domain:cspicenter.com
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
3hr ago
The biography of Marx and Engels would be useless, but if you aspire to large-scale denazification or decommunization then the intellectual and mythological inspirations for the collective consciousness are at the forefront of relevancy. This is an all hands on deck audit and I wouldn't spare anything from scrutiny, not Christianity or the American mythos itself. I give a critical eye even towards those things I have held dear in my life. But I'm certainly not going to lie to myself about what is an obvious ethnopolitical undercurrent to Jewish political and cultural influence in the 20th century either.
Understanding the malady that haunts us absolutely requires us to understand these forces, including the means and motives. We need to be able to detect them, decode them, countersignal them. This is not historical trivia, these same forces I've described are at the absolute forefront of censorship, lawfare, lobbying, and culture-creation across the entire world. It's a present-day conflict that confronts you whenever you turn on the TV. It's not biographical trivia.
ABigGuy4U
4hr ago
It should be noted that the nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway was a back up plan. The group’s original plan was to detonate a nuclear device in Tokyo. They had put together a working group of ex-Soviet scientists to build one. They didn’t get that far, but they got a hell of a lot further along than any Islamic terrorist group ever has.
Do you think that Jews ought to compromise themselves at all in regards to Jewish identity politics that can be anti christian and anti european? Or is it only on the other side to be tolerant?
For example, they should oppose laws that enforce a story of Jews as oppressed and European Christians as oppressors, and in fact support institutions promoting a narrative that does include some criticism of Jews for their contributions to far left extremism, and antiwhite movement.
It isn't really a complicated issue. There are Jews who are an asset to the right like Stephen Miller who tend to have an identity that encompasess more than the Jewish one. And Jews who do have resentment towards right wingers and Europeans and strong Jewish identity, do exist aplenty, and are not caused by insufficient appeasement, since there is ever abudance of the appeasing right.
Only a minority of Jews are such in their ideology and behavior that it would be wise to accept them. Neocons for example are a subversive force on the right. However, this can theoretically change.
Ironically, Jews would have assimiliated more, if organizations like ADL, WJC, etc, etc were banned. And in fact, Jewish support of multiculturalism and anti-european identity politics and intersectionality is in part related to the more radical Jews wanting the Jews not to assimiliate to whiteness.
Anyway, both Jews as a pattern and non Jewish pro Jewish types, are not even handed people only opposing antisemitism, but are highly biased to an extend that could be described as Jewish supremacist. And paint as antisemitism things through that lense. It would be both moral in general from a more unviersalist point of view, but also good in regards to the right and European-Jewish relations, and more friendship, for Jews and those promoting pro jewish narratives, to water down their wine. To compromise. To accept their own sins, instead of doing the narcisist manifesto.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
Avoiding the narcisist manifesto, does not make them self hating.
When Amy Wax claimed that her father was unduly too critical towards Christians, that wasn't self hateful.
And on much of the right they will find people who are going to accomodate them and aren't going to be promoting some demand of maximalist self hating dogma. The Jews who enjoy a positive reputation among the kind of right that doesn't like Shaprio aren't just Unz, but plenty of non self hating Jews but who have compromised on level of seperate jewish identity politics and do see the interests of europeans as legitimate and identify with a broader category rather than seeing them as a hostile other.
Of course, the issue is that laws currently promoted are Jewish supremacist in nature. And those who support that.
Another issue, is that if you got some hateful Jewish supremacists pushing their agenda, that is going to inflame the passions and anger on the other side. Just like Jews who have compromised and are more moderate and friendly towarsd the right incentivize a more positive reactions.
One's ideology in regards to nativism, immigration, AA and such issues is of course fundamental. And whether a Jew in a european country identifies as being part of that group and sees them as his people.
Jews claiming to be right wing who still retain sufficiently strong liberal views on such issues and are motivated by seperate ethnic identity are going to be treated with more suspicion. And even if their liberal views are somehow unrelated to their Jewish identity, they are a problem. Like I said, neocons should be reasonably excluded because of having sufficiently different and hostile ideology, and have a history of cancelling actual right wingers and conservatives for being insuficiently liberal on racial, and other issues. And more so especially for being insufficiently subservient to Jews and making any criticisms.
Sailer also wrote a short post after the issue discussed critical of the Israel lobby that the uncomrpomising Jewish identitarians wouldn't have promoted. So I wouldn't consider him the same as those types. More of a positive force than a negative. https://www.unz.com/isteve/not-getting-the-joke-2/
Which doesn't make this good article https://keithwoods.pub/p/protestantism-jews-and-wokeness arguing against his thesis a bad thing. Even those who are sufficiently a positive force to not gatekeep them out can promote bad ideas, which would be good to debate and counter.
Anyway, excessive compromise in pro female, pro jewish, pro black, etc direction is a key part of our current situation. This isn't to say purity spiralling in the opposite direction is correct, but appeasement is the wrong move and having those who are excessive pro jewish, pro female, etc, etc compromise is correct in general, but especially for the right. The right will become indistinquishable with the left in fundamental issues, if it listens to women and Jews and LGBT Republicans and pro migration types and pro black types arguing for more appeasement. More compromise. Laws giving their favorite groups preferential treatment. And there is a connection with appeasement to one, leading to appeasement to all and the same intersectional story. While painting anything but that as antisemitic, misogynistic, anti black, racist, etc, etc.
The right has compromised too much in these directions, is losing its own identity as a right and moving too far to the left in the process and needs to fix this overreach and not increase it.
Jews wanting to be a part of the right have an even bigger moral obligation than Jews in general to water down their wine, and compromise from the more extreme positions typical in Jewish community that are part of a progressive Jewish nationalist narrative of Jews as always oppressed, always in the right against especially a European Christian historical, present, and possibly future oppressor. Some level of admitting fault is not only accurate but necessary because if Jews are progressive as a pattern, and as Prager says "the consicence of humanity" why oppose the ADL, and the activities of those Jews who do see with hostility european christian civilization? Since Jews didn't do nothing wrong, then they were correct to be leftists under this perspective and only reacting to "antisemitism" under this false narrative. So why oppose the current leftist trajectory? That compromise I mentioned towards a more moderate position and having a stronger broader identity that sees European rightists as your people would also make it justifiable for European rightists to accept such Jews.
BahRamYou
4hr ago
"To me, it seems obvious that he bought far out of the money GME calls, then posted on Twitter to pump the stock, then closed those positions for others. The alternative: that he 7x'd his money in 3 years seems unlikely. Naturally, he hasn't posted his trade logs so we can only speculate.
In my opinion, DFV should have stayed out of the spotlight. As a "regular person", not an insider, I think there's a good chance he ends up in jail."
Agreed. The original boom was a nice story- average* Joe (not really that average, he was a CFA and a registered securities broker, but he wasn't rich) finds a massively undervalued stock, puts all his money into it, tells the world, and a bunch of average people make money. Great story.
This though- this just seems like market manipulation. There's no fundamental analysis going on, it's just pure speculation and market manipulation. People tuned into his live stream hoping to get some transparency, but he didn't give that at all, just some crazy rambling and dumb memes. At this point he's doing market manipulation aimed at teenagers and crazy desparate people.
I've been making a lot of money selling far out of the money calls against it whenever the price bubbles. I'll take the easy money but I feel bad for the idiots losing their life savings in this.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
4hr ago
if Taiwan falls both of them will almost certainly withdraw from the NPT and acquire nuclear weapons in order to deter the PRC from blockading them in event of conflict (and thus allow them to have foreign policies that aren't dictated by the PRC by that threat)
But wouldn't the South Koreans come to some kind of negotiated deal with China before it got to that point? If they see that the Chinese blockade won't be broken quickly enough to avoid hunger and malnutrition, wouldn't they come to terms? Maybe there'd be some phoney federal agreement with North Korea that looks good on paper but does nothing IRL, maybe they have to share technology with China and give up some air or naval bases.
That seems like a much better deal than a nuclear war or starvation.
Well thats because most people are not hard consequentialists. So doing a bad thing for good reasons and doing a bad thing for bad reasons are seen as different.
If instead of trying to murder Jews, the Nazis were trying to save them from a disease and ended up killing them by mistake, then most people would see those Nazis as morally better than our actual historical Nazis. Even if they were warned it was a risk.
So most people would not see it as being just as bad. They just fundamentally disagree with you there. Someone honestly trying to alleviate suffering is simply better than someone trying to cause suffering, even if in the end they both end up causing it. Motivations are an important part of judging moral behaviour.
And if you think about that makes sense. If i just want to honestly help Jews then there is some set of information that can persuade me I am not helping. If i mean to kill the Jews then that avenue is closed. You would have to persuade me first not to want to harm them, and then persuade me to want to help them and then try and come up with a solution that works. You are many further steps away from a positive outcome for Jewish people (assuming for the moment that is your aim).
ResoluteRaven
4hr ago
Even if we accept that these ideas were the product of 20th-century Jewish immigrants channeling their conscious or unconscious bias against white gentiles, I don't think it necessarily follows that knowing their motivations would be that much help in your fight against their ideology, any more than knowing the biographies of Marx and Engels would be particularly useful if one were engaged in a geopolitical rivalry with a communist state (rather than understanding Marxism as interpreted by living party members).
Here I'll borrow a metaphor from Scott to make this more interesting:
I am pretty sure there was, at one point, such a thing as western civilization. I think it included things like dancing around maypoles and copying Latin manuscripts. At some point Thor might have been involved. That civilization is dead. It summoned an alien entity from beyond the void which devoured its summoner and is proceeding to eat the rest of the world.
I'd wager that most of us here believe something along these lines, although we differ in the details of what exactly the alien is, the merits of being eaten by said alien, in which century it was summoned, who did the summoning, etc. In any case, you seem intent on crafting weapons to fight the long-dead summoner and his kin, rather than engaging the alien directly, and it seems like an ineffective strategy to me.
2rafa
4hr ago
“Secret” is doing a lot in the OP. In any case, Sailer and BAP have very different views on most of these issues, Sailer is largely a form of civic nationalist, BAP has an incoherent kind of gay misogynist LARP more focused on contempt for women than other groups. Neither attempted to ‘hide’ their Jewishness, Costin wore an IDF t-shirt in college and posted his DNA test results and is open about it, Sailer is adopted but has speculated his birth father (iirc) could have been Jewish on several occasions over the last 20-30 years. In either case I don’t think that Jews shouldn’t participate on the right or in these spaces because some people might deploy related evopsych arguments in favor of antisemitism. As MacDonald and others show, they would do this anyway.
The logic of your argument is exactly what led to a lot of Jewish academics being unwilling to believe the obvious evidence for a lot of this stuff in the mid-20th century, not because they were nefarious manipulators trying to destroy European civilization but often because they didn’t want to be ‘on the side of’ people who justified antisemitism which they were personally afraid of. That doesn’t stop scientific enquiry, though, and the truth is the first duty of the principled researcher, wherever it leads.
It reminds me of ‘tradwife regret’ discourse (see Lauren Southern recently) and associated schadenfreude. But that doesn’t mean modern western gender relations are good, let alone optimal. It certainly doesn’t “disprove” women being socially conservative because hurr durr leopards ate her face lol, girlboss discourse is back because one person tried the hashtag tradlife and it wasn’t all that fun. There’s the famous cautionary tale of Ettore Ovazza, loyal Jewish Italian fascist, shot by the Germans in 1943. Did leopards eat his face? Perhaps, but no moreso than anyone destroyed by a twisted version of a belief system they once supported, and that is a very large number of people. I’m not going to become a leftist just because there are antisemites and misogynists on the right.
tell me you've never held a blue collar job without coming out and saying it.
I have a blue collar job and agree with him. If we could organize politically our wages wouldn't be stagnating as our bosses replace everyone they can with illegals.
If we weren't hopelessly inept at organizing, how did construction workers end up being forced to take "male privilege" training sessions? If we were capable those responsible would already be dangling from cranes and meat hooks by now.
ChickenOverlord
5hr ago
A society that requires constant war to flourish
But does fascism actually require war to flourish? Spain and Portugal, Pinochet's Chile, etc. seem like strong counterexamples for this.
Do you want children, or already have them? If so, do you want them to be more successful than you or less? If there is a particular group you consider a net burden on society, then knowing BC's sterilization isn't going to happen, would you prefer their children eventually rise to be net gains for society or remain a burden?
Among the online right are people who attach a moral value to intelligence, in so doing they necessarily attach moral value to distance from animal urge. It's animal urge that says kill the other, it's the most base desire that pushes sterilization and eradication and it's not one whit different in heart than warring chimpanzees. Virtue makes neighbor of the other, and just as I want my great-grandchildren to be wildly smarter than me, I want the great-grandchildren of all my neighbors to be wildly smarter than me. And yours, and BC's, and everyone here.
Though neither is it virtuous to tolerate criminal and reprobate behavior. Caring for your neighbor can mean knowing what's best for them even when they don't, and that means punishing those who deserve punishment and withdrawing aid beyond bare necessity for those who waste in it. There must be a new inspiration of healthy respect for the just governor and fear of his righteous retribution. There must also be the pursuit of the virtuous solution to these antisocial populations: by changing their children. Not by the chimp's desire to murder them all, not the mythical and well-disproved social policy of uplift by schoolmarm, but in the technological promise of genetic modification.
There's the moral question of the practice, but it's a very low bar: a person who doesn't want their children to have a better life than their own may be disregarded. There's the practical question of whether it would actually work, fair, and of bad actors claiming uplifting therapies as a façade as they in fact modify to make slaves, also fair. If I were not convinced of its safety, I would vehemently oppose it. But in the moral abstract, if we have the ability to make our children healthier and smarter, we absolutely must.
Luxury beliefs. Status signaling. Peacocking. This is a well understood phenomenon.
This is what I target with the paragraph beginning "Of course the behavior of such people is very easy to explain . . . " Though I was unfair in it, I should have included "and people who are personally invested in acting in accordance with what they believe is best for all people" though I think that's the minority.
hanikrummihundursvin
5hr ago
To make a long story short: If you care about your group you want people who care about your group in charge. Ben Shapiro doesn't care about the 'white America' group at all. This bleeds into his rhetoric. He does, however, care a lot about Israel. If he cared as much about white America as he did Israel there would be no problems, but he obviously doesn't.
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '21
5hr ago
I have a 1920s era German Luger. I would say it's in "fair" condition. The last two times I took it to the range, it misfired or hangfired. Is it possible to find someone who can fix it without (1) charging insane prices or (2) damaging/heavily modifying it? Or should I just mount it as a display piece?
"Generational warfare" was perhaps hyperbolic. I mean that the government is propping up assets that, absent their meddling, should come down in value, if things were at all sane like in the US.
It doesn't help the younger generation of Canadians now if their parents will eventually croak in 25 or 30 years and leave them the house (along with god knows what owed in deferred property tax. Have fun with that, kids! Edit: actually, maybe this is only a BC thing), nor does it help those who can't bank on an inheritance.
somedude
5hr ago
I think your belief that somehow placing your presumably-white kid in with your thinly-veiled majority Black school has a significant chance of landing them in the hospital or something is unsupported and warped by media perceptions and fearmongering.
The kid may or may not get literally stomped out, but the more black the school is, the worse it will be on pretty much every axis. Just like cities, just like countries, just like continents, and for generations now the high-minded folk telling me we can somehow rectify this have done nothing but fail miserably at every single turn.
Imagine actually staking your child's wellbeing on the idea that pie-in-the-sky intervention #8742 will be the one that finally works, much less believing that the attempt will somehow be good for them. Unthinkable. Laughable.
hanikrummihundursvin
5hr ago
Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that your entire argument is predicated on the belief that child-on-child, permanent-consequence outright violence is inevitable (or at least highly likely) to occur in deliberate group-mixing.
Where was this "acknowledgement" made? Also, where does this language come from? "Acknowledge"? Am I hiding something or doing things in a way you are not?
I take strong exception to that. I think your belief that somehow placing your presumably-white kid in with your thinly-veiled majority Black school has a significant chance of landing them in the hospital or something is unsupported and warped by media perceptions and fearmongering.
Not a "significant" chance. A greater chance. You clearly do not understand the argument. You can stop being glad.
Sure, we can go and agree that many Black communities have a violence problem.
Then there is no need to pretend there is a "fearmongering" part at play. Parents choosing to go to a safer school are doing what is best for their children if they value safety highly. We both agree which schools and which communities are safer.
I am aware and acknowledge your concern about how using kids to break a negative, self-reinforcing cycle feels a bit bad. But seriously, what else can we do?
If your only move is using other people's children, you need a new something.
Kids are sponges and need deliberate exposure to other ways of being and living while young.
Homogenous schools do just fine with their students and they, generally, have much better outcomes.
So I'd challenge this whole paradigm that parents are being somehow brainwashed by SJW-stuff into putting their kids in danger for no real return. Rather, I would like parents to acknowledge the time-lag danger of accidentally raising an intolerant, ignorant, or sheltered child.
This is an extremely racist statement that has no basis in reality. White children that come from homogenous environments are some of the happiest, healthiest and smartest in the world. There is nothing bad, comparatively, about them or their education to be found. If there was any benefit to be had from studying with lower income blacks, then those lower income blacks would surely have found it. Instead the first thing they find is delinquency, illiteracy and worse.
Again, in case I lost some focus: the whole point of my post is to point out that otherwise-benign and rational actions like the self-sorting only when in strongly minority situations can have severe, negative consequences for society at large. Think of it like a game theory problem. All we need is to tweak the rules slightly and we can fix the game! In this case, acknowledging that there are negative consequences of growing up in excessive homogeneity.
That is based on the assumption that white children can somehow fix black kids through their white supremacy via proximity. Considering that this is obviously not true, you have nothing outside of fancy game theory that looks great in an interactive blog post to defend your, frankly, vile and racist ideologically driven social intervention that would see children suffer in the name of ending racism or whatever.
TIRM
6hr ago
Not monkeys exactly but 10s of billions of neurons. Each one very much not intelligent or full of qualia.
When you or I generate a verbal statement sodium and potassium flow through billions of neurons and the best generated statement gets passed to our conscious awareness to say. It's a little "monkeys on typewriters"-ish.
Imagine [primitive and modern people sincerely trying to kill each other]. Does the technology differential between these two scenarios change the fundamental nature of what they're doing?
"Fundamental" is a slippery word but I'm going to go with "no". However, if we switch from "primitive/modern people trying to kill each other" to "one primitive/modern nation-states trying to conquer another and take their stuff", I think that the modern world in which nuclear weapons and reliable second-strike capabilities exist is fundamentally different than the primitive one in which those things don't exist. In the ancient world, the conquered could salt their own fields to prevent the conquerer from benefiting from their conquest, but it is only in the modern world that "I refuse to be conquered, instead we will all die in a fire together" is an option.
Similarly, how has technology changed the fundamental nature of being rich or poor, of love or hate, of joy or sorrow, ecstasy or despair, contentment, yearning, frustration, misery, or any of the other highs or lows of the human condition?
Lows aren't as low or as frequent, highs are mostly as high as before. I don't know if the "fundamental nature" has changed but the changes are large and important and I think to a certain extent arguing about whether things are "fundamental" comes down to word games.
My wife and I went through something similar to the situation you've described, and I likewise am pretty sure that without medical technology neither she nor our firstborn would be alive. On the other hand, I am quite sure that they and I will die, and I do not know when. What has actually changed?
In the end we all die. But our children will live first. If you don't value that I'm not sure what to say.
But hasn't this always been true? "Abundance", and for that matter "poverty", seem to me to be entirely relative. [...] When I read about the King of Carthage surrendering to the Romans, and his Queen cursing him and choosing to burn alive with her children, this again is not mysterious to me, because there doesn't seem to be a disconnect between their evident thinking and my own.
There's a minimal level of abundance below which people can't survive. In the industrialized parts of the modern world, we experience abundance that is so hilariously far above that threshold that it's easy to forget that the threshold exists. But for most people who lived throughout most of human history, that threshold was extremely salient to their lives some nontrivial fraction of the time.
It is informative that your example compares the experience of the ruling family of one of the world's mightiest states at the time against some internet rando. That's not to say the comparison doesn't work -- it works just fine. But I expect you'd find your experiences less reflective of those of a typical farmer at that time than they are of that time's royalty.
It seems to me that the problems of the modern world consist entirely of it being peopled with humans, and that these humans do not seem to have changed in any way across all of recorded history.
This is true now, but if you went back to Europe during the Plague it would have been laughably wrong. We've beaten back most of the non-human problems. The human problems remain, because we're still here and we're still the same hairless apes with pretensions we've always been.
Will murder stop? Will theft even stop?
Nope. But smallpox did stop, and malaria will stop, and polio and starvation and iodine deficiency are mere shadows of the specters they were in centuries past. Our homes are cool in the summer and warm in the winter. We're having this conversation over the internet, a magical network which allows most people in the world to talk to most other people in the world whenever they want to, synchronously or asynchronously depending on their preferences. If we decided that the mere projections of each others' words through rocks we tricked into thinking was insufficient, we could each get into an airplane and meet up at some arbitrary city somewhere in the world at this time tomorrow, probably for less money than we each make in a month.
Yet the idea of a beggar is still relevant, isn't it?
In the first world, beggars largely do not starve.
You point to the lowering of infant mortality, it seems to me that when one set of sorrows decreases, they are replaced by a new set seamlessly
It sure seems to me that when non-human-generated sorrows decrease, they're just gone. Disease does not fight back. Scarcity does not fight back.
It does not seem obvious to me that people now are fundamentally happier than bronze-age peasants four thousand years ago
Would you trade places with a bronze-age peasant from four thousand years ago? Would you expect them to trade places with you?
hanikrummihundursvin
6hr ago
You’re ignoring the obvious counter point, which is “it is useful for children to learn to interact productively with people that neither look, act, nor think like them, lest they become unemployable social outcasts.”
This is a counter point to what? Homeschooling works great, sex segregated schools work great. Highly homogenous schools work great. Where are you getting the impression kids from these backgrounds are growing up to be social outcasts?
If your child is the smartest person in their school, then it is likely they will continue to be one of the smartest people wherever they go.
I highly doubt that. Maybe if they're in a very big school, but even then there are a lot of smart cookies in the world.
Learning to interact with 100 IQ “subhumans” is essential to becoming anything more than a white collar grunt who takes orders for a living.
What even is this... Like, I don't know where you are coming from but you don't need to go to school with brown people to learn how to interact with people who have lower IQ's than you.
But this is all very much besides the point, which is that the people proposing these changes, like the one in the article, are not proposing we do this for the benefit of the white children. Your attempts to tease out some necessitated benefit after this has been pointed out are bizarre to a point of self refutation.
stolen_brawnze
I am the way Sia says "batteries" in that one song.
7hr ago
I was trying to eat my lunch downtown when I read this and you had me crying.
I was once rescued from a dream in which I was at my dad's funeral trying to say some words about him. I was roused and told I was whimpering and hyperventilating in my sleep. I'm sorry OP.
srf0638
7hr ago
This strikes me as a touch overcooked. BAP is quite willing to go on about "shtetlbillies", and Sailer regularly talks about the perversity of Jewish support for immigration and the failure of high-achieving American Jews to show appropriate noblesse oblige.
stolen_brawnze
I am the way Sia says "batteries" in that one song.
7hr ago
Aw shit, I had a comment typed up, but it was culture war related for obvious reasons.
Is she the one who brought up trans people in her stand-up set? If so she probably knew she was playing with fire. If this was thrust upon her while trying to work the crowd then that's a regrettable occupational hazard and increases the chance that she apologizes.
Who_Cares
7hr ago
You’re ignoring the obvious counter point, which is “it is useful for children to learn to interact productively with people that neither look, act, nor think like them, lest they become unemployable social outcasts.”
If your child is the smartest person in their school, then it is likely they will continue to be one of the smartest people wherever they go. Learning to interact with 100 IQ “subhumans” is essential to becoming anything more than a white collar grunt who takes orders for a living.
It's not like we've spent forever trying and failing. Brown v Board was in 1954 and rollout took a really long time -- major wide-scale efforts didn't start until over 10 to 15 years later and took over a decade to truly kick in. And remember, the starting point was that Black schools were deliberately designed, funded, and often forcibly maintained as worse quality. The schools themselves, not the people! That's a lot of ground to make up. Most data seems to suggest that desegregation efforts stalled out in the late 70s and ratios flatlined until about the 90s when (arguably organic) re-segregation started happening (though the timing causes one to wonder if this was a negative side effect of War on Drugs-related stuff that started about the same time!!!)
So basically, the data suggests that for one decade, we tried to desegregate schools exactly ONCE. This is a far cry from "pie in the sky intervention 8742". And I really can't square what you mean about the scale including "continents and generations" without concluding it's a racial dogwhistle -- could you please expand on what exactly you mean by this?
More options
Context Copy link