As a minarchist: unfortunately, I think we're already well past the point of being concerned about being declared a terrorist organization. Obama already used this a decade ago with absolute impunity. The FBI was just trying to declare the conservative mothers movement against DIE and transing their kids as a terrorist campaign. Fuck, remember when Ted Cruz had to call them out for declaring the Gadsden Flag on his boot to be terrorist symbol?
I agree with the problem you've laid out and your assessment, the same way I agree with having too many executive orders, and having too heavy tariffs, but those are now secondary problems. I think there are millions of Americans who are radicalized to the point of terrorism and murder, and are simply too cowardly and weak to carry it out, but they may still assist in terrorism in a Battle of Algiers style if they witness it.
Genuinely, if they hadn't put chemicals in the water to turn the freakin' frogs gay, I think there would have been a Holocaust by now, or something similar.
This fucking sucks, but we're already down the hill. The question is whether or not we land on our feet or crash into a rock before we start climbing back up.
Yup. Unfortunately, principles only get you so far.
I've always warned against utopianist thinking, and I suppose that has to apply to operating the levers of power too. All the problems I laid out already exist, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to avoid using them. I'm still worried about the slippery slope, though. Maybe not in legal precedent, but in people's acceptance of it. I do worry that, even if it's good at the moment, Trump's "fascism" is actually leading us in a dangerous direction. Perhaps a necessary one, but there's still some worrying signs.
It really is a tricky situation. Because something needs to be done, clearly. But some of what is being done is pushing us in a bad direction, even if it's also solving bad problems. It's a conflict between principles, and surrendering to the enemy. Doing nothing clearly isn't an answer.
I don't think it's a betrayal of principles. The problem with Liberalism is the Universalism, because they are misapplying the idea of "Everyone is Christ's Children" to the planet and assuming the moral expansion of that.
Liberalism is political, not religious. It must be bound by political boundary conditions. Those who seek to kill liberalism and everyone who follows it can't be defended by Liberalism.
The nightwatchmen state of Liberalism doesn't look inward over the walls, it looks outward because those are where the threats are.
If you let the wolves in and say they should have as much protections as the chickens, then this is obvious nonsense. If you let werewolves in, and they bite people, and now you have former citizens who are werewolves, you still don't offer them equal protection. They are an active and ongoing threat.
Moreover frame this from the Civic Nationalist perspective: someone who is a heritage American, but is a traitor, is not an American.
King John is English because he is English no matter what he does. This isn't the case with Americans. Benedict Arnold isn't American, he's British, because he's a traitor. A traitor is never an American. And a traitor that opens the gates for enemies to pour in is intolerable.
If I framed this as "Nazis", not one Liberal/Leftist you know would disagree with anything I said. Suddenly I say that Leftists and Communists are antithetical to Liberalism, and they start freaking out. No. Wrong. They are antithetical to Liberalism and a Civic Nation, and must be removed. Even as Americans they have no right to be here. Liberalism is for Liberals, not Communists who seek to kill them.
The Liberal project of the US has been invaded by, and subverted by, Communists. They need to leave.
As a minarchist: unfortunately, I think we're already well past the point of being concerned about being declared a terrorist organization. Obama already used this a decade ago with absolute impunity. The FBI was just trying to declare the conservative mothers movement against DIE and transing their kids as a terrorist campaign. Fuck, remember when Ted Cruz had to call them out for declaring the Gadsden Flag on his boot to be terrorist symbol?
I agree with the problem you've laid out and your assessment, the same way I agree with having too many executive orders, and having too heavy tariffs, but those are now secondary problems. I think there are millions of Americans who are radicalized to the point of terrorism and murder, and are simply too cowardly and weak to carry it out, but they may still assist in terrorism in a Battle of Algiers style if they witness it.
Genuinely, if they hadn't put chemicals in the water to turn the freakin' frogs gay, I think there would have been a Holocaust by now, or something similar.
This fucking sucks, but we're already down the hill. The question is whether or not we land on our feet or crash into a rock before we start climbing back up.
Yup. Unfortunately, principles only get you so far.
I've always warned against utopianist thinking, and I suppose that has to apply to operating the levers of power too. All the problems I laid out already exist, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to avoid using them. I'm still worried about the slippery slope, though. Maybe not in legal precedent, but in people's acceptance of it. I do worry that, even if it's good at the moment, Trump's "fascism" is actually leading us in a dangerous direction. Perhaps a necessary one, but there's still some worrying signs.
It really is a tricky situation. Because something needs to be done, clearly. But some of what is being done is pushing us in a bad direction, even if it's also solving bad problems. It's a conflict between principles, and surrendering to the enemy. Doing nothing clearly isn't an answer.
I don't think it's a betrayal of principles. The problem with Liberalism is the Universalism, because they are misapplying the idea of "Everyone is Christ's Children" to the planet and assuming the moral expansion of that.
Liberalism is political, not religious. It must be bound by political boundary conditions. Those who seek to kill liberalism and everyone who follows it can't be defended by Liberalism.
The nightwatchmen state of Liberalism doesn't look inward over the walls, it looks outward because those are where the threats are.
If you let the wolves in and say they should have as much protections as the chickens, then this is obvious nonsense. If you let werewolves in, and they bite people, and now you have former citizens who are werewolves, you still don't offer them equal protection. They are an active and ongoing threat.
Moreover frame this from the Civic Nationalist perspective: someone who is a heritage American, but is a traitor, is not an American.
King John is English because he is English no matter what he does. This isn't the case with Americans. Benedict Arnold isn't American, he's British, because he's a traitor. A traitor is never an American. And a traitor that opens the gates for enemies to pour in is intolerable.
If I framed this as "Nazis", not one Liberal/Leftist you know would disagree with anything I said. Suddenly I say that Leftists and Communists are antithetical to Liberalism, and they start freaking out. No. Wrong. They are antithetical to Liberalism and a Civic Nation, and must be removed. Even as Americans they have no right to be here. Liberalism is for Liberals, not Communists who seek to kill them.
The Liberal project of the US has been invaded by, and subverted by, Communists. They need to leave.