DoI = Declaration of Independence

The word "equality" doesn't appear in the Declaration of Independence either.

I interpreted you as approving of the fact that only property owners could vote. It's something a lot of right liberals say today.

That's how the US Constitution was originally written, and yes, I think that was much better than what we have now where people who no ability to contribute to society or vested interest in the success of the country are being catered to by politicians looking to buy their votes with the taxes they take from those who do contribute.

I don't understand this argument. You are implying that the lack of power in the Presidency means there is no ruling class.

No, I'm asking you to explain WHO the ruling class were, because they clearly weren't the politicians, and if they weren't the politicians, how did they rule? Influence was greatly limited by geography at the time. It was nothing like it is today. Unless you could literally deploy force over a large geographical area, your ability to "rule" was extremely limited.

Actually, nevermind. I don't really care. Let's move on.

Sure. You can see liberalism obfuscating power relations in a topic we are discussing now, restricted suffrage. This topic obfuscates power relations when it comes up in its usual form because the implication is that society is going to shit because we gave too much power to the wrong type of plebes. In reality, it's going to shit because of the people with the most amount of power.

I can't see any of this, sorry. You're going to have to be more specific. I don't think you actually understand what liberalism is. You speak in generalities but you don't seem to be able to provide specific examples.

Give me a specific example of how liberalism is obfuscating power relations on the topic of voting rights. I've already addressed the fact that "equality" as you are using it isn't part of liberalism.

As I said, to Gizortnik, history backs up my claim that liberalism destroy traditions. What traditions are being preserved by liberalism? How is it even helping?

Can you provide examples? What traditions?

Religious traditions have been passed down in the USA for hundreds of years. Family traditions, holiday traditions, likewise. What exactly are you talking about and how did liberalism destroy them?

I don't think we're going to agree on any of this, but I want to give it another try.

Be clear about what you're asking.

We pick something we both agree is heinous, and the all I have to do is show you an influential Jew who condemns it? Or do you have other conditions?

I know. "Equal" does appear in the DoI however.

Dol?

When you say Constitution, are you including the Bill of Rights?

Yes, the original ten amendments in particular. The more recent amendments are debatable.

This is just motivated reasoning on both your part and the part of the liberals at the time. Suffrage was doled out this way to produce results friendly to the ruling class, just as it always has been.

What motivated reasoning? I'm just stating historical fact.

What ruling class? They had to basically force George Washington to be President. There was so little power in the federal government at the time, it was considered a burden... an act of servitude, to serve in Congress.

In practice, liberalism is concerned with obfuscating power relations and destroying impediments to profits, including traditions, where applicable.

Can you back this up with anything?

If so, they're even dumber than I thought. Orthodox Jews are one of the few reliable conservative voting demographics. The most heinous Jews in positions of political influence in the West are secular atheists, many of whom are critical of Israel.

a high frequency of jews in positions of influence all pushing for things both you and i would agree are heinous, while ruthlessly destroying any and all opposition specifically by using their jewish identity when convenient, however, paints a different picture.

Also a high frequency of non-Jews doing the same thing.

Also a high frequency of Jews in positions opposing those things we agree are heinous.

Also, still doesn't prove a conspiracy.

in the case we don't actually agree it's heinous, though, then yeah, to you the kid rape and open White Genocide in all manners possible except lining us up and shooting us is not a Jewish product, it's just "progress".

Except both pedophilia and genocide happen anywhere there is authoritarianism, not just those with under the supposed Jewish influence. See China, Cambodia, Venezuela and Pakistan for starters but it's almost without exception.

Every single demographic group in the world leans leftward EXCEPT white Protestant Christians and Orthodox Jews. In fact, the worst offenders in the West are all secular atheists, so if we're going to single out a single group for their responsibility in the promotion of moral degeneracy and Marxist values, it should be secular atheists.

Equality is a myth.

The way people use the word "equality" nowadays is several steps removed from the liberal principles of legal and political equality. The idea that all people should be equal in every way, in every context, was never part of liberalism.

Fun fact, the word "equality" doesn't even appear in the US Constitution.

George Soros has more investment in the system than you. Should he get more rights?

Yes, if the law were written that way, but it's not, and for good reason. The US Constitution was written to find balance between the tyranny of the many and the tyranny of the few. If someone was a citizen and owned property, they could vote (because they have a vested interest in the country), but they didn't scale the political influence of voters based on wealth either.

Liberalism is concerned with equal application of the law, not making everyone equal.

The burden of proof is on you to prove the conspiracy, not on me to disprove it.

A high frequency of Jewish people in positions of influence does not prove (or even imply) a global conspiracy. The logical leap between the two is just too large.

It's a problem with liberal ideology. It's predicated upon individual rights and social norms of treating others as individuals. Thus it has no internally consistent grounding for excluding "those" people. This is why women eventually ended up with civic participation.

You bring up good points but at the end of the day I don't think this is a problem with liberalism itself, but rather the difference between a grounded application of liberal principles versus ungrounded idealism.

Voting rights in the USA used to be tied to property ownership. This supposedly disenfranchised many women because most women didn't own property at the time, but the rational basis for limiting voting rights to property owners was sound, and it should have remained that way. This was still liberalism, but it was liberalism grounded rationally to support the American system of government, taking into account people's personal investment in the system and the rights that correspond with that investment.

The problems arose when people began to argue that there should be no restrictions placed on voting in the name of equality. This is an idealistic notion but one not grounded in reality, and we can see the fallout of this blind idealism in the political pandering to non-contributors in society, since their vote is worth just as much as those who are actually contributing and invested in this country's future.

This ungrounded idealism is the root of the problem more so than the liberal principles themselves, because every ideology suffers the same problem if you unmoore it's principles from practical reality. This is the same problem that anarchy and communism struggle with; both sound great until you try to put them into practice.

I think you nailed it. Well said.

I don't know anything about the politician or their motivations, but I also agree. This is too sexual for a common public area. Something like this wouldn't be out of place in Akihabara, but this seems way too much for an ad campaign targeting the general public.

I misinterpreted your statement. My bad.

Same here. I just can't see past the logical leap required to jump from observing a pattern and believing in some kind of global conspiracy.

Yes, some of it is definitely reactionary. It's sad to see so many people on the right foolishly adopting their own version of identity politics as a response to the left's identity politics.

I think the $3 billion is for the next four Avatar movies which were filmed all at once.

I don't think anyone was even asking for a second movie, much less four more.

It absolutely DOES benefit females. It benefits everyone. It just doesn't allow people to duck personal responsibility and live a consequence-free hedonistic lifestyle. The end result is still better for them though, even though they might not like it.

Oh, and it also doesn't benefit politicians who want a dumb and compliant voter base (a result of hedonism), or anyone who wants black people to kill themselves (Sangerites).

The Jewish Conspiracy crowd sees anything that doesn't support their worldview as evidence for that very worldview. This is because they claim anything that contradicts their worldview is evidence that the conspiracy is manipulating the evidence. This makes their worldview non-falsifiable.

Sure, people tend to over-react when you criticize Jews. They also do the same when you criticize any other race except white people. JP's "messages" in these videos are to followers of particular religions, not racial groups, so the assumptions by @buttcanbandit aren't even logical.

As for your question of why people oppose the "Jewish Conspiracy" narrative...

I can't speak for others, but I see most anti-Jewish racism as stemming from the same sort of identity politics that the Left so masterfully wields. In-fact, the far-right and far-left have more in common than either side wants to admit. The disdain I have for people who support this anti-Jewish narrative is the same disdain I have for the Left.

Identity politics takes the side of collectivism in the collectivism vs. individualism debate. Identity politics is the process of picking and choosing characteristics of individuals, grouping them together based on those characteristics, and building a positive or negative narrative around them for political reasons. The root of this mindset is viewing people as members of a collective rather than as individuals.

It's perfectly find to recognize differences such as patterns of behavior between groups of people but treating people as members of a collective is immoral and creates problems not just for the individuals in question but for society as a whole. The irrationality of many of these identity politics arguments aside, this mistreatment of people that causes significant damage to society is why I disdain identity politics on both sides.

FYI: I'm sure this comment will HUGELY popular on this board and will be showered with upvotes the moment it's posted.

Is there a reason why JP should address followers of Judaism?

I'm assuming most of the "The Jewish Question" types here have a problem with the Jewish people/race/ethnicity, not Judaism.

So basically, @buttcanbandit is just trolling.

Whenever the Bible talks about women ruling over a nation or people it's in a negative sense, as in a curse for wickedness or symptom of an immoral society. The Bible is clear that women in the general sense are not meant to rule over men, and when they do, bad things happen. I don't believe this is because women are evil (sorry, Imp) but because their nature is counter-productive to governance. They are easily deceived and manipulated and their natural priorities and motivations aren't in-line with the proper role of government which is to execute blind justice, without being swayed by bias, emotion or prejudice, and to protect it's people from the outside threats by waging war.

Quote from a reasonable voice from the New York Times article:

“The most important thing I’d want New York Times readers to understand is this,” Scott Aaronson, a quantum computing expert at the University of Texas in Austin, wrote in an email. “If this experiment has brought a wormhole into actual physical existence, then a strong case could be made that you, too, bring a wormhole into actual physical existence every time you sketch one with pen and paper.”

I'd like to simulate a million dollars in my bank account.

I stopped watching the NBA when Jordan retired and the game became "thug ball".

I stopped watching NFL when multi-millionaire athletes started kneeling in protest of their "oppression".

I don't really watch any sports now, and I'm okay with that.

You'd think the fact that the women's team gets half the men's money is a parody or joke of some kind if it weren't actually true.

It’s all so incredibly predictable. The fact that the vast majority of people have no idea what’s going on right in front of their faces is a testimony to the moral decay of Western society.

Good try, Canada.