Ok, did the Kenosha riots continue after Kyle Rittenhouse shot his attackers? I didn't hear anything further about those after that happened.

In the general case, once it is clear that Burning, Looting, and Murdering carries significant personal risk, people will stop.

Being careful and not getting taken down is better than being taken down

That depends on what the tradeoff is. Especially since that's (probably) going to happen eventually anyway whether or not we're permitted "engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence." Fuck, that even covers cases where that violence is permitted/endorsed by the government.

completely pointless nonsense

Could you provide some examples of what constitutes this? I can't really tell what he's posted that's been removed.

isn't going to lead anywhere.

So if someone here were to nut up and assassinate a politician or big tech CEO or something it'd be ok to advocate violence then?

So we should self censor and reject discussion of practical problems simply because someone will decide to censor us in the future? They're going to do that anyway if something drastic doesn't change.

The left British Empire uses violence and gets away with it because they have institutional power. If we use violence, we'll get fucked in every hole with every ideological phallus the establishment has to offer. Im not saying dont fight back, im saying realize we're at a huge disadvantage and we'll fucking lose if we fight on the same level. Get it? We dont win this through violence because they have violence too and their violence is much stronger.

I think this is an apt comparison.

Who is going to take kia2.win down? This isn't reddit where the admins openly apply the rules only against those who are ideologically opposed to them. Are there even any sitewide rules that aren't "Don't break US law?"

There’s a long history of the executive and legislature infringing upon our constitutional rights. There’s also a long history of the judiciary striking down those infringements and upholding our constitutional rights. This is what I’m referring to when I say the Constitution has acted as a safeguard throughout our history as a nation.

The judiciary has just as long a history of trampling on our rights as the other branches. I'll bring up some specific cases if you'd like, but they are just as guilty of using their personal beliefs to override the Constitution as the other branches. The Constitution itself is inert and can do nothing, and the institution you are using it as a proxy for is just as guilty of trampling on our rights as the other parts of the government.

Regarding other actions we need to take, I neglected to mention the most important thing, namely that parents need to take back control of their children’s upbringing. For far too long we have abdicated this responsibility to the state and more recently, the internet.

You are quite correct to say that government is an extension of culture. The evildoers have been manipulating our culture for decades on end primarily through indoctrinating schoolchildren with their Social Marxism. This insidious cultural reformation has run its course to such a degree that we are on the precipice of voting in actual Marxism. We simply cannot withstand another generation of this indoctrination The only way we can stem the tide on the impending color revolution on the horizon is to restore American values in our education system and reclaim our responsibility for raising the youth. This happens from household to household and on the local level through direct parental involvement.

Couldn't agree more. The family and the church are always the first institutions attacked by Marxists, as these are the most foundational building blocks of a society. We must repair this institutions if we are to have any hope of reforming our society through any means.

I firmly believe violence is an option of last resort. Exhausting all other options is mandatory in my view. This is true at a scale i.e. regardless of whether we are discussing personal disputes or a corrupt government. However, if it is true that other options are impossible or ineffective, as you suggest, then those options have been exhausted.

This is once again probably an area in which we primarily disagree on degrees and semantics. However, this is an area in which I believe the precise degrees and semantics are critical, which is why I'm so willing to passionately argue these points.

I feel that too many people, even if they admit that violence is an option, are not prepared to carry that out when necessary. That by viewing violence as a "last resort" they push it so far down the road that any violent action they might take is too late or too weak to be effect if resolving a situation. People ought to be prepared for violence. Not just to be victims of it, but to be capable of effectively inflicting it on others in defense of themselves, their rights, and those around them. Yes, violence is a "last resort", or at least a means of putting non-violent options back on the table, but it can only be a last resort if we are actually capable of carrying it out effectively.

That being said, America is far from exhausting our other options.

America is not far from exhausting our other options, especially on a historical timescale, but I would agree that we are not out of non-violent solutions yet. I legitimately believe the Federal Government is a lost cause. The status quo has been set against our freedoms for too long there for reform to come from within. Reforms of the Federal Government must come from outside, and they must throw out every individual in it (elected or otherwise), along with a complete reset of our legal framework (essentially, keep the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Everything else must be removed, and can be added back after we determine if it's what we want.)

I don't know if these radical reforms are possible without violence, or at least the credible threat of it. If they are, they will most certainly have to start at the local and state level, as you mention. Even so, I can't see America emerging from this as a unified nation. There are too many central beliefs on which we can no longer agree. Unless one ideology can win out and crush those incompatible with it (a process which takes generations, a length of time I don't believe we have) the only peaceful solution is a national divorce. This will undoubtedly result in our influence in international politics diminishing, which will likely have some negative consequences, but I don't see us gaining our freedoms back without some significant sacrifices at this point.

To be frank, the only reason things have gotten this bad is due to wide spread apathy. People would rather spend their time mindlessly consuming than actually taking interest in their society.

Previously you wrote that the tree of liberty must be fed with blood. It’s a profound quote. However, I also ascribe to the notion that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, which is ironically another quote from Jefferson. We, as a society, have utterly failed to maintain the degree of vigilance required and we are paying dearly for that failure.

This right here captures exactly why I called the Constitution and Bill of Rights "just pieces of paper". In the hypothetical situation where we are able to reform our government, how do we ensure that in a generation or two it isn't trampling on our (or our children's or grandchildren's) rights again? No law is capable of enforcing itself, or we wouldn't have our current issues with the constitution being trampled. If we could rely on a steady stream of even a few good men we could simply set up an Autocracy and not have to worry the rest of the people about the functioning of their government. We must ensure that we are vigilant in preserving those freedoms, and that we impress upon successive generations the importance of that vigilance in preserving those freedoms. We can implement whatever sort of government we like, but without personal and societal vigilance to preserve that government, our freedoms are only ever one breath away from vanishing.

The have done a good job bastardizing the Constitution over the course of centuries but you are being hyperbolic when you say that it is outright ignored. It’s an extremely important safeguard.

I don't think I'm being hyperbolic at all. They follow the parts the tolerate and at best pay lip service to the parts they dislike, but often do outright ignore it. I don't think there's a single amendment in the Bill of Rights that hasn't been infringed upon by Executive, Legislative, or Judicial fiat.

Yes, the culture of American revolutionaries is what led them to create the Bill of Rights. In turn, the fact that they created that document was an important safeguard in protecting those rights. No one will deny culture has changed significantly over the last 250 years. I have no doubt that without these legal safeguards it would be much worse than without.

You've repeatedly made these claims, that the constitution and our legal framework themselves are a safeguard against tyranny. But I haven't seen any solid evidence to back them up. What evidence we do have says that different states operating under the same Constitution follow it to different extents depending upon their own culture and values.

I think we've discussed this point to death without much give either way, so unless one of us has additional evidence to support their claims I think it'd be best if we just dropped it.

That’s not to say that we can all just ignore what’s happening and expect to be fully protected by the constitution. Much to the contrary, we need to take affirmative steps to protecting our ideals and our liberty. This is accomplished through private enterprise and through interacting on the political plane, especially on the local level.

The only disagreement we have here is that this is the only part that really matters long-term. Government is an extension of culture. Therefore, while it is important that we have a constitution we should not view it as affording any protection in and of itself, but rather that it is an agreement of the government with the people that "this is how we will act", and if they don't act in a manner consistent with that then we should remove them.

Government, by it's nature, cannot provide (or even maintain, I'd argue) freedom. Government is an inherently restrictive organization whose role is to provide security, which--while essential--is by nature at odds with freedom. Therefore it is the responsibility of the people to maintain their freedom, and ensure that the government infringes as little as possible in it's role in providing security.

There’s a good reason the United States has enjoyed an unprecedented degree of peace since its founding.

This is honestly probably more due to geography and our neighbors than our legal framework

We have not had to suffer through the bloodshed of war on our own soil.

Discounting the War of 1812 and the Civil War I suppose you'd be right.

Certainly, you must appreciate that violence is a last resort and is fundamentally a point of no return. You cannot fault people for avoiding that drastic step.

I can and do fault people for not acting violently when such action is warranted. I also think that viewing violence as a last resort is a somewhat flawed view. If violence is a last resort that implies I must exhaust all other options of conflict resolution first. Sometimes this is not possible, and sometimes it is not effective. I'm not sure I can provide an example without violating the (stupid and cowardly) rule against advocating violence, but if you'd like we can continue this part of the discussion in PMs, or perhaps u/DomitusOfMassalia or u/ClockworkFool could give me clearer guidelines, or an indulgence or something.

The point is our culture of freedom would not have endured for so long if we did not enshrine that culture in our most important legal document.

And I've shown evidence this is not the case. Such legal documents are regularly ignored in the US and elsewhere when inconvenient to the government. The legal documents mean nothing without the will and ability for the people to resist actions by the government that would undermine them, and there is no evidence that these are provided by the documents themselves.

I agree that we should hold these documents in high regard, but many (yourself included) seem to believe that the documents themselves have some power. That their status as the founding and supreme law of the land has given us a culture of liberty and individualism, as if by magic (or perhaps I misunderstand.) I believe this to be exactly backwards; that in having a culture of liberty and individualism, we have written our founding documents to reflect this.

This confusion of cause and effect will be disastrous to our ability to effectively implement reforms that ensure that we retain our liberties (as a country, not just individually) going into the future. The only time anyone should be bringing up "But the Bill of Rights says..." outside a history lesson is the trials of our politicians for treason, when we point out that they repeatedly violated their oath to protect and defend the constitution by passing and enforcing laws that violate it (OK, there's probably a few other places, but those are the big two.)

If I didn't believe this distinction of cause and effect was essential, that we were standing on the precipice as a country, I wouldn't be devoting so much effort to writing messages that are probably only being read by you. We agree on quite a bit; that a drastic change in our government and society is needed, what principles those changes should be based on, etc., but I think that a lot of people are still holding on to ineffective methods of implementing and maintaining those changes and ideals. I'm not saying this is you necessarily, but there's a lot of people that don't seem to be able to extrapolate from incomplete information. If we don't spell out explicitly that their freedom is their responsibility, that it doesn't matter what our founding documents say if they are unwilling to fight, that unless they pass along the will and ability to stand up for those principles to the next generation nothing we do now matters,

a hive mind, advancing free will

lol what a retard

You're severely confused on what the Bill of Rights is from both a legal/theoretical and practical standpoint. From neither perspective does the Bill of Rights grant us any unique rights. Legally the Bill of Rights acknowledges rights that are inherent to all men, and guarantees that the government will not interfere with those rights. Practically the Bill of Rights is a piece of paper on which our founders wrote down principals without which they felt a just society couldn't function. If I recall my history correctly many were against the idea as they felt any document delineating the rights of the people would be used to restrict the rights of the people, as there was no way for a document to cover every right of the people. Therefore the document was written specifically to restrict the (federal) government, particularly with the 10th Amendment.

You're also confused as to the uniqueness of our Bill of Rights. Many other nations have something similar to our Bill of Rights which "guarantees" their population certain rights. Canada for example guarantees the Queen's subjects Freedom of Speech, Religion, et. al., but these are regularly infringed there. The only portion of our Bill of Rights that I am aware of being truly unique is the 2nd Amendment, and even then, other countries have adopted a right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense.

I think both of us would agree that the Bill of Rights contains principals which are essential to the functioning of a just society. I am not disparaging the bill of rights in any way when I say "it's just a piece of paper." Rather, I am pointing out something which the founders were well aware of: liberty is fragile. To borrow a metaphor from Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

American culture being one of liberty and individualism necessarily predates the Bill of Rights. Without those ideas already existing in the culture no-one would have been willing to fight the British at Lexington and Concord when they came to confiscate the arms of the colonists. American culture is synonymous with freedom and liberty not because some people wrote down some ideas on a piece of paper over 200 years ago, but because they spread those ideas. And because they spread those ideas, people fought and died for those ideas.

Without a constant preservation of the ideals on which this country and it's liberties and freedoms were founded, as codified in the Bill of Rights among other documents, we will lose those liberties and freedoms. We must work diligently to ensure those ideals are instilled in each generation, and fight against those who would seek to destroy them.

The reason we aren't like Australia having police knocking and making warrantless arrests for wrongspeak is precisely because we have a bill of rights.

Bullshit. The reason we aren't having our rights openly trampled to the same degree as Australia is because there's enough (perception of) public resistance to such actions. But if there was not an armed, independent populace in the US, we'd be in the same boat as Australia. The fact that we have a Bill of Rights certainly doesn't hurt, but without popular (and institutional) support for the ideals of Freedom of Speech, the Right to Bear Arms, individualism, and more guns and ammo in civilian hands than all the world's governments (IIRC), the tyrants would have succeeded in installing their New World Order long ago.

Apologies if I come off as aggressive, but I think it's well past time that informed individuals should have realized that laws are only as strong as the people that back them. If they're inconvenient to the current regime they'll be ignored or disposed of. It's our job to do the same to laws or regimes we find "inconvenient" (read "tyrannical").

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. If it had any actual power we wouldn't be dealing with this current shitshow. The only value this conversation has is in refining our ideas of what a 'just' government looks like. If this was an in-person discussion it would have a little more value, but since this as a pseudonymous internet forum, coordinating any sort of actually effective action on this scale from here is nigh-impossible.

That said, I agree with a lot of the suggestions made here, I just think this hypothetical is the wrong way to bring forward this discussion.

It's a Fortune 500 company - a massive one, you guys would give me a lot of shit if I mentioned the name

Now I'm curious which one it is. I know a number of people that work at F500 companies (excluding my coworkers) and I don't give them shit...

Domestic abuse is more common in lesbian couples than any other pairing...

https://archive.org/details/TheGulagArchipelago-Threevolumes

I'm just going to leave this here for those that don't want to look.

"Everything is lawful, but not everything is profitable."

I'm pretty sure I've seen most of the pieces used in that set in others. For example the "bottle" is composed of pieces used as windows/walls. I actually bought this set for my sister and while I think I built the less structurally stable parts, she put in a fair bit of thee work. That said I do agree that this set clearly isn't really intended to be deconstructed.

The rainbow (which fags have stolen as their symbol to literally spit in the face of God) was a symbol that God would never again judge the earth with a (global) flood. Next/final judgment is supposed to be fire, so if you're making an ark I'd strongly advise against using wood to do so this time.

I've seen a lot of people say "What Kyle did was stupid" or "He shouldn't have been there." At the time I agreed. He was a 17 year old and I didn't think a minor had any business being around a riot even if his intentions were pure (I knew he was doing cleanup and such earlier in the day, but I thought he should have just left once things got rowdy.) After all, why take that risk?

But more recently I've come to realize that if more people acted like Kyle did in that situation, the country would be a lot better off. He went with peaceful intentions to clean up, provide medical assistance, and protection to the area he worked, but knowing that because he opposed the senseless violence he was making himself a target and came prepared.

We cannot allow the threat or presence of violence to dissuade us from following our beliefs and opposing the destruction of our countr(y/ies). Yes, this will involve risk, and we must each determine how much risk is acceptable personally, but standing idly by and waiting for someone else to organize resistance to the anarcho-tyranny will inevitably result in us losing.

I've never watched Hellraiser (not into Horror films), but isn't Pinhead basically just one of a group of what are essentially the equivalent of Chaos worshipers from 40k? And there's already been a female 'Pinhead' in one of the movies? I don't see why this is an issue.

<...> have an outsized representation in many of the organizations and institutions

Insert either 'Jews' or 'whites' and be a Stormfag or a SJW respectively.

It would literally be impossible for Whites to be overrepresented to the extent Jews are in many areas, because that would involve over 100% of those organizations/positions being white. Irrespective, there is an admitted strong in-group bias among Jews, which should be enough to make anyone that's not Jewish wary. I view it much the way I do various other ethnic/cultural/religious identity groups--Islam, Black Nationalism/Afronationalism, various forms of Marxism--All of these are incompatible with America's founding values (and I'd argue western values in general) and they wish to supplant those values with their own and install themselves at the top of the power structure. And even among those Jews, Muslims, Blacks, etc that don't openly support these supremacist ideologies, they still have an in-group bias toward those that do.

You also forgot to include "Men" -> "Feminist" in that list.

These facts are enough to trigger a response in those capable of pattern recognition

You mean confirmation bias, because you definitely don't know what 'pattern recognition' is. Just repeating a pol meme.

I was raised an Evangelical Christian, and was taught that Jews were God's chosen people (even if the majority of them had rejected his covenant.) I never had any bias against Jews growing up or even for the first years of my adult life. Even still I prefer to judge people as individuals when possible, but I can't ignore the fact that there is a significant correlation between Jewishness and Leftism.

I'm in much the same situation you were. When I got hired on I figured I'd probably stick it out for 5 years or so (the money was good and I guess I was a little less pessimistic in my outlook on the world at that point.) But with the covid stuff I don't think even if I wanted to stay past the end of this year they'd let me (currently they're requiring testing to come into the office or any company events if you're unvaccinated/undisclosed, and starting next year they're adding a surcharge to the healthcare for that testing. I'm pretty sure you have to pay the surcharge even if given a WFH exemption, so that's the essentially the absolute limit for me.)

Fortunately I think have some options for keeping enough cashflow to cover the essentials, so hopefully once that settles I'll be able to work toward what I want to be doing, and not have to worry about coming up with enough money to live.

Whats with all the Jew hatred on this site lol?

Jews have an outsized representation in many of the organizations and institutions pushing leftism, and there are a number of prominent leftists that are Jewish (George Soros as an example). Even those that are not (openly) religiously or culturally Jewish are willing to use their Jewishness to deflect criticism. These facts are enough to trigger a response in those capable of pattern recognition, and some take this to the extreme of "there's a vast Jewish conspiracy and they should be expelled from our society."

I'm fairly certain this is the Democrat leadership telling her very publicly to get back in line. I hope it backfires on them.