The etymology of racism as a term goes back to the native Americans' being derided as racist for... trying to defend their culture and history. That means accusations of racism have always been a bludgeon to use against those defending their culture.
The only difference is that Whites are now the ones being aggressed on.
This is where my mind went to as well. That and alex jones ranting about chemicals in the water turning the friggin frogs gay. It was a meme, but it was also very serious; what if the frogs were more sensitive to the chemicals than us (they are), and that was a 'canary in the coal mine' moment we ignored as a species?
Yep. We know social media alters behavior and the coming generations won't remember a time when it wasn't omnipresent.
There are teens now who were kids who looked up to Boogie's early youtube persona-- you know, the wholesome façade he slid in behind his Francis character. Imagine watching the nice guy brandish guns, pay hookers, and ultimately fake cancer for sympathy. What a rolemodel!
That's your brain on social media. Pure clownworld madness.
Machine Shop workers skew old. Like, retirement old. It's an incredibly solid choice for a career at this point, if only because the skillset you could potentially learn now will be incredibly in demand 10-20 years from now due to attrition in the field.
I would actually suggest visiting the video even if you don't watch it since there's a list of primary sources in the description, a goodly number of which are archived:
https://archive.ph/8JAln -- WSJ (On the 2016 McKinsey study not meaning diversity pays out with increased profits)
https://archive.ph/8JAln -- Business Insider (Microsoft DEI firings; reiteration of commitment to diversity)
https://archive.ph/GPbiM -- Bloomberg (Zoom DEI department layoffs; reiteration of commitment to Diversity.)
https://archive.ph/HcfQR -- WaPo (Zoom and Snap cut DEI roles; "At Zoom, chief operating officer Aparna Bawa told employees that the company would replace its internal DEI team with DEI consultants who would “champion inclusion by embedding our values … directly into our people programs rather than as a separate initiative,” according to a Jan. 29 memo seen by The Post.")
The common thread here is that all of the departments are being dismantled, but the initiatives are being continued-- either organizationally or under different names. "We disbanded our DEI department" doesn't mean they're abandoning the ideology. The rock has been lifted and the bugs are seeking new cover. That is all.
Upper Echelon sort of goes mask off for a bit, too. He talks about how Diversity & Inclusion aren't bad things... and it's either out of ignorance, not understanding that these are subverted terms, or willfully reading only the most positive meanings into them (intentionally taking leftist / motte positions at face value.) After watching him fumble around like a normie encountering leftist language for the first time, I have begun to think less of him.
Here's the timestamp from the original Upper Echelon vid, where he says: "there's nothing wrong with Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion..." The lad doesn't get it. The promises of higher revenue were entryism for the woke. Lies, to be sure, but useful ones for the left.
Whether he's being intentionally daft or not is an open question. I know I unsubbed from him the last time he was this stupid. I can't unsub more or harder, even though I sorely want to.
This is two hours of my life I'm not getting back.
Kirsche goes into primary sources on BRIDGE here as she watches Upper Echelon (once again) draw incorrect conclusions about DEI ending due to the departments being dissolved.
Those departments were cancer. And them being removed is because Ideological Metastasis has happened.
Infested companies don't need to spend the money on a specialized organ once the cancer is everywhere. Kirsche plays internal videos documenting the pivot away from Equity in the branding, pointing out that BRIDGE is all about dissolving the DEI departments and making their goals organizational imperatives rather than the focus of a single department. A lot of the time, this means hiring consultants to ensure the DEI is omnipresent, rather than having a department which can become a target of lawfare.
Upper Echelon concludes his video by saying DEI is on the decline... whereas Kirsche cites their own internal videos saying that "the work will continue" under a different name. I know which one I trust: the words of the ideologues as spoken to their faithful, as relayed by Kirsche-- not Upper Echelon.
Time came right out and said the quiet part out loud: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/.
That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.
Our founding fathers did not give the Redcoats due process of law to protect their right to life and liberty.
One did: John Adams, who represented the Redcoats who instigated the Boston Massacre. Because the rule of law matters he defended them.
So while I agree that the friend/enemy distinction needs to be drawn, there are traditional, civilizationally-important controls around the violence which threatens to be unleashed. There are forms of process and warrants for actions, especially violent actions, which are to be taken against your enemies-- and this is baked into the American Tradition. If you resort to unrestrained violence, you undermine your Causus Belli. You lose the support you'd have if you fought a Just War.
Sic pacem, para bellum.
Elric
Narnia
Wut?
Elric of Melniboné is Moorcock, not Lewis. He's the inspiration for the witcher: a doomed drug-addled albino spellblade, ex-ruler of a fallen kingdom, who gets eaten by his own soul-sucking sword.
Elric is classic 60's dark fantasy. Netflix will certainly fuck up Moorcock, but it will (at least) be due to modern ineptitude as opposed to the skin-suit treatment Lewis would get.
Casualty.
Casualties.
Seconding Myth: the Fallen Lords.
Anyone interested in playing this classic should look at Project Magma, whose emulation of Myth II can load The Fallen Levels, which allows a playthrough of the first game's content as a mod for Myth II.
Can [we] use general terms for men as well?
Go for it.
Include suicide. Crime victims, too. Over-represented in all extremes. Men are disposable.
Women voting isn't necessary for them to have 'a right to society.' The majority of women haven't served (militarily) as you have, and don't have any notion of the responsibility or duty associated with the unearned/unwarranted vote they were blessed with.
Men don't get a free pass either. Universal suffrage was a mistake.
Net tax payer, veteran, or land owner should be the requirement. You should be invested in the country if you want a vote on deciding its future. Otherwise it's just a pack of wolves voting against the lone sheep about what's for dinner.
Arguably Kakistocracy, where the inheritors of the elites are all fuck-ups and promote people less competent than they are to expand their zone of control.
At this point, it's fencepost turtles all the way up. (You see someone elevated somewhere way above their ability, and damn well know they didn't get there on their own-- they were placed there)
oh shit. that's uh... I may need to as well
EDIT:
Looks like the G600 is presently on sale at Logitech's site; probably because they're clearing out stock. If you're in a similar boat, the price direct from logitech is 40 bucks.
By comparison Amazon is selling them for 80-- used, second hand market.
Do with this what you will.
midwits and.or the third generation inheritors of the mantle the elites handed down.
I'm not saying aristocracy was better, bad kings happened, but the culture was at least one that aspired to greatness, rather than low equity.
Did you ever hear of “advanced” women clamouring for equality in the matter of military service or even for the right to become police constables? One often hears the Feminists’ wail over the economic inequality between men and women. They claim, and justly claim, equal wages for equal work, no preference to men over women. With this we are all agreed. But have you ever heard of a Feminist demanding equal penalty for equal crime? Because I never have.
From the link above.
No. You will never hear them claim shares of jobs as Garbagemen or day laborers. You will not hear them shout that laws must be enforced evenly. Instead, they will affirm the pussy pass and beg light treatment on behalf of women, for women's sake. Rights, with no corresponding responsibilities; to still have their cake even after devouring it, whole.
To whit the above link's conclusion:
The conclusion I draw from the above facts alone, and apart from all other considerations, such as those previously indicated, is, that setting aside the question of the intrinsic suitability or unsuitability of the female sex for the exercise of political functions it is at least not just or equitable that women should exercise such functions – even the suffrage – (1) So long as women possess sex privileges as against men, or so long as they are not prepared to accept the whole duties and responsibilities of life in an equal degree with men; (2) That it is undesirable they should be given the franchise at all so long as the acquirement of the vote by women would possibly mean the political subjection of man, owing to the excess of the female population. I contend that so long as women have special privileges at criminal law, special favouritism at civil law, special exemption from military service, the right of maintenance, when married, by the husband, &c., it is neither just nor expedient that they should, in addition, by the concession of the franchise, be placed in a position to dominate men politically by sheer weight of numbers.
Enter Family Courts and no fault divorce, as a point (3) where men may be drafted by the state into the maintenance of women and children treated as theirs whom they did not sire. If you extend this to the welfare state, the taxation mechanisms themselves compel analogous supports.
TheImp may be monomaniacal in his pursuit of and fixation on this issue, but the rise of the Feminist sisterhood and its consequences have been a disaster for Western political culture.
A low bar. And yet the rest of what you say is entirely true. Finding a mod who isn't a raging faggot is basically impossible.