The problem is that lots of Millennials and Gen Z’ers that oppose this stuff haven’t stopped laughing. Some even enjoy the chaos.
The ones who support it are religious fanatics unaware that they are extremists in the making. They’ll keep pushing until we all lose our minds alongside them.
I’m afraid we might all be doomed if we don’t start pushing back harder.
The current situation is an aftershock of World War I, which in turn was an aftershock of the French Revolution. I'd argue that Western societies did not live through them fine.
Clownpills. They come in every "pill" color variety.
Pushing back harder
Some clownpills are doing just that. The go-to metaphor is the boiling of the frog. Pushback is looking at this pot on a raging element, and adding a bit of cold water into the pot. The circus instead looks at it and says "I wonder if boiling oil would go well in this pot?". They're not pushing back, not by any means. But their actions may lead to the frog realizing its situation.
At their core, Clownpills are accelerationists. "Global warming is bad, therefore we should nuke China.", "If we kill all old people, COVID's mortality rate would go way down", "I identify as a woman only when performing world record feats for women, then revert to a man, because I am gender fluid". That kind of thing.
Those who "enjoy the chaos" have arguably a better chance of changing things than adding an icecube to the pot, when the heat below is entirely unchanged. So I wouldn't write off the laughers, I'd ask them to tell better jokes than the ones they're laughing at.
Why did modern war change? Because the joke of the value of human life became too much. You've got nuke-enabled countries sending guys with pottery helmets and crotchpieces to throw fragmentation grenades around, when one button would remove the entire country from the map. Because war accelerated too hard, way too fast, and the entire world pulled back. There is precedent in accelerationism leading to a flip.
Add the ice cubes, point out that what they're doing is flawed and foolish. Tell people their worldview they've based their lives on is wrong. But don't discount the jesters also telling the same people that their worldview is not only correct, but they themselves are inferior at it and need to go to ridiculous extremes or their lives are worthless under their own ideology, unless that changes.
Sometimes you just have to laugh at clown world when you would otherwise feel helpless. And even before things got as bad as they are today, laughing was a defense mechanism for many people. The same way people will read a crime story and rationalize how they wouldn't be as stupid or caught off-guard as the victim, so they don't have to empathize or admit that they could be in the same situation and the world is a scary place.
I'm not really justifying making light of things, just giving a reason why people do.
I'm with you until you say that there is any kind of 'head'. They're like Lord of the Flies or crabs in a bucket. They would act more intelligently (e.g. not eat themselves as much) if there was a central direction to this.
They have overlapping ideologies so they move in the same direction and act coordinated without needing a head. Fellow travelers greeting one another at a cocktail party and signaling how woke they are - knowing they will each employ subversive ideology in their respective domains - is the only intelligent planning they need. It's like ants. Alone they are dumb NPCs but in large enough numbers they can destroy opposing colonies with what appears to be a plan.
Humans being humans will strive to apply order and hierarchy to that, and there are probably rich elitists at the top that are vying for dominance among their social circle, with an understanding of who holds power where. Jews tend to be successful in most social and economic circles, so they will naturally be there in high proportions.
The reason the First Amendment has survived, is that the powers that be are so well-entrenched that they have nothing to fear from the opposition of the commoners.
Same as elections. The reasons that they continue, is because they do absolutely nothing to threaten the power of the ruling oligarchy.
Elections matter and they're afraid of fair elections . Because one was stolen doesn't mean it's game over.
I don't believe the election was 'stolen' from Trump, at least not by committing a sufficient amount of fraud. More to the point is that the mass media controls how people vote, and even when you do get someone into power who is opposed by the establishment, they will sabotage him and make sure that he gets nothing done that goes against their interests.
It's much more obvious in Europe. Here, there is no fraud. And all parties stand for exactly the same thing, basically. There may be 20% who are not neoliberal but socialist or right-wing populist, but they are isolated by the 80% who make sure they can get nothing done.
Todays warfare looks and feels like what ordinary people in AZ and their ordinary state senators are doing out there right now.
Exposing them is always good.
The enemy gets a vote. That's how war goes. They had their victory, it' s true. Let's make them regret it.
Seizing control of the institutions is much more powerful than seizing political power, as political power is basically controlled and restrained by these institutions.
That's a good point. Europe is an object lesson for America but what is going to save us is our 1st Amendment. They can shut you up by law. Men with guns will put you in a cement cage with steel bars if you speak truth they don't like.
That is most Germany and England. Although the First Amendment certainly is a very good thing in that it prevents governments from doing that, it is rather rare. This is not to justify it, but just to say that the biggest threat to free speech is not government putting you in jail, but witch-hunts and private corporations.
The reailty is this. Europeans never got over their love affair with kings. That feels right to them. Mummy makes bad men fly over there all the time (GoT reference) .
I don't accept your reasoning, but your conclusion is correct. People don't think that free speech protections should be extended to something "that is bad".
That's why it's no longer enough that America protect her values here. We have to take our Constitution into Europe and set her people free. If we don't do that, we outselveds won't survive.
I am not at all certain that this will occur to set anyone free, and more to spread wokeness.
The lesson we learned from the last 100 years of culture warfare is this: what starts in Germany, what starts in France isn't going to stay in Germany of France or China.
The past 30 years is more like: what starts in America, does not stay there. The wokeness cancer is already spreading to the most easily influenced parts of the European population, which is why the French government is working hard to resist it.
I think that is one reason, if not the main reason, why the GOP has always been so ineffective and corrupt - loyal opposition at best. They knew the media would attack them any chance they get so they have to play to the camera and the talking heads for good PR. Theoretically that should be changing with Internet and new media taking over, but the boomer Republicans don't realize it yet.
Maybe. But it seems to me that the same class of people - lawyers, millionaires, etc. - dominates both parties. So you're going to get the views of lawyers and millionaires regardless of who is in office, however they pandered to get there. If there more coal miners and sewer workers, then you're going to get their views.
Example: the peasants in France, had precisely one representative of the 1200 in the Estates General of 1789, despite making up 90% of the population. So their views and interests were ignored.
It's not. The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist forces were much better at changing norms, insofar as they were responsible for it (as this was a trend throughout the Islamic world), than they were at forcing people to wear certain clothing.
It bears repeating that politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around. Nasser and other members of the army, mostly quite secular people, have been in charge of Egypt since the 1950s, and this did close to nothing to stem the tide of Islamization.
Drones cannot do policing. At least current ones cannot. They are good at death and destruction but unless you have a clear target (like those horses in the WW1 analogy used) then they have less obvious use. They cannot occupy. They cannot police.
I am reminded of the 4chan post in which some fool rhetorically asks what use an AR-15 is against a tank or jet. He gets a fine reply mentioning what I said above and more.
I started laughing 10 years ago.
I stopped laughing about 5 years ago.
If you aren't deadly serious at this point, you're way behind.
The problem is that lots of Millennials and Gen Z’ers that oppose this stuff haven’t stopped laughing. Some even enjoy the chaos.
The ones who support it are religious fanatics unaware that they are extremists in the making. They’ll keep pushing until we all lose our minds alongside them.
I’m afraid we might all be doomed if we don’t start pushing back harder.
"Things'll get better in a couple of centuries" isn't very reassuring.
Whites will be bred out of existence before this century is over.
The current situation is an aftershock of World War I, which in turn was an aftershock of the French Revolution. I'd argue that Western societies did not live through them fine.
Clownpills. They come in every "pill" color variety.
Some clownpills are doing just that. The go-to metaphor is the boiling of the frog. Pushback is looking at this pot on a raging element, and adding a bit of cold water into the pot. The circus instead looks at it and says "I wonder if boiling oil would go well in this pot?". They're not pushing back, not by any means. But their actions may lead to the frog realizing its situation.
At their core, Clownpills are accelerationists. "Global warming is bad, therefore we should nuke China.", "If we kill all old people, COVID's mortality rate would go way down", "I identify as a woman only when performing world record feats for women, then revert to a man, because I am gender fluid". That kind of thing.
Those who "enjoy the chaos" have arguably a better chance of changing things than adding an icecube to the pot, when the heat below is entirely unchanged. So I wouldn't write off the laughers, I'd ask them to tell better jokes than the ones they're laughing at.
Why did modern war change? Because the joke of the value of human life became too much. You've got nuke-enabled countries sending guys with pottery helmets and crotchpieces to throw fragmentation grenades around, when one button would remove the entire country from the map. Because war accelerated too hard, way too fast, and the entire world pulled back. There is precedent in accelerationism leading to a flip.
Add the ice cubes, point out that what they're doing is flawed and foolish. Tell people their worldview they've based their lives on is wrong. But don't discount the jesters also telling the same people that their worldview is not only correct, but they themselves are inferior at it and need to go to ridiculous extremes or their lives are worthless under their own ideology, unless that changes.
Sometimes you just have to laugh at clown world when you would otherwise feel helpless. And even before things got as bad as they are today, laughing was a defense mechanism for many people. The same way people will read a crime story and rationalize how they wouldn't be as stupid or caught off-guard as the victim, so they don't have to empathize or admit that they could be in the same situation and the world is a scary place.
I'm not really justifying making light of things, just giving a reason why people do.
I'm with you until you say that there is any kind of 'head'. They're like Lord of the Flies or crabs in a bucket. They would act more intelligently (e.g. not eat themselves as much) if there was a central direction to this.
They have overlapping ideologies so they move in the same direction and act coordinated without needing a head. Fellow travelers greeting one another at a cocktail party and signaling how woke they are - knowing they will each employ subversive ideology in their respective domains - is the only intelligent planning they need. It's like ants. Alone they are dumb NPCs but in large enough numbers they can destroy opposing colonies with what appears to be a plan.
Humans being humans will strive to apply order and hierarchy to that, and there are probably rich elitists at the top that are vying for dominance among their social circle, with an understanding of who holds power where. Jews tend to be successful in most social and economic circles, so they will naturally be there in high proportions.
I like Curtis Yarvin's "the cathedral" model, here's a recent explanation that he's posted about it. Basically, there is no central head.
The reason the First Amendment has survived, is that the powers that be are so well-entrenched that they have nothing to fear from the opposition of the commoners.
Same as elections. The reasons that they continue, is because they do absolutely nothing to threaten the power of the ruling oligarchy.
I don't believe the election was 'stolen' from Trump, at least not by committing a sufficient amount of fraud. More to the point is that the mass media controls how people vote, and even when you do get someone into power who is opposed by the establishment, they will sabotage him and make sure that he gets nothing done that goes against their interests.
It's much more obvious in Europe. Here, there is no fraud. And all parties stand for exactly the same thing, basically. There may be 20% who are not neoliberal but socialist or right-wing populist, but they are isolated by the 80% who make sure they can get nothing done.
Exposing them is always good.
Seizing control of the institutions is much more powerful than seizing political power, as political power is basically controlled and restrained by these institutions.
That is most Germany and England. Although the First Amendment certainly is a very good thing in that it prevents governments from doing that, it is rather rare. This is not to justify it, but just to say that the biggest threat to free speech is not government putting you in jail, but witch-hunts and private corporations.
I don't accept your reasoning, but your conclusion is correct. People don't think that free speech protections should be extended to something "that is bad".
I am not at all certain that this will occur to set anyone free, and more to spread wokeness.
The past 30 years is more like: what starts in America, does not stay there. The wokeness cancer is already spreading to the most easily influenced parts of the European population, which is why the French government is working hard to resist it.
I think that is one reason, if not the main reason, why the GOP has always been so ineffective and corrupt - loyal opposition at best. They knew the media would attack them any chance they get so they have to play to the camera and the talking heads for good PR. Theoretically that should be changing with Internet and new media taking over, but the boomer Republicans don't realize it yet.
Maybe. But it seems to me that the same class of people - lawyers, millionaires, etc. - dominates both parties. So you're going to get the views of lawyers and millionaires regardless of who is in office, however they pandered to get there. If there more coal miners and sewer workers, then you're going to get their views.
Example: the peasants in France, had precisely one representative of the 1200 in the Estates General of 1789, despite making up 90% of the population. So their views and interests were ignored.
Previous generations should never have laughed at and ignored the far left.
I would say "look who's laughing now" but leftists don't laugh...unless maybe it's one of those forced, spiteful laughs.
Conceding didnt work, again
"I've tried doing nothing, and I'm all out of ideas!"
I don't think the hijab is mandatory in Egypt though.
It isn't, but de facto every Muslim woman wears it.
It's not. The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist forces were much better at changing norms, insofar as they were responsible for it (as this was a trend throughout the Islamic world), than they were at forcing people to wear certain clothing.
It bears repeating that politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around. Nasser and other members of the army, mostly quite secular people, have been in charge of Egypt since the 1950s, and this did close to nothing to stem the tide of Islamization.
Lysenkoism - the beliief that everything is socially or environmentally conditioned - reigned in the Soviet Union from 1928 until 1956.
It is still the standard dogma in the "social" sciences across the West.
Drones cannot do policing. At least current ones cannot. They are good at death and destruction but unless you have a clear target (like those horses in the WW1 analogy used) then they have less obvious use. They cannot occupy. They cannot police.
I am reminded of the 4chan post in which some fool rhetorically asks what use an AR-15 is against a tank or jet. He gets a fine reply mentioning what I said above and more.