Yes, absolutely, they hate us because we are the benighted, ignorant, moral inferiors that make anyone like Trump (a legitimate threat to their power or power-fantasy) even possible.
Trump would never be an issue if it wasn't for us.
We are the people who reject the perfection of their Utopia.
We are the people who refuse to evolve into a better kind of human: the New Socialist Man.
We are the people, who really aren't people, because we reject their authority.
We are the ones who won't tell them they are right.
And for that, we are deontologically evil. Which means what evil is done to us is inherently, deontologically, good. The more evil it is, the more good the action, and the better the morality of the person who is inflicting that evil upon us becomes.
"SWEET... CAN..."
"So you admit you grabbed her by the pussy. What do you have to say in your defense... Mr. Trump your silence will only incriminate you further. Wait, Mr. Trump! Don't take your anger out on me! Mr. Trump! Get back! GET BACK! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
Dramatization - May not have happened
Progressives don't like First-Past-The-Post. I think they think it will give them a more representative view of will of voters. If it's genuine Ranked Choice, it might be better, but it also sways people towards moderate candidates getting the largest number of votes. It could help, but I think the real point is the government clearing house.
Frankly, I kind of like the idea of a "No Confidence" ballot initiative which just shit-cans everyone and forces a mass re-election.
Actually, I think this is good news.
By entirely ousting the government and putting seemingly nobodies in place, there's probably more accountability and integrity in that government than they've ever had.
This will probably be as close to "rule by random" as you can get, where literally random people take power. The result will probably be a populist left government, but it's probably better than what they had.
Iron Heart is literally a villain.
You know what sent her into a fury, when she decided she needed to become a super-hero? Okay, I'm not kidding about this, hold on:
She was in elementary school and the teacher asked everyone what they wanted to be. She stood up and said, "Superhero". The teacher said, "that's nice". Then elementary school Iron Heart just stared at her. The teacher stared back. She stared longer at the teacher. The teacher asked, "what?". Iron Heart looked back and said, "This is the part where you're supposed to tell me that I can't do it, that I don't have any powers, or that superheroes don't look like me. That's supposed to drive me forward and fuel me into becoming a superhero." The teacher looked back at her and said, "Why would I do that? You can be whatever you want."
In response, Iron Heart is furious, grimaces, and sits down hating the teacher for telling her she could grow up to be anything she wants.
I shit you not.
Like every other Leftist fuck-head shitter-hero, she is a raging narcissist. She is a physically unbearable cunt who asserts that she is better than everyone else, that everyone else is inferior to her, and her superiority is backed with resentment that not everyone agrees that she's better than them. She doesn't even have a smug sense of self-superiority. It is a resentful sense of self-superiority. She's pissed off at everyone because they don't see themselves as inferior to her from the moment they greet her. She doesn't greet them, everyone else is in the way. She literally doesn't even really save the day. She literally causes all of her own problems, starts wars, blames everyone else, then "solves" the problems she started by doing terrible things and lecturing everyone about how much better she is than them.
As with Captain Marvel, she's literally a super villain.
This wiki entry is a puff piece.
It could be a form of malicious compliance as well. I'm not coping, I have no idea that this will be the case; but I do wonder if there is a mechanism where they are going to slow-walk any enforcement mechanism, or give obvious warnings, or even just refuse to ban non Brazilian accounts that are just repeater accounts. Kind of like how Trump makes Truth Social posts, and people just repost those on Twitter.
Actually... that's an interesting idea. Get the dissidents to use Truth Social.
A "moral panic" that has been going on for at least 30 years, has raped over a million girls, and continues at the rate of 9,000 a year. A "moral panic" that American Intelligence agencies were aware of it, as it was tied to Islamist and Jihadi infiltration into the UK, which is why the American Intel agencies came up with the term "Londinistan" in the first place.
A "moral panic" where multiple police officers and Labour Party officials were directly involved in participating in child sex traffiking, and far more have been covering up, running interference, and running apologetics for it. A "moral panic" where Scotland Yard has introduced policies to allow child rapists to apologize to the children as a way of preventing further charges as a measure of "community enforcement". A "moral panic" where law enforcement routinely considered "child prostitutes" to be a "lifestyle choice". A "moral panic" where a 12 year old girl was abandoned by the side of the road, went to a police station, reported that she had been raped, and was told by law enforcement to go home because she was drunk. A "moral panic" where that same girl grew up to be a woman, face her attackers, see them convicted, then find them wandering the streets a few years later at the grocery store because the Home Office had decided that deporting them would be too dangerous and so just let them out. A "moral panic" where the girls are explicitly targeted for predation because of their race and presumed religion, because kufar aren't people.
Yeah, it's all a moral panic. Not like the Covington Kids incident. That was very double-plus real.
I think your definition of the left-right measure makes non-Marxist, non-Hegelian, and non-Rousseauian descendent political systems as "politically Left", so I don't think it's really valid as a measuring tool.
I'm defining ethnicity different from race because they aren't really the same thing.
Race has two potential definitions: a) Explicitly biological sub-stratas of humans, b) the socio-political definition of a cultural super-strata. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, but are used interchangeably either by modern racialists, or early 20th century progressives.
As I've said in other places on this forum before, I tend to use J. G. Stoessenger's definition of how to define a nation, and break down it's stratifications from a political science perspective as follows; from bottom to top:
- Individual
- Family/Kin
- Clan
- Tribe
- Ethnos
- Nation
- Religion
- Racial category
(Please note that Nation is not the same as State, and is defined by a set series of characteristics, I won't go into yet)
From this, when I use the term "race", I use it in this sense, which is a particularly American sense. Race is a socio-political category which is cross-national, cross-state, cross-religion, and cross-cultural category denoting some population of people that share some observable physical distinction. "White", "Black", and "Asian" are considered races, and have very clearly observed physical distinctions (which is why they are literally color coded), but are extremely broad categories beyond that. "White" includes most ethnic groups in Europe, including Franks, English, Irish, Welsh, Danes, Swiss, Poles, Germans, etc. (For our sake let us say 'most' to avoid arguments about whether the Spanish, Syrians, or Albanians are "White"). We can have similar discussions about "Blacks" since Caribbean, American, South American, and African "Blacks" have very clearly demarcated ethnic groups. One of the most "diverse" countries in the world is Nigeria, where the country has 30 separate languages because of the isolation of each tribal society within the country. "Asian" is obviously the most grossly broad because it includes Sri Lankans, Japanese, Siberians, Mongolians, etc into one massive bloc. Strangely enough, "Asian" would make more sense kept broken up into "Yellow" and "Brown" to at least be consistent.
An Ethnos is a much smaller arrangement of people that both has genetic similarity, and also a shared culture, history, language, and self-identity. It is less genetically distinct than a Tribe, but more than a Nation. A good example would be the Welsh, as they are too distinct for a Nation, but far too large for a Tribe.
I'm not trying to burst your bubble, OP, but political violence is clearly becoming quite normalized. Frankly, since 2016, interpersonal random political violence was normal against anyone who wore a red hat due to the massive apologetics for Antifa. This included kicks to the head, stick beating, mace attacks, being punched in the head with brass knuckles, and more.
Then with the 2020 Summer of Love Riots we had an open insurrection and attack on the White House on May 29th, mass race rioting, open support for ethnic hatred attacks, the Red Terror Campaign against Canadian Catholics, the support of inter-personal violence from Covid, street take-overs, several calls for mass ethnic violence, secessionist movements in several Leftist cities, public protests with armed racist communist militias (The Not Fucking Around Coalition if you remember those guys), IED attacks on federal court houses, and hostages being punted in the head, Antifa activists gunning people down in the street, and much, much, more.
After this, things have gotten much more serious. 30% of people in Washington DC believe anyone accused of a crime on January 6th should be executed. Another 30% of Democrats believed that during Covid, if you didn't get an injection, you should be forcibly removed from your home, placed into a camp, and forcibly injected. Since the October 7th attacks on Hamas we've witnessed the Left openly celebrate mass murder, genocide, and terrorism. They explicitly celebrated killing civilians and children which their terrorist groups openly broadcasted. Academicians have explicitly said that calls for genocide are allowed on campus (which was never offered to TPUSA when they said that there were 2 genders). They have been repeatedly calling for genocide against jews, and are very favorable towards collective racial, ethnic, and religious punishment. We have seen two major assassination attempts on Donald Trump (both were popularly supported by the Left). I think 23% of Democrats said that the country would be better off id Donald Trump was dead.
From a Leftist analysis, Trotsky and Lenin have very specific arguments about what types of political terrorism was correct. They basically said that terrorism was good IF AND ONLY IF it was conducted within the direction of the party, as part of a larger objective. The political violence we saw from 2016-2021 was all informally suggested. It was about supporting generalized outbursts of violence that couldn't be directly tied to the party. This is the kind of logic that gets used to justify more authoritarian measures to "protect civility and order" by intentionally encouraging disorder among the criminal class. However, in 2024, the political violence is less in quantity, but it seems to be more openly popular and openly embraced. It appears that although the level of violence has gone down, the support for political violence in the Leftist intelligentsia and among their apparatchiks have significantly increased.
I was very worried several years ago that Trump supporters and Trump protestors could easily get machine-gunned, Apartheid South Africa style, in a large peaceful protest where the government sought to send a message to intimidate dissent. I predicted that it would cause major blowback. That never panned out because January 6th was about as close as that got, but due to the level of non-violent conduct among the Trump supporters, we didn't see cops just shooting a thousand live rounds into a crowd... despite Nancy Pelosi demanding M240's being mounted on roof-tops.
I fear that we are actually closer to that now with less violence, but far more popular support among The Party to commit such an act. Such an act of violence couldn't be any more stupid for them, but I feel like it's a real possibility at this point. There's no reason to believe a schizo, blue-anon, cop wouldn't just scream "THEY'RE GONNA JAN 6 US!" and start mag-dumping a crowd during a Trump inauguration. Even though congress made it illegal, I am seriously wondering if Kamala Harris may refuse to count the electors, or recognize them. If thousands of law enforcement descended on the inauguration after a mass police shooting, and began arresting tens of thousands of people with extreme violence, would the media do anything but openly support it? I really don't think so. I think the establishment has gotten used to the taste of blood in their mouth at this point.
Before J6, someone from The Donald came here and told everyone not to go to the inauguration because he feared violence. I remember telling him that that would be silly because all it would be is your average Trump rally. I think that warning is even more important now. I would prefer if no one attended the Trump inauguration, because I feel like the government is probably more accepting now of open blood-letting than before.
As for a Civil War, frankly we've past that point. I think we're actually less likely to have one now more than in the past 8 years because the right actually seems to be properly winning the culture war, and the regime is becoming more and more illegitimate.
What would make you believe this wasn't approved by the editor that thought defaming and slandering a child wasn't their objective.
Deadspin used to be part of Gawker Media. They'd eat a fuckin' baby and blame the father for the death because patriarchy.
Collectivism is not evolutionary, it's ideological.
Taking credit for someone else, and accepting blame for someone else, is not something you were evolved to do. It's a coping mechanism to your own weakness that is promoted by idealogues who are intentionally robbing you of that agency for their own benefit.
No. None of the Leftwing revolutionaries ever were.