In 2020, Greenblatt addressed a letter to the Egyptian government practically demanding that they disallow several 'antisemitic' books from being sold at the yearly Cairo Book Fair. Funnily, the number of available 'antisemitic' books had in fact increased between 2020 and 2023.

However, I suspect that the offending books were probably disallowed in 2024 and 2025, since the ADL and the Jewish media outlets that also complained at the time do not seem to have written anything on this topic since 2023. Alternatively, perhaps they simply did not send anyone to investigate the Cairo Book Fair in 2024 and 2025. (It appears to run from late January into early February each year.)

https://media.scored.co/post/LgOTRJZL8HxS.png

The above book was written by an Egyptian academic and has been described as a 'history of Zionism'. The four below books are Arabic translations of Mein Kampf.

Other books available at the 2023 Cairo Book Fair about which they were kvetching include:

• The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
• Henry Ford's The International Jew
• William Guy Carr's novel Pawns in the Game

As for whose embassies, I'd say he means America's.

So, yes, they are indeed tracking 'antisemitism'. There are, after all, websites with 'hate maps' dedicated to tracking such events.

Never in recorded history has there been a group so obsessed with what outsiders think of them.

Cameroon's Paul Biya has been in office since 1979; Uganda's Yoweri Museveni has been in office since 1986. Togo's Gnassingbe family (father, then son) have been in power since 1967.

Being in power since 1994 isn't that impressive. Belarus' Lukashenko also came to power in 1994. Azerbaijan's Aliyev family (father, then son) have been in power since 1993. Even with all the so-called democratization in the late 1980s and 1990s and the resultant End of History, viz. the conclusive triumph of liberal democracy over all other political systems, there are numerous countries where leaders have and will continue to hang on for a long time.

And there will be more to come. Egypt's el-Sisi hasn't been there that long, but he'll probably still be there for decades to come. Same with Chad's Mahamat Deby. Some of those recent coup leaders in West Africa—Doumbouya, Goita, Tchiani, Traore—could also conceivably be in power for decades to come, even though their countries all looked to be developing multi-party electoral systems in the 2010s.

There has been a lot of what liberal democrats call 'democratic backsliding' in the Africa of the 2010s and 2020s compared to the Africa of the 1990s and 2000s. Though this form of government doesn't look to me to be seriously threatened outside of Africa, I think that it's too soon to declare the End of History thesis either verified or falsified.

Covenant Press compiled 120 into a text titled The 120-Book Holy Bible and Apocrypha Collection.

This collection includes all 66 books of the Holy Bible, as well as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1-4 Baruch, 1-4 Maccabees, Apocryphal Esther, Apocryphal Psalms, Apocryphal Daniel (including Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), 1-2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (12 works), Jubilees, 1-3 Enoch, Book of Giants (from the DSS), Jasher, Life of Adam and Eve, Book of Creation, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Isaac, Testament of Jacob, Ladder of Jacob, Joseph and Asenath, Testament of Job, Testament of Moses, Testament of Solomon, Psalms of Solomon, Lives of the Prophets, Words of Gad the Seer, Ascension of Isaiah, Revelation of Abraham, Revelation of Elijah, Revelation of Zephaniah, Apocryphon of Ezekiel, Epistle of Aristeas, Didache, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, 3 Corinthians, 1-2 Clement, Seven Epistles of Ignatius (seven works), Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, The Shepherd of Hermas, Odes of Peace, Apology of Aristides, and additional apocryphal fragments.

Additionally, given that the Ethiopian Bible contains texts that are not in this collection, the total number required to make a truly comprehensive compilation aiming to include absolutely everything without exception probably exceeds 130.

I should have mentioned in my first paragraph that the Ahmadiyya technically consider a second book, the Tadhkirah, to also contain the word of God. The Tadhkirah is believed by Ahmadis to contain revelations which were received by the group's founder (MGA), committed to paper by him at the time, and compiled and published 15 or so years after his death. However, because of the pervasive belief among non-Ahmadi Muslims that Muhammad was the last prophet, MGA claims prophethood in an unusual way, using Sufi arguments; namely, that his prophethood is merely a continuation of some prior prophethood. MGA seems to have claimed to be a 'reflection' or 'shadow', a metaphorical second coming, of prophet Jesus. (Ahmadis reject the Israeliyat idea accepted by most non-Ahmadi Muslims that Jesus will literally return, but someone will come who shares his qualities.) Thus Muhammad was still the last prophet, since MGA is a continuation of the earlier prophet Jesus, possessing not the soul of Jesus but his qualities, rather than a new prophet. This is similar to how the return of Jesus will not mean that Muhammad was not the last prophet, since Jesus was born earlier and therefore in a sense is not the last even if he spends time on Earth and then dies after Muhammad.

This is also why certain Ahmadi offshoot leaders also claim to be messengers and/or prophets, e.g. Ahmed Azim from Mauritius, and in the case of Abdul Janbah from Pakistan, to also be Jesus. They do this through claiming to be 'reflections' of MGA, and since MGA is also a 'reflection' of Jesus, Janbah also claims to be Jesus.

Given that Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was a sort of non-literal continuation of Elijah, similar or identical to the Sufi 'shadow' or 'reflection' concept, Jesus himself seemed to believe that such a thing was possible.

It is, however, the only text believed to be divinely dictated in Islam, viz. the direct word of God/Allah transmitted through Gabriel (Jibril) to Muhammad while he was in a trance-like state.

All other texts, such as the Muwatta and other hadith collections and the tafsirs (texts equivalent to Bible commentaries), are accepted as man-made.

One difference between Christianity and Islam is that the Quran's authenticity is much less debated. There are no debates as to whether certain chapters are pseudepigraphal and very little debate as to whether certain verses are insertions.

By contrast, Christians can't even decide whether the Bible is a compilation of 66 texts, 73 texts, &c. If we simply include everything, we'd have a compilation of at least 120 texts.

Wikipedia:

Ishii openly identifies as queer, bisexual, or pansexual with no preference between labels, and genderfluid. They have been vocal in their opposition to transphobia, and have raised funds for LGBTQ supporting charities such as The Trevor Project.

Her sister is also a Democrat politician.

Isn't AoV racially Arab or other non-yiddish Middle Easterner? If so... what a loathsome, vile traitor to his own people. No different to that 'Saudi German', that insane anti-Muslim Zionist who went on a killing spree.

An anti-Zionist libertarian and a Zionist Arab? This place is schizophrenic.

Let's speculate on the course content.

Lecture 1: Why Trump is literally Hitler:

• Both men have been selected as 'person of the year' by TIME Magazine.

• Both men are of German ancestry. Hitler and Trump represent a 'German authoritarianism' that is competing with an 'English liberalism' in America. Also, we totally aren't racist for connecting political ideologies to ethnic groups.

• 'Donald Trump' consists of 11 letters. 'Adolf Hitler' consists of 11 letters.

• Hitler died in 1945. Trump was born in 1946. This leaves enough time for the soul of Hitler to be re-ensouled into Trump. In short, Hitler's soul simply migrated into Trump's body.

These four arguments are sufficient proof that Trump is literally Hitler. Whoever disagrees that these arguments constitute sufficient proof is to be expelled from this college immediately.

Russia, Russia, Nazi, Hitler, Zelensky, Slava Ukraini, Agent Orange Cheeto Benito Vladonolf Trumputlerolini, Nazi Hitlers, Russia hacked the election in 2016, Trumpenfuhrer, Zelensky is Churchill, Vladolf Putler, Fourth Reich, bomb threats by Russia Nazi Putlers, 2020 was the most secure election in American history, Russia somehow hacked the election in 2024, it is no longer a most secure election, we must cancel the election and have another most secure election in American history.

Oh, and Russia Fourth Reich Nazi Putlers, more Zelensky, I have my mental illnesses and the medications that I take for them in my social media bios, I have Ukraine and pride flags in my username, I am abrosexual, alexigendered, disabled, neurodivergent, and trans, Love Is Love, Love Always Wins, Science Is Real, Russia Nazi Putlers Slava Ukraini!

I think I did it right.

This guy is highly aberrational (Leftist with four children), and it's quite likely that they'll be the end of his worthless bloodline, unless they repudiate his views. Hopefully they'll all turn trans. Good riddance.

You ask the impossible of him, fellow AIDS person.

Trying to put arbitrary bounds on liberalism, as he does, has always failed and will fail. Since he doesn't want to accept that liberalization is an unboundable process, his mind is simply forced to sanitize liberalism by positing that every conclusion that liberalism has reached with which he disagrees is simply the fault of 'subversion' by some other force, the 'Left'. Having persuaded himself of this, he can then live a life free from guilt for what it is doing today.

The 'Left' is simply the wastebasket into which classical liberals and libertarians dump their more modern, updated counterparts.

What they will never understand is that a clear line can be drawn from Locke through Marx to today. Positing that Locke, Paine, etc. belong to a different line altogether from Marx and his acolytes is remarkably disingenuous: Marx was all about expanding the Enlightenment and the ideals of the French and American Revolutions, that is, about expanding liberalism to include more than just landowning men. The last few centuries have simply witnessed its yet further expansion; having expanded now to encompass almost all that fits under the human umbrella, it is now expanding to the animal kingdom and beyond. Hence rivers with human rights, marriages between humans and trees, and so on.

Painting a line from Locke to Rawls, Rothbard, etc. without going through the 'socialists' is simply to paint a false view of history. Dewey and Popper are just two of those in the last century who seriously blur that faint line, the trivial differences, between the fraternal, deeply overlapping ideologies of liberalism and Marxism.

The obvious theological answer for the learned: Islam is far too egalitarian. The practical answer is that this strategy doesn't work. Discard these useless, Tommy Robinson-tier answers that rely on false 'Islamofascist' narratives. They want you to believe that Islam is totalitarian, 'Nazi-ish', and committed to destroying everything incompatible with itself.

First things first, there is no reason to adopt Abrahamic religion v3.0 when Abrahamic religion v2.0 has failed to stop, and possibly has a causal link to, today's problems. Glenn Beck flew Christians out of Afghanistan to America; a Muslim Glenn Beck would do the same thing but for Muslims instead. Indeed, v3.0 has many of the same problems as v2.0. If one considers Bahai'ism as a yet later version rather than as a false religion, Abrahamic religion becomes even worse still.

Oddly, Abrahamic religion v1.0, viz. what we now call 'Judaism', is actually the least egalitarian, for instance, since miscegenation between Israelites and non-Israelites is punishable by death. Stuff like this from the Jewish scriptures, viz. most of today's Bible, is ironically what White Nationalist 'Christians' cherish most about Christianity. But since they are repulsed by Jews, they rely on dubious narratives in which the descendants of the Israelites are today's Europeans. Now having conceptually eliminated today's Jews from Judaism and othered them as imposters who have hijacked Judaism, they call White Israelism the true Christianity. What they really want is to be the people with whom God made a covenant, so that they can then say that these laws against homosexuality, incest, miscegenation, &c. apply to them rather than to today's Jews or to some extinct peoples.

I suspect that there is a common mistake in thinking that because God told these laws to the Israelites, therefore that these laws are only for them. That if you aren't an Israelite, then none of them apply to you, perhaps that nothing that you do will ever be virtuous, and that you're condemned to Hell no matter what. I need to study this more, but I suspect that most of these laws apply to all peoples and that God merely reminded the Israelites of what all peoples should be doing, and that God favours whichever groups sufficiently please Him.

One might say, for instance, that He abandoned the Jews and embraced the Arabs somewhere in between the time of Jesus and Muhammad, but God also indicates in the Quran that He possibly has hostility to the Arabs. (However, other translations use terms such as 'Bedouins' and 'nomads', terms which do not rule out the possibility of the Arabs once having been God's Chosen.)

[Quran 9:97] The desert Arabs are more tenacious in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the ordinances which God has revealed to His Messenger. But God is All-knowing, Wise. (tr. Sayyid Qutb)

The sheer weakness of Israel in the face of the impoverished Hamas strikes me as a potential example of this playing out in the world in the here and now. By all indications, Israel should have destroyed Hamas a long time ago already. Why not? God may favour Hamas, perhaps not so much because they are virtuous, but merely as a means of punishing the Israelis, who are indubitably vicious.

Departing from theology, and as for the strategy part of it, don't you think that White Israelites would have done the same thing that you advocate but with non-white Christians already? They could hold up all of these Christian Nigerians as shields against accusations of racism, but they don't bother with it. So why opt for the vastly more difficult option of doing the same thing but with Islam?

Obviously, you think that it will allow Whites to deploy the twin shields of Islamophobia and racism against liberals and 'Leftists'. Surely these two weapons are stronger than one. But do you think, then, that some Bosnian immigrant can wield Islamophobia in that same manner? Doubtful. You have to be non-white to wield that weapon. They aren't so stupid as to believe that the Whites are X, Y, and Z but only on the condition that they aren't Muslim. If enough Whites became Muslim, the term 'Islamophobia' would disappear from public discourse and those non-white Muslims that you may hope will lead the way in remoralizing our societies would suddenly come under the same attacks that non-white Christians already do.

I suspect that I am better able to answer this question because a) I've actually studied Islam, though nowhere near to the level of any scholar, and b) My mind isn't warped by anti-Muslim narratives: indeed, I have discovered a compelling but as of yet unpublished reason to accept that the Quran is a true scripture of God, which puts me in a highly unusual position, viz. someone who accepts the Quran without identifying in the least bit with Islam and Muslims.

The reason why this is so is because I believe that all organized religions are false and that God's Religion no longer exists: man-made rubbish permeates all religions, and the task of discerning truths from falsehoods so that the latter can be eliminated is practically impossible. Indeed, one would need a time machine to even begin to figure out what Religion looked like before it became religions: jumbled messes of innovations and traditions that have effectively replaced the original content. We can see this in real time with how fast 'progressive Christianity' is developing: now consider the fact that these same developments have been going on to varying extents for thousands of years. It is clear that whomever claims that he has the 'true Hinduism' or 'true Judaism' or 'true Christianity' or 'true Islam' in fact does not have it: at best, his version has only eliminated some falsehoods. Likely, its attempts at purification have introduced new falsehoods. This is how I perceive, for instance, the Ahmadiyya in Islam. Their effort to eliminate falsehoods has led to the introduction of new falsehoods. We can't even trust that true scriptures remain unaltered, especially those written further back in time.

Horse license: How many horse accidents were there in the past? Who even owns a horse today? Are horses routinely crashing into each other? Clearly doesn't require regulation.

Boat license: How many horse accidents were there in the past? How many people own a boat today? Are boats routinely crashing into each other? Clearly doesn't require regulation.

Bike license: Same as above.

Ride-on mower license: Now you're going to ad absurdums. How many fatalities have they caused? You may as well have just said that the guvmint will one day force people to get a license to breathe. (You libertarians wouldn't support said license because muh guvmint, but many of you would support companies charging people to breathe if they could: thankfully, companies haven't worked out a way to charge us to breathe.)

Gun license: There should definitely be gun licenses.

Luddites

This is obvious retardation. First, Luddites would need to have exercised significant power. When did Luddites ever have that, anywhere? Second, said Luddites would have to be making public policies based on fear and envy. You sound like a Left-Wing retard: muh xenophobia, muh homophobia, muh technophobia. Of course, you libertarians are cut from the same cloth.

Your comment almost reads as though it's facetious. But you really are serious. Thanks for making my point. The reverse Midas touch I just wrote of has completely blinded you to reason.

These idiots are blaming the Democrats today for supporting the social policies that libertarians supported back in 1971 when they founded the LP USA.

Libertarians in 1971: Support abortion on demand and any form of relationship between 'consenting adults'.

Retards: crickets

Democrats in 2024: Support abortion on demand and any form of relationship between 'consenting adults'. (Actually, 1971's libertarians were even worse, since they believed in abolishing marriage, a 'slavery contract', altogether.)

Retards: Woke! Snowflakes! NPCs!

That's sufficient proof of their retardation. Additional proof abounds for those who need it. They debate such things as:

• Whether child labour should be legalized
• Whether simple driving licenses should be abolished (https://youtu.be/ZITP93pqtdQ)
• Whether selling drugs to children should even be punished at all (https://youtu.be/U2Nad1b_3yY)

These aren't points of any contention in any sane society. He who seriously considers the merits of decriminalizing child labour and the sale of drugs to children, or of abolishing driving licenses, belongs in a loony bin.

The 'national libertarianism' or 'libertarian nationalism' in some of these comments is equally retarded. There is no point in a 'heterogenous society of White people' if it's governed by this cancerous, dysfunctional ideology. One may as well say that a 100% White commune writ large in which everyone is some sort of drug-addicted Antifa tranny is somehow desirable. It's like saying that the CHAZ-CHOP could have been great, but only if it were White-only. That makes a parody of White nationalism: it's Hollywood White nationalism.

Libertarian ideas have the reverse Midas touch: they turn everything that they come into contact with into excrement. 2024's Democrats? Arguably still saner than these freaks.

Burger-buggering, bum-blasting, bloviating liberetardian gaymerfag! Catamitic cretinous cross-dressing cum-fuelled crapitalist curmudgeon! Mad mindless monstrous moronic mental midget maricon! Get those cheeseburger wrappers off the floor! Pronto! And just what are all these Cheetos packets lying around for!? And just why are you hitting that piece of fried chicken!? Look, that's not what 'beating your meat' means!

Wait! The Muslims and Nazis are coming to burn your funko pop collection and your gay porn stash, and, look!, they are already underneath your bed! We must save our liberties and freedumbs and tha constitushun and tha Jews from tha Mooslims and Nasties.

They've already intercepted your latest package of adult diapers from Amazon! They are coming after TheImpossible1, too!

Run along, now! For it is time for you and your beloved Agent Orange Julius Caesar Cheeto Benito Vladonolf Jenkem Trumputlerolini to Make America Gayer Always! You will be tread on. MAGA! Wait... that's wrong! Lady MAGA!

Let's put this in the most straightforward terms, since there is no point in elucidating things to low-IQ morons like yourself.

I've never watched anime. Anime is for degenerates. You are a degenerate. Maxime Bernier will never become Prime Minister. The PPC will never enter government. Literal Marxists, such as Hinkle and Maupin, are more regenerative men than any libertarian. Stay mad, libertarian scum. Someone will take your anime away, and there is nothing that you can do about it. You will be tread on.

Good to see some pushback against the pervasive libertarianism here.

We banned Spinoza for a long time, but we missed many others of his ilk. As Louis XVI famously observed, it was Rousseau and Voltaire—the former, a radical democrat; the latter, a liberal—who destroyed France. But the British have yet to realize that it was Locke and Mill who destroyed the Anglosphere; likewise, the Germans have yet to realize that it was Kant who destroyed them. That is, of course, the liberals of each respective country.

Too many of late-modernity's problems stem from degenerates not having had their stupid mouths shut back in the day: freedom was already too excessive back in those times. If anything, the march of freedom and equality throughout the world has killed human intelligence. Notice, for instance, that academia these days merely reflects, albeit begrudgingly, on the works of the very 'dead White men' that it paradoxically despises? Why is that so? The answer is plainly obvious: there has been no progress since those times, with more recent persons such as Crenshaw, Freire, Irigaray, Kristeva, Lorde, &c. simply being inadequate as replacements, unless, of course, one wants to complete the destruction of human intelligence rather than conserve what little there is left of it. If they threw out the 'dead White men', it would be intellectual suicide, for almost nothing would be left of the sciences and the humanities except people who would never achieve even a tenth of what any of those 'dead White men' managed, and whose limited successes are built on the backs of these men. Universities would have nothing to teach were it not for the legacies of 'dead White men'.

Fast forward to today: the degenerates now run everything and have, amusingly, reeled freedom back in on their end, such that the Right, who gave them that freedom and who once ruled society until they degenerated to the point of becoming indifferentiable from their enemies, no longer has it.

The answer to this obviously wasn't more freedom: that's playing right into the hands of the degenerates themselves. It was less freedom: it was thoroughly eradicating the ideas of Locke, Mill, Marx, and their countless acolytes. In doing so, late-modern scum like Marcuse and Popper would never even have arisen, and most of the users here, being liberals of some stripe, would funnily instead be complaining about the Far-Right instead of the Left. 'The guvmint called me a filthy degenerate consumer.'

However, the ship for that has sailed, for the degenerates are too deeply entrenched to give up their winning combination of excessive equality and freedom combined with a positive/reverse discrimination that ensures that their intellectual and moral superiors, who are too few in number, can ever get the upper hand over them again. They, instead, are bringing about the slow death of the human species, since degeneration always leads to destruction. The future is thus a long wait in which enough persons must survive late-modernity, a high-tech Dark Age, to see what lies on the other side. No 'Conservative', 'National', 'Republican', or 'Tory' political party can avert this.

One thing is abundantly clear: in the slim chance that the liberals and Leftists are conclusively defeated, we must nip this problem in the bud once and for all: a totalitarianism that will have to synthesize itself with many primitivist characteristics will be the only possible future for this species. No space must be given to the political ideals, ideologies, and values that drove this, nor to the technologies that facilitated this, ever, ever again. We must ruthlessly search for the causes of this present and future malaise and eliminate them without prejudice, all the way down to the genetic level. Yes, if there is even a link that can be found between a certain gene and the problems of today, say, a 'pathological altruistic gene', or a 'ressentiment gene', this foul contaminant must be eliminated from the genepool without prejudice. Everything that our enemies have inflicted upon us must be inflicted upon them tenfold: anything short of that is a grave injustice to the countless people who have and will continue to suffer under their rule today and for the indefinite future.

'Individualism', by which you mean liberalism-libertarianism: All social groups are false and are not the basic units of society; the (reified) individual is all that truly exists. Sociopolitical, non-economic equality is sufficient.

(Marxist) 'socialism'/communism: All social groups are false and are not the basic units of society; the (reified) individual is all that truly exists. However, 'individualism' does not realize true freedom if Man is still enslaved to basic needs; additionally, any reasonable understanding of equality cannot be restricted to the sociopolitical. It must be extended to the economic. Economic equality is thus required for true freedom and equality to be realized in the world.

The only differences between you and them are economic and trivial, you blithering idiot. You're a liberal stuck in the nineteenth century, just like most of the other users here. You simply argue with the Left over implementations and interpretations of the very same ideals and values that they hold. If you just accepted the last 150-200 years of liberalism wholeheartedly, without putting up some arbitrary, nonsensical boundaries, you'd be a guaranteed Democrat voter: practically all Americans who do not vote Democrat are simply Democrats with some minor reservations here and there—'I like gays, but... trannies are one step too far'—your beloved Trump being a prime example.

Making any sense of this meme whatsoever requires having knowledge of the video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (2015). Without that, it is just Trump's face overlaying some video game character.

At the end of the original Metal Gear (1987) video game, the player character, Solid Snake, defeats the final boss, a body double of long-time series protagonist Big Boss.

Who was this body double? MGSV: TPP, chronologically prior to the latter game, tells us this story. There are numerous interpretations, but the following is the mainstream interpretation.

Before the events of MGSV: TPP, Big Boss had gone into hiding. The Medic from the end of MGSV: GZ, who has been in a coma, is misled into believing that he himself is Big Boss, going under the code-name 'Punished "Venom" Snake'. Eventually, he realizes that he is indeed not Big Boss, but the Medic.

With the benefit of hindsight, we now realize that in Metal Gear, Big Boss sent Solid Snake, his clone, to eliminate his own body double, Punished "Venom" Snake. He always viewed Venom as dispensable if not necessary to dispense with at some point, and, presumably, then seized control of the organization that he and Kaz built and integrated it into his own.

(This interpretation actually makes little sense once you've actually played the game to the end of level 46 as a thinking person. The game is full of symbolism: notice that this very meme, which is a frame of a cinematic right before the game's end, is full of "smoke and mirrors": something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue. There are numerous other reasons to believe that level 46 does nothing other than replace one lie with another. Personally, I didn't believe that Venom Snake was the Medic, I believed that Ishmael was the Medic and that Venom was someone else entirely. Just to take one of many examples of why nothing is as it seems: why does the passport that is supposedly Venom's have a stamp for 1978—that is, during the time that he was in a coma—and for August 1984 when levels 1/46 supposedly take place in March 1984 according to the calendar next to the hospital bed at the start? Even if Ocelot gave him a fake passport made up for him, surely it would be easily detected as fake by the authorities with that August 1984 stamp on it. I took a lot of interest in the oddities of this game's plot at the time I completed the game [over seven years ago, now], and have plenty of arguments to make against the mainstream interpretation that the story gives you. Ishmael as the Medic, Ishmael as a hallucination, and Ishmael as Solidus Snake are all heterodox interpretations of Ishmael that I find plausible. Venom Snake as the Medic remains plausible, but Venom as another, almost hidden MSF soldier who is very easy to not notice in the helicopter destruction scene at the end of MGS: GZ is a plausible heterodox interpretation of Venom. My personal conclusion: Ishmael was the Medic, Venom Snake was the almost hidden soldier on the helicopter.)

Next, is there really any similarity between Venom Snake and Donald Trump? I'm not seeing any clear parallel, except that both men have been through a lot of suffering and torment and survived a lot of dangers.

A more conspiratorial-minded interpretation: Venom and Trump have both been used and have both outlived their usefulness to those using them?

Another parallel: Venom Snake and Trump cannot trust anyone. Of the two who seem to be Venom Snake's allies, Ocelot regains his memories and remembers that Venom is an expendable body double over whom he prefers Big Boss. When Kaz also learns of Venom Snake being a body double, he becomes hostile to Big Boss and becomes only interested in Venom Snake as an instrument to get revenge against Big Boss for his being duped. Eventually, both men abandon Venom Snake outright. Similar thing with countless people that Trump probably once trusted, like Cohn and Pence, who have all abandoned him. Can Trump really trust Vance... or, for that matter, even his own children?

California by the events of Fallout: New Vegas has implausibly recreated a sort of liberal democratic republic and is expanding eastwards, where it enters into the game world and comes into conflict with other established factions. Essentially, California is expanding across the wasteland that was the former United States of America. Not too dissimilar to the original United States expanding westward from the east.

Every time bar once that I played through that game—and I played that game a great deal back in the day—I remember genuinely enjoying killing off that faction and looting their gear across the game world.

That... user... is literally a sick, degenerate tranny. If the silly name and the My Little Pony avatar didn't give it away, you only need to read a few of its comments.

That is why the opinion should be rejected.

HellsSmells00, burger-buggering, bum-blasting Maricon! There is zero chance that you aren't one of the 41.9% Americans that is obese. Get those cheeseburger wrappers off the floor! Pronto!

I remember you posting some retarded reply to me a month ago. I thought about responding, but soon concluded: 'How does someone infer this conclusion out of what I wrote without being too retarded to even be worth responding to?' Pray tell, why do you openly display your IQ in your username?

Inferiors like you will be tread on. You will be goosestepped on, with one jackboot kept planted firmly on your head. Tell Satan about the merits of libertarianism when you return to your maker, degenerate, dimwitted product of dysgenics. Run along, now, for it is time for you to Make America Gay Always! MAGA!

This odious creature is truly subhuman: self-identifies as bisexual and 'non-binary'; claims to have had sex with men; has almost overdosed on drugs; has a cuckolding fetish; often has ridiculous, outlandish hair; and unsurprisingly identifies or at least until recently identified as libertarian. Even the lowest form of animal life is higher than him: no animal has ever possessed a combination of this many negative characteristics.

This Cuban cretin needs to be deported to that very dysfunctional and homosexual country that is the land of his maternal ancestors.

Trump didn't reverse anything he just slowed down the rot.

Faux-Rightists like the US Republican Party are obviously incapable of anything beyond, at very most, slowing down the pace of degeneration. They're too wedded to the same political values as those of the Left and Centre, viz. freedom and equality, to do anything differently, let alone actually regenerate anything.

Contemporary Western politics consists of nothing more than competing bands of degenerates arguing over whose interpretations and implementations of the exact same political values are the truest or most authentic. 'My ideas about freedom and equality are better than your ideas about freedom and equality', says one group to the other and the other back to the one.

The faux-Right consists almost entirely of liberals who cannot quite stomach the latest and most extreme adverse side effects of liberalism's inevitable radicalization into 'Leftism'. They will fail, as they always have and always will have, since freedom and equality cannot be bounded, and their descendants, who will mistake degeneration for progress, will simply disavow them as 'Far-Right'—as they always do with the people of previous generations—and resume the process of degeneration right where the Leftists and liberals last left off. They do not even have to regain any lost steps, since they lose none outside of their own minds.

The Trump Administration simply kept the seats warm for four years so that Biden could largely continue right where Obama left off. There is no way in which the America of 2024 is more Right-Wing or sane than the America of 2016. These men are just like pressure release valves that people elect when they're having a bit of trouble adjusting to liberalism's latest developments. Once the developments are normalized and enough of them grow accustomed, they are ready to take things to the next step, hence the Biden election. If Trump is elected again, all that it really indicates is that enough of the public is maladjusted to liberalism's gains under the Biden Administration, but humans are malleable enough for that maladjustment to be temporary. 'I've gotten over same-sex marriage, but I need some time to process and grow accustomed to the trans thing', say those who voted for Biden in 2020, who will vote for Trump in 2024, and who will vote for a Democrat in 2028 or 2032. Faux-Rightists are simply those who complain about certain beliefs and ideas that are already normalized among their own children. Yesterday's Democrats, such as Musk, Trump, and Vivek, are today's faux-Rightists, just as today's Democrats, such as Tulsi or Manchin, will be tomorrow's faux-Rightists.

The funny thing is that Leftists called Eysenck a 'Nazi' and other such things back in the day.

Result: 90%

Obviously a stupid test, since it presupposes a Left-liberal, individualistic worldview to be indubitably correct and that any answers to the contrary are necessarily false.

In reality, there is no reason why every person should be looked at on a case by case basis, since that blinds one to patterns. Worse still, it positivizes that blindness to the extent that it becomes a false virtue for those who lack true virtues to take up in their stead. 'Sure, I'm this and I'm that, but, hey, at least I'm not racist!' When you're making the same defensive argument that Jeffrey Dahmer made—that he didn't choose his targets based on race, therefore, he wasn't really that bad—you're clearly in the wrong. (Yes, Dahmer did disproportionately target black males, but that was because he found them attractive, not because he hated blacks, ergo, he can reasonably argue that he was not racist.)

Instead, you simply look at enough cases until you see sure patterns, and willingly blinding oneself to them, viz. refusing to 'generalize', 'paint with a broad brush', 'stereotype', is just plain irrational. If you lived in a city in which a gang whose colours were red mugged you several times, only a total moron would continue to relax around those clothed in red. But such irrationality is now a marker of a virtuous person.

Unfortunately, we live in a world in which people's heads are full of beliefs in false patterns—'I have found plenty of evidence for the existence of cisheteronormative patriarchy... but no amount of evidence would ever justify anti-semitism!'—and, in part because many of these beliefs in false patterns mutually excludes belief in true ones, they can see none of the true ones.

Firstly, belief in White privilege (viz. majority privilege strangely problematized when Whites have it) automatically blinds one to Jewish privilege because the latter seems prima facie improbable if the former is true. 'If Jewish privilege exists, wouldn't that mean that Whites do not have privilege? But Whites do have privilege; therefore, Jewish privilege cannot be true.'

Secondly, belief in Jews as the world's greatest victims also blinds one to it because it seems prima facie improbable that Jews can also have privilege if this belief is true. 'If Jews have privilege, wouldn't they use that to prevent the Holocaust? But the Holocaust happened; therefore, Jewish privilege cannot be true.'

Finally, peddling the idea of Jews as White also blinds one to it, since all evidence of Jewish privilege is simply reinterpreted as evidence of White privilege. Furthermore, it unfairly means that Whites cop the blame for all Jewish wrongdoings. 'Israelis are White; therefore, Whites are bombing Palestinian children! I hate Whitey!' It also justifies White under-representation: 'Blinken, Cohen, Garland, Haines, Mayorkas, Klain, Yellen, etc. are Jews, but Jews are White! What do you mean "Whites are under-represented"? Biden has plenty of Whites around him!'

All of this conceptual junk simply obfuscates real problems. And it benefits them immensely to spread this junk, since it clarifies nothing and complicates everything. It blinds, confuses, and stupefies the world. And nothing can happen to them when that is so: everything becomes endless argumentation, confusing problems for solutions, solutions for problems, symptoms for causes (like TheImpossible1 ranting obsessively about feminism), and the like.

'Everyone else oppresses us, we are the greatest victims of all time, somehow we have never oppressed anyone, somehow no one else has been greater oppressed than we, and we are somehow also White and people of colour at the same time, and when you do this and that you are Nazis and enemies of humanity but when we do those same things we are liberal democrats and your greatest allies, oh, and only people who want to oppress others question any of this.'

This is just a transposing of your libertarian interpretation onto the parts of what I have written that are clearly hostile to your worldview. But your attempt at a correction of sorts does not withstand this reply.

Liberalism does not bode a Victimocracy

That's why you stop at the political level.

You unwittingly admit that Liberalism is the original victimocratic ideology. The rulers-subjects distinction simply precurses the myriad oppressor-oppressed distinctions that abound in late-modernity. Once the rulers are overthrown, the logic of the political value of freedom demands that new oppressors are identified and overthrown, so that freedom ever increases throughout the world. Hence the cis-trans distinction, the man-woman distinction, &c. are simply the original Liberal battle being fought all over again, but between different categories. New sides are merely fighting old battles. Feminists are Liberals who see men as the new kings to be overthrown, homosexualists are Liberals who see heteronormativity as the new monarchy to be overthrown, and so forth. 'Ur'-Liberalism, having stopped at political power, did not realize well enough the freedom of these persons, and so for those who value freedom and/or equality, these battles must be necessarily fought and won. Since I do not value these ideals, whose appeal and benefits are strongest to the degenerate, my view on such persons is that they should be crushed. A Liberal, however, cannot embrace this position without him becoming a rank hypocrite. Freedom and equality for me, but not for thee! You are forced to tolerate such persons, since anything else violates Liberalism itself (harm principle, NAP, etc.), and so the solution requires totally breaking with Liberalism.

What you want to do is bound Liberalism such that its logic does not unfold beyond the ruler-subjects distinction: Liberalism stops at political equality. This is nonsense, since there is no way that freedom can reliably be bounded. All attempts to do so—suffrage limited to White property-land owning men, suffrage limited to White men, suffrage limited to men, marriage limited to heterosexuals—have completely and utterly failed. The bounds are always pushed back. You want to tell others what they can do with their freedom, but history demonstrates that you will always fail in your attempts to draw lines that the free are not supposed to cross.

It should be clear from my second paragraph that I reject your view of Leftism being distinct enough from Liberalism to be an opponent of it. Leftism is simply Liberalism generations down the track. Marx and the Marxists simply felt that political freedom was an incomplete freedom. Today's Leftists simply feel that political freedom and Marx's economic equality are still an incomplete freedom. And tomorrow's Leftists will view the excessive freedoms of today (paradoxically, freedoms protected by certain unfreedoms, nevertheless, society is freer than it has ever been for degenerates) as still an incomplete freedom. Each generation under Liberalism, having degenerated relative to the previous one, sees the freedom that the preceding generation brought about as slavery. This creates a self-radicalizing feedback loop, with each generation taking things closer to the Left-extreme. All that you represent is a past iteration of the same problematic ideology complaining about its more recent iterations, and thus provide no solution, since your 'solution' is to revert or rollback to an earlier 'commit', iteration, or 'snapshot'. Reverting to a rose-tinted snapshot of the 1960s or 1776 perpetuates the problem. The whole machine was corrupted from the start.

The only solution, then, is a re-evaluation of values such that freedom and equality are simply eliminated from our value system. Since both inexorably lead to degeneracy, they require replacement with pre-Socratic values, such as honour and strength. Liberalism and its Leftist descendants must simply be eliminated from the list of socially-acceptable and state-sanctioned ideologies. Nothing short of that provides the necessary counter-revolution against the Enlightenment that will bring about the survival and regeneration of Man. Anything short of that simply perpetuates Liberalism and its endless battles between those perceived as oppressors and those perceived as oppressed, and the degeneration that comes about when the superior of those groups inevitably loses to its inferiors, who always have and always will rely on appeals to freedom and equality to hand them victory.

It assumes (correctly) that as you break up a tyrannical political orthodoxy that imposes itself on society, you will generate a better culture as an emergent property of freedom.

This is false for anyone who is sufficiently Right-Wing, since we do not care about inequality of power per se. It is 'true' for Leftists and Radical Centrists, such as Libertarians like yourself. More specifically:

tyrannical political orthodoxy that imposes itself on society

This is some kind of Hayekian or other liberal argument. Hayek is trying to say that 'big government' or 'statism' or some such thing is abnormal, which is false. This presupposes a hyper-individualistic Hobbesian natural state—Hobbes, contrary to common opinion, simply entertained it as a thought experiment, and did not himself believe it—resolved through a social contract, or other false origin myth for society. Unfortunately, Liberalism has warped the world so extremely that society no longer has anything but a mythical account of its own origins, with Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, and most other Leftist and/or Liberal thinkers misinterpreting Hobbes' thought experiment as gospel. This has misled society into believing that society's own authoritarian collectivism is unnecessary and dispensable.

Society, however, is necessarily authoritarian and collectivist. It was built by, and is sustainable only through, such means. There never was a natural state: humans were tribal right from the start. Tribal life was 'big government' and 'statist': the chief's will was the way. Individual property was non-existent, all was owned by the tribe. Breaking laws meant expulsion from the tribe, and thus certain death. Liberalism and Leftism thus regard something indispensable as something dispensable. Liberalism's centuries-long legacy, based on nothing but myths and rationalizations for degeneracy, has amounted to nothing more than an unprecedented degeneration, from North America to Thailand to Western Europe. Without a complete re-evaluation of values, Man will be practically extinct within a few millennia, with most of the damage done within the next few centuries. Authoritarian collectivism is ultimately the only sustainable alternative to civilizational collapse. The world's longest surviving civilizations, all of them authoritarian collectivists, such as the thousand-year Byzantine Empire, attest to the truth of that fact.

The purpose of Liberalism is to do the opposite of that: to remove all of the structures preventing you from returning to your family and prospering.

We couldn't disagree more. There are no meaningful differences between Leftism and Liberalism: that's just your outdated version of Liberalism, i.e. Libertarianism, rationalizing away Liberalism's impeccable track record of failure. What Libertarians have done is taken all of those degenerative, wretched effects of Liberalism and its underlying political values which they feel are too extreme, created these bogey categories or misunderstood existing ones such as 'Feminism', 'Leftism', and 'Marxism'—in reality, merely more updated versions of your own Liberalism—and then palmed off all of them onto those, so that you are left with something blameless and rose-tinted. You paint a mythical world in which Liberalism once worked right up until one of these imagined groups—which consists of nothing more than othered Liberals, Liberals you otherized over trivialities chiefly of an economic or political-systemic and thus unimportant nature—mysteriously rose up out of nowhere and ruined it. It is a world that never existed. Liberalism was dysfunctional from its inception, and today's dysfunctions are merely a compounding of those original dysfunctions.

Finally, I can't help but note that the Leftist's reasoning in the last line is identical to yours: he wishes to 'remove all of the structures preventing you' from self-actualizing. You see, if you omitted the word 'family', your statement would be absolutely congruent with contemporary Leftism. In conclusion, the differences between you and them are trivial and the difference is chiefly in your negative rather than positive judgement of what Liberals have done since the time you believe that they went off the rails and became 'Leftists'. But that is just a consequence of being unable to accept that this was an inevitable consequence of your own political ideology and values.

The purpose of Liberalism [or Leftism] is to remove all of the structures preventing you from [self-actualizing] and prospering.