Gamergate is more than 10 years old. Now that makes me feel old.
Leftists believe in it to hate it.
I'm just saying historically whenever there's a violent revolution there's usually rich people from the government involved
Your only example is the American revolution. Division in ruling circles is more important.
The peasant classes rarely if ever have risen up entirely on their own unless it was a matter of life or death.
Peasant revolts were very common, but they were small-scale rather than large scale. It was "keep your hands off us" rather than "we're going to change the central government all the way in Paris".
The use of force doesn't necessarily need to mean significant violence but the threat of it can be enough as well like when militaries execute coups, they can often be minimal in the amount of violence used.
Use of force can be, from the perspective of the would-be revolutionary, productive or counterproductive. Were I in their position, I would focus on mobilizing discontent, attempting every peaceful avenue (in order to ensure that blame is pinned on the other side, both to fracture the ruling class as well as to bring along your own moderates), and only then, seemingly or actually reluctantly, use the minimum necessary amount of force as a last resort - or even better, use force in response to unjustified force initiated by the other side.
The American revolutionaries were actually quite clever in this. Their slogan was 'no taxation without representation'. This was a slogan many could get behind. But the radicals had no intention of actually accepting representation in Parliament, because they thought or at least argued that they could not be represented so far away. The obstreperousness of the British government prevented a fracture between the moderates and the radicals.
If you want change, step 1 is to do no harm.
You don't get a critical mass of people if everyone is scared of using violence.
Yes, you do, dummy. Because a glowie retard federal agent like you will bait someone into using violence. There will be a giant crackdown on him and everyone else who supports Trump. Then people will be even more scared than before. In the aftermath of Jan 6, Trump supporters were saying not even to protest because it is a trap. Now that is real fear.
That's why many people encourage violence
Feds are not people.
No one suggests standing on a hill by themselves but you're never going to get a hill full of people of not one person is willing to stand on the hill.
Purely hypothetically, in a parallel universe where the place I live was actually oppressive rather than free, democratic and all that, I would be willing to stand on a hill. What I would not be willing to do in that case, is lose everything with zero chance of improvement, and 100% chance of deterioration.
Though, to be fair, you only get a critical mass of people when there's no food, water and electricity.
I'm not sure, but probably true.
Or if the government is involved.
Oh, so we're good.
I remember Hitch arguing, in response to the Muslim riots over Danish cartoons, that no secular group acting in a similar way would have excuses made for it.
Well, here we are, and it's the norm as you say.
I don’t personally view my car as an extension of myself
To be fair, if I were as enormous as Seth Rogan, I also wouldn't want to view anything else as an extension of myself.
Whores, though the opinions of actors can also be valuable if you take them and then do the exact opposite.
It's fake. Apparently, someone ran her pictures through some dodgy AI and then asserted that she had a porn past because the AI claimed there was 'potential similarity' between her face and that of a porn actress.
Regardless, even if she was a porn actress, Yarvin being her mentor makes me think she should have a chance at redemption. My greater objection to her is that she quit the Daily Wire because she thought that Matt Walsh was too meeeeeean to degenerates.
Yes, cattle are useful.
It's Oxford University Press. I mean, I don't have that much confidence in their objectivity, but I know they're not going to be pro-Nazi... so it's an admission against interest if anything.
You idiot. People don't make that argument for moral reasons, but for reasons of effectiveness. And that is why glowie retards like you try to persuade people to be violent, so that they can be arrested and your handlers have even more of an excuse to crack down on Trump supporters.
Speaking purely hypothetically, violence only works when there is a critical mass of people. You declaring a revolution from your back yard is going to do... precisely nothing.
If Trump loses, realistically, people should understand that they'll never fix their country by voting.
What will happen is that the GOP will persuade most people that Trump is electoral poison, and that if they want to win, they need to nominate Nikki Haley types.
We don't need glowies like you trying to persuade people to make Trump lose. Of course 'the electoral process' isn't going to fix anything. It's one of many instruments that you can use in a repressive autocracy. And no, there is a reason the tactics of YOLO glowie retards are never successful.
I wouldn't call them people, but yeah. These people believe that your speech is violence, and their violence is speech.
There was a recent article praising homosexuals for ending the MPox epidemic.
During COVID, there were dogs in an asylum in Australia, who were executed because officials were worried that volunteers would pick them up and thus leave their homes.
Thanks, I love this sort of review article. I'll look into it.
[David Ignatius has entered the conversation]
We both know that there is an official narrative
"We" don't know that, in fact, you don't know that. You just decide to call that. It's of course not centralized in any way, thus not official. But I let that pass.
You yourself repeat the official narrative.
Earlier, you stated that 'the official narrative' is that the UK and France intervened because they loved the Polish people so much. I stated from the very beginning that this is false. So even by your own standards, you are wrong.
If you deviate too far from it at best you'll be called a revisionist and at worst you'll be socially and financially ruined or even end up in prison.
No one has been called a revisionist, let alone jailed, for pointing out that the Western powers acted out of Realpolitik and not empathy.
Revisionists are not offered a mainstream platform for debate. They'll be either ignored or viciously attacked.
The "revisionist" - it really isn't plural - you follow is a fraud. Any number of incorrect views are also not offered mainstream platforms. That in itself proves nothing.
Germany didn't fight a war against just Poland. Besides without the Soviet invasion the Poland campaign could've easily ended in disaster as Germany didn't have enough reserves for a pro-longed war.
There would be no prolonged war. The Polish army was fairly easily smashed.
Then you should be able to produce a document proving just that. Besides Generalplan Ost which was never made a policy and was thought up by a singular individual named Hans Ehlich who had no real influence.
The brutalization of the population of the Soviet Union, and of Poland for that matter, should be sufficient.
Germany was invited. Czechoslovakia was armed to the teeth but not a single shot was fired. Czechoslovakia was never annexed. Its people were never conscripted.
Oh come on. Czechoslovakia was betrayed by the cowardly western powers, which is why it did not fight a pointless war. It certainly did not 'invite' the Germans. Nor is annexation any sort of argument. It didn't annex most of Poland either, yet atrocities were rife.
You can pretend it was an invasion of conquest but it wasn't. Czechoslovakia was a failed, artificial nation from the very beginning. That's why it doesn't exist anymore. The only purpose in its creation was to be a thorn in Germanys side.
What are you talking about? It actually exists in exactly the same form, except as two states. Czechs exist, and Slovaks exist. Czechoslovakia was no failed state, in fact, it was one of the most successful eastern European states - as you stated, it was armed to the teeth.
Who are the legal experts you're talking about. I know H.L.A. Hart thought prosecution was appropriate.
You ignored the entire comment.
I didn't reply to it because I can't agree or disagree with what you choose to define 'official narrative' as, though yours is not exactly an unreasonable one.
The Poles weren't ready for an invasion and the French were too dumb to consider that the Germans wouldn't just yolo into the Maginot Line.
Obviously they knew that. They also did not expect the Von Manstein plan, which ironically came to be because the Germans' first set of plans were discovered. They would have lost with their initial, less risky plan.
The Wehrmacht was severely outgunned and outnumbered compared to the enemies it was facing.
Only compared to the French. Poland was no match. And the Red Army was only a match in terms of numbers and materiel, which were quickly captured and destroyed due to superior leadership and morale.
That's the official narrative that you seem to think doesn't exist.
No... that is General Plan Ost and Hitler's stated intention. Apparently, that's the "official narrative".
He does? Funny, the media propaganda tells me that if Ukraine doesn't stop Putler he's gonna invade the rest of Europe. But I guess half of Europe are "historic Russian lands".
Obviously, the media lies. Compare that to Hitler, and he had gone beyond historic German lands even before Poland, with the occupation of Czechoslovakia.
I hope he's doing well. He wasn't doing too good when last we spoke.
The official narrative is that Hitler was a genius but utterly retarded megalomaniac that wanted to conquer the entirety of Europe with a nation that wasn't even ready for a war with Poland and the Allies and Soviets only wanted to stop him.
Fortunately for him, the Poles - and French - were even less ready for war than the Wehrmacht. But this narrative isn't that far off. At the very least, he wanted to expand into eastern Europe and the USSR, cleanse the population there by starvation or massacres, and settle Germans there.
He may not have the intention of going West, but Realpolitk takes balance of power into account for a reason: a Germany that has gobbled up even the western parts of the USSR would be unstoppable. Even the USSR itself, with basically the territory that Germany was aiming at, would have been unstoppable, despite a counterproductive economic system.
Just like the Ukraine war is solely caused by Putins expansionists ambitions and the West only wants to save Ukraine.
Putin isn't Hitler though. And he's aiming only at historic Russian lands.
A few bad polls for Trump it seems.
EDIT: Trump is back in the lead. https://polymarket.com/event/pennsylvania-presidential-election-winner