? What on earth is in their mind? I'm mystified.
A "World War" needs multiple nations around that world to be at war. Presumably highly developed ones of equal relatively strength. There are no other nations. There's Russia, maybe North Korea, and that's it. China is certainly not going to get involved. Who else? India? Japan? Brazil? If NATO/Europe gets involved it's over for Russia. The only thing I can think of is it means nuclear missiles.
SoonToBeBanned
10mo ago
Peace and prosperity in Europe. To put this in neonazi terms, higher IQ western whites, spearheaded by leadership heavily colored by those born within the Hajnal line, have naturally held this one weird compact: no more brother wars. White western civilization also maintains its near monopoly on functional true democracy (for whatever worth and reality there is in that). And the peace and prosperity furthers the goal of Western civilization constantly getting richer, more technologically advanced, and producing the high levels of human cultural output - instead of being distracted with constant dick measuring wars between worthless dictators playing their own map expansion and coloring games. That latter bit is more the area of say, Africa or the Middle East, with one notable exception.
Weirdly, slavs consistently are the odd man out here. Southern slavs in the Balkans being the exception to European peace in the 90s. And Russia never ever being able to match the civilization level of western nations i.e. they've never had a democracy and similar internal civil development, for some reason, and show no signs of self improvement in the near future.
The Russian war of annexation is symbolically and functionally a civilizational war of oriental despotism and 3rd worldism vs Western Civilization. Resistance against it is resistance said orientalism and lower level of civilization. It punishes the weak and problemed in favor of the thriving and superior. Appeasement is degradation and invitation to further rot.
It's the geopolitical equivalent of a schoolyard bully that comes from a broken dysfunctional home of a whorish single mother and revolving door of boyfriends that occasionally beat said bully. Everyone with half a brain can tell such a bully is going nowhere in life long term, even if he's big right now. He takes advantage of high trust societal norms (non-violent, conflict averse teachers) to let out his frustration, from internal problems, on other students like "nerds" (who are actually higher IQ, more prosocial, and more mentally well adjusted). You'd be a fool to think the "nerds" should just let the bully do whatever he wants under the idea he'll just stop, or even worse sink to his level and imitate him. He's the defect and weak link.
SoonToBeBanned
10mo ago
It’s a threat.
Not it's not. You are being disingenuous. It's a statements of words. Words do not hurt or harm. And a statement of belief.
You can’t cheer on death and hide behind it being a political statement.
Why can't you? You literally can, and it can very much be a political statement. People cheer death all the time. I remember people cheering Saddam Hussein dying. Was that not political statement, belief, and speech? And I literally can't count and catalog the amount of political invective I've heard against the Clintons on the Internet, over the years.
SoonToBeBanned
10mo ago
Progressive politics just let a large swathe of California burn to the ground and the media told us blaming politicians was the height of rudeness
What the hell are you talking about? The level of deranged obsessive yet performative hatred and outright lying about California that exists in the right-wing sphere never ceases to amaze me. Are you saying "progressives" started literal fires? Or do you think your hobby horse and tribal "enemies" somehow made firefighting less effective? Or is this some weird dig at homelessness and media influences perceptions of petty crime, and the assumption that level surface tibal party politics has anything to do with them?
Someone on the Internet speculated that this tweet/Truth posting (?) was testing the waters. I find that a very plausible explanation.
In which case, it reminds me of Historia Civilis's amazing storytelling about later Caesar. At Lupercalia there's an incident where Mark Antony suddenly out of nowhere, from a crowd, appears and insists Caesar wear a diadem/crown which would make him a king. As people do sometimes, you know? Caesar turns down the repeated bizarre attempts. Speculation abounds that Caesar and Antony were testing the waters to see how the public reacted to him finally taking the shot and outright calling himself king, rather than dictator for life with a literal golden throne. But they plainly didn't like it so he pretended it was presumptions and silly. In other words, depending how Trump's fanbase reacts to this, and how much everyone else pushes back, we will get more.
Anyway, yeah. I've never had Trump derangement syndrome. And it's strange because going by topology, I should have it. I've been mystified by what people see in him, negative or positive. I get downvoted and banned for both defending and denouncing him (the latter more so only around here or places like this). I thought I was clear headed and everyone else was going insane, but maybe I've been missing something. It seems the squawking MSM libs saw something I could not. He really does seem to be a fascist, and him and his cohort really are a danger to democracy. All I can say now is I notice I am confused.
And? Doesn't change what I said or the fact you're objectively wrong. The goal is to help people grow stronger.
Obviously "Communists" are not childish idiots with a terminally naive utopian pacifism. Almost by definition they are self selected from the more hardcore and roughneck of the greater socialist umbrella. They are willing to do what must be done to survive and thrive. But if everyone woke up tomorrow willing to work in peace and be a "Communist," or at least friendly, there would be no need for fighting nor an iota of desire for it - and the overwhelming majority would soon become richer and more prosperous with net utilitarian gains. It's a very prosocial ideology. It's generally right-wing ideologies that are characterized by a desire to mass murder the different.
Like, those 1918 quotes are from a period of straight up revolution and civil war, which they did not start nor desire. The initial Russian coup was fairly bloodless, but certain people weren't having it and were willing to kill and drag the country, if not world, into war and chaos to make sure it didn't happen. Do you oppose law & order, or the right to defend yourself? Do you think people shouldn't commit to war?
The idea that identifiable classes of humans were evil by nature and would need to be exterminated
Again, and? Do you think there or no evil people in society? Or is this just rank hypocrisy where those you perceive to be evil of course deserve to be suppressed if not eliminated, but when other people do it... And you're wrong, the thing about class is you specifically don't need to exterminate anyone nor is it by inborn nature. This isn't HBD. You can simply cast off the clothes of a class and you'll be fine. The nature of Communism guarantees dignified proper livelihood regardless of your personage, even if you're no longer a 1% elite.
See the case of former emperor Puyi and that one movie The Last Emperor, as a visual example.
SoonToBeBanned
11mo ago
The Communists' stated goal was to make a better world by killing everyone who didn't fit into it
That is not remotely the goal of Communists. Especially stated. The goal of Communists is to maximize personal freedom and prosperity.
SoonToBeBanned
1yr ago
but the idea that Cultural Marxism is a myth, is a myth.
No. It's not. I'm a Marxist. If it were real I would have heard of it. The first time I heard of it was from ultra-right wing extremely online types. And they continue to be the only ones that talk about it. This leads to at least one of two conclusions
- I am in on the conspiracy. And I am lying to you.
- Somehow, you and a bunch of other online fascist adjacent types understand Marxism better than me.
In the years I have argued Marx and Socialist stuff I have pretty much never encountered an anti-Marxist that really knew much of anything about Marxism. It really is kind of astounding how ignorant anti-Marxists are about the ideology they profess to hate, actually. Up to the most respected professors, it's immense amounts of confused BSing. And we're not talking about something small that's easily missed here.
There literally were academics calling themselves Cultural Marxists
You mean academic singular. I watched this happen in real time. The extreme right-wing types that desperately wanted to put the cultural marxism myth on to wikipedia were having a hard time with power users and their citation gatekeeping. Eventually someone just went to google scholar and found a book with the title Cultural Marxism from the 80s or 90s from some literal who. Not a single conservative I've seen citing this "proof" has read said book, that I know of. Nor has any serious Marxist. Nor have I. There might be others, I don't know, since culture and marxism are two very popular buzzwords for overproduced academic hacks, but no serious Marxist has ever talked about such things. This might not be obvious to you, but trust me, It's really obvious to me because I am actually somewhat familiar with this ground.
The other works the conspiracists like to cite never call themselves "cultural marxist" e.g. the Frankfurt School. Who are not literal whos. No fan or detractor of them has called them such in Marxist circles. Again, it's all right wingers from without confusedly opining. Fans call their influence "critical theory" and it's no great secret or grand conspiracy.
Again we are talking about a supposed movement that's brought much of the developed world to its knees. Despite the fact economic leftism as a movement is laughably dead and pathetic now. Not some micro book from around the collapse of the USSR.
become SJWism, and now Wokeness.
If wokeness had much to do with serious Marxism maybe I would be Woke. I'm not. I'm opposed to it.
Why would you even need mass arrests? What even are mass arrests and what do they have to do with honest immigration control? Actual immigration police work should 99% paperwork. You see it all the time with border control and passports. It's the whitest of white collar crimes. You check papers and hand papers to people telling them their papers are not in order, and occasional escort people to a holding place to expel them from the country. It's not dramatic. These are not hardened criminals, they're mostly middle aged schlubs living normal lives.
What you do is you send actual real officers of the law, not ICE paramilitary LARPers, to go where you think your intelligence has informed you someone has overstayed their visa, or never had a visa to begin with, then inform them and maybe put them in a car to take them to a jail or something. It's not rocket science. It doesn't need guns, let alone hidden secret police identities, tacticool gear, assault and aggressive belligerence, or any of this extra crap.
Like if i were an illegal immigrant in Japan, overstaying my visa or whatever, I would expect the police to knock on my door politely "Sumimasen, you must come with us." inform me I have brokent the law and eventually get me on a plane out of the country. Why is this hard?
Make themselves scarce where? These are immigrants. Not squatters or fantasy realm thieves. They can't live in the mountains or sewers to hide until the heat is down. The entire point of (mass) immigration is people need and work jobs to live. If you know enough to find someone that border crossed or doesn't have their papers in order, why wouldn't you be able to find them at their cousins? Why wouldn't you just tell their place of work, "inform us when they come back, they are breaking the law."?
For sure it could. What would be hard about it? But it won't. Because immigration control is a fake issue they don't really want to enforce.
More options
Context Copy link