2
somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

Clearly, making an argument that the pig symbolizes "lost" civilization to a Jewish teacher was a huge mistake.

/s

Also, it's been 35 years since I read LotF, but I'm pretty sure the pig carries meanings of primitivism, not civilization but hunter-gatherers, a time when man was completely dependent on a world of plants and animals he could not control or even influence much, the degeneration of bits of Bible study into animism, totem and taboo, and ritual sacrifice.

0
somercet 0 points ago +1 / -1

Nope. He came out for Bush in '04 or something.

6
somercet 6 points ago +7 / -1

You can't gatekeep unless you own the site.

Federation for social media now.

2
somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

3:25 A Swede just used the term "mainstream media" ... in Swedish. Is this the light at the end of the tunnel??

10
somercet 10 points ago +11 / -1

I'm a staunch libertarian. I'm almost AnCap.

But bring on the anti-trust. Owning the Google Play Store and YouTube is too much.

1
somercet 1 point ago +2 / -1

I hope she finds an ancient relic of power in St. James Palace that eats her head. Then she can re-establish the absolute monarchy and rule Granbretan for another 1000 years

5
somercet 5 points ago +6 / -1

Of course not! Under U.S. EEO law, you can't discriminate on the basis of skin color and the like. I mean, not unless you have a carefully thought-out plan on how to do so!

(I'm not joking. That is the letter of the law.)

2
somercet 2 points ago +3 / -1

Whatever it was, I'm sure it was green before he smoked it.

1
somercet 1 point ago +2 / -1

No, the problem was, it put "intellectuals" out of work.

Normally, those people would have been bookkeepers or government clerks (or court eunuchs). Computers and market economies put those people out of work. Now, they want back in by causing problems with pretty words and then charging you millions for the "solutions."

3
somercet 3 points ago +4 / -1

There's no difference. Killary was pushing "single-payer" (i.e., entirely Socialized health care) in 1993. Her, Kamehameha, O'Biden, none of them would be any different. You vote for one, you vote for them all.

3
somercet 3 points ago +4 / -1

Bill Cosby (hypocrisy is the lip service paid to morality) was seen as anti-gangsta, so he was Officially Non-human.

2
somercet 2 points ago +3 / -1

I didn't vote for Obama but I remember thinking that the one silver lining of his election would be an end to the people who wouldn't shut up about how everything is racist. I have never been more wrong about anything in my life.

lol

I honestly can't say how much of this is Marxism and how much of intersectionalism is Marxism infected by Democrats, who can only pass the most minor legislation without first igniting a class or a race war (or gender war, since the '60s). This has been true since Thomas Jefferson secretly financed a newspaper to smear John Adams and George Washington.

I recommend a good dose of David Cole at TakiMag. He doesn't have any easy solutions for you, but he sees and discusses the problems clearly as tribal tensions exacerbated by politics. He cheerfully indicts those of his fellow Jews whose "solutions" have repeatedly blown up in their faces.

I would scroll down to "Jewicide Bombers" on the above list and read forward in the timeline.

If you like those articles, I highly recommend Cole's memoir, Republican Party Animal.

3
somercet 3 points ago +4 / -1

No. Racism was going extinct among white people. Black people were still having the conversation in the '90s. Al Sharpton, AKA Reverend 911 was still at large.

2
somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because he doesn't run around screeching "CUNT! CUUUUUNT!" at the top of his lungs like a deranged Lefty?

3
somercet 3 points ago +3 / -0

"The Jew is using The Black as muscle against you." That part, yeah.

2
somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

No. We need to annex Canada, then we secede from Quebec.

2
somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why? Sears, Roebuck were the Amazon of their day. There's no reason a competitor can't do what Amazon is doing.

3
somercet 3 points ago +3 / -0

Neutering SCOTUS would be a good thing. And return the 14th Amendment to a limit on states, not people.

3
somercet 3 points ago +3 / -0

Why Thomas? He's the best Justice on the bench. He should have been promoted to Chief Justice.

Amend the constitution to say that State laws overwrite Federal rulings and Federal regulations. (If a State bothered to pass a law on say abortion and the Federal government didn't, then the courts default to State law rather than Starry Decisis or Chevron Deference.)

"I have no idea how the law works."

Undo the nuclear option from 2013. (Bring it back to a 2/3rd majority to moderate the SCOTUS and prevent to the vitriol we have seen from every vacancy since then.)

No. The Senate evil over Supreme Court nominations began with Robert Bork's and (especially) Clarence Thomas's nominations, in 1987 and 1991, respectively.

All of the problems in U.S. jurisprudence stem from three causes:

  1. Revocation of "loser pays." In the U.K., any legal defense costs past the process of discovery (a pre-trial gathering of information about the case) can be assessed to an unsuccessful plaintiff. The U.S. ended that in the Federalist era, since so many British subjects were suing for lost property during the Revolution.
  2. Re-imposition of the distinction between "solicitor" and "barrister" in U.S. law. Remember how people complain that the U.S. has 10,000x the lawyers the UK has? That is because the U.S. removed the distinction between a solicitor (who gives legal advice) and barrister (a much more qualified lawyer who can try a case) back when a qualified barrister was hard to find on the frontier. Most U.S. lawyers could be replaced with solicitors, since all they do is file legal paperwork for businesses. The lack of solicitors and the presence of Legal Aid is why poorer people cannot afford decent legal advice.
  3. The Fourteenth Amendment says absolutely nothing but that each state must enforce its laws without regard to race. That's it. Under Plessy v. Ferguson the Supreme Court declared that of course this meant that states could legally segregate their population by race. Under Brown v. Board of Education, this now means that the government can violate Freedom of Association (again) by mandating integration.

Fix those three laws, and 80% of our problems (tort abuse, access to legal services, massive Federal overreach) will disappear.

view more: Next ›