Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Most people who would want to play a game like this would better power game by playing with, or against Washington than Tubman.
You don't have to be hardcore gamer to prefer more suitable historical figures. Part of the appeal of a game like civilization and it was more so with civ 4, was to see civilizations represented by those larger than life leaders that actually are identified with the civilization.
I don't agree that they succeed in appealing to more people by having Tubman as a leader. They are promoting based on their own politics, or pandering to video journalists or others with influence who want to push this. Rather than reasonably expecting to make more money, they probably think they can get away with some amount of woke pandering that they want to do because of their ideology, even if it does result in backlash. To be fair maybe there are people involved with such projects who do claim either as true believers, or pretextually, that this will bring more sales and others are unwilling to counter them.
He is right that the system has failed to promote life expectancy that goes along with the spending.
United Healthcare isn't the culprit for life expectancy being low but food industry, or Purdue pharma would be corporations that have played a role in that. The Sacklers are a target that genuinely carry blame for falling life expectancies.
Dunno how damaging or helpful the covid vaccines have been. Undoubtedly the people involved with the covid research problem have contributed to falling life expectancies, but certainly not just in the USA.
It is important to note that someone who commits an act of violence because X reasons might have a point about X reasons being a thing, and a genuine problem regardless of whether they should or shouldn't have committed an act of violence. We shouldn't be deprived of the right of as a society of freely discussing and dealing with X.
Indeed, minor acts of violence are a much smaller issue than not being free to deal with X problem, whether is reasons for falling life expectancy.
Now, it is also possible that American healthcare is wasteful in terms of $ but that isn't the reason for life expectancy differences. I believe it is also true that American pharma companies are very innovative and they also make most of their money from the American market.
It is also possible that united healthcare by denying disproportionate insurance claims has played a role in life expectancy problems even if not the major role which has to do more with opioids, obesity and therefore food, how active Americans are, and maybe for blacks gun violence is also a factor.
Regarding violence as a response to big problems or crimes. I would neither encourage it but nor categorically discourage violence from ever occurring as a response to perceived crimes.Thomas Jefferson had a point that fear of reprisals is one way to get rulers to be accountable. Those in charge must be afraid of screwing up. But obviously it can go out of hand and we can have people harming people they falsely blame, in addition to it being unsuitable in circumstances for them to take matters over their own hand over the justice system. But you should be afraid that if you screw up people would put a magnifying glass over it, and you will be held accountable, one way or the other, rather than assured that bad actors will cover it up.
Too much fear of never allowing backlash leads to worse evils being allowed than anything that would be immoral from the backlash. It also leads to a lack of recognition that punishment can be proportionate and good at those who deserve it and to people actually supporting evil acts and evil doers. Important to note that much of the fearmongering about violent backlash is also pretextual and it is about protecting reputations of wrongdoers. It is about wrongdoers who deserve a negative reputation to keep getting away with it. Which they would have more difficulty to do so if their reputation is sufficiently negative.
Indeed, there are in fact cases of child rapists being shot by the parents of the victims. I sympathize fully with the parents. Especially in cases where the justice system did not punish the child rapists adequately, or at all.
A strong emotional reaction on issues that are moral and it is logical and reasonable to strongly care about the injustice of the issue is a virtue. While the unemotional person who chooses to side with corrupt people who are doing something unjust is someone who exhibits a vice. To be fair, we tend to see emotional haters of people who oppose the regime who sometimes try to present themselves as neutral and not strongly ideologically motivated. But they are trying to push for an apathetic society. They promote compliance and passivity as virtues. An apathetic compliant society which doesn't rock the boat about their rulers decisions isn't good, just like a society that people are in a frenzy about wrong theories like a society under communist revolution isn't good neither. So you need a combo of passion with correct instincts and relatively accurate understanding.
It make sense though that in a corrupt society, the corrupt elites would try to fund and support groups that advance the notion that people shouldn't rock the boat and avoid being "psychotic conspiracy theorists" to blame for oh no a possible violent backlash. At the same time that the elites who own media, or journalists and editors are inciting violence by inflaming the passions of blacks against the whites and the police, and nobody other than me and a few other people, say that for such purposes these people who are the problem through their gross exaggerations, need to be removed from power and the position to push their lies.
Like the pharmaceutical industry shouldn't get people addicted to opioids, the journalist proffession should genuinely speak truth to power, and not promote anti-white, pro black criminal lies. In events were there are people of different races that one kills the other, should try to side with what is correct based on the facts.
People should care and people in positions of power should feel the precariousness of them screwing up or getting involved with nefarious plots that harm the public. Like conducting biological weapons research that could lead to epidemics if there is a leak. Or trying to sell addictive opioids to people and present it as good remedy to pain. And various more.
Fear of backlash for wrongdoing is good and should exist in combination with the inevitable backlash and punishment towards those who genuinely deserve it though.
which isn't to say it can't be corrupt, just, again, the health care system failing to save people from high rates of car accident deaths and also for maybe keeping grandpa alive because their family doesn't want them to die is not exactly a stinging indictment of health care itself
You are very biased in favor of defending the system.
Coming up for air here, and approaching the #assassinbae story from a different angle, at what point can we consider misinformation surrounding this life expectancy vs health expenditure chart as stochastic terrorism? I don't know a single left-of-center person who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together who doesn't allude to this as Exhibit A in every discussion about how corrupt the US health care system clearly is[3]. And it's arguably wrong. And it's now getting people murdered. It's not quite as psychotic and singular as Alex Jones, but it's definitely something sinister. Maybe even more dangerous if it's the start of a trend.
Ah yes more censorship of problems and calling everyone bad names and conspiracy theorists. I think we need the opposite, an intolerance towards those who want to censor any dissent and discussion of real problems, and also a growing attitude towards them that people who want to do that aren't protecting society but are badly motivated. Usually they are partisans in favor of the group they defend from any criticism and hostile and out to get the kind of people they call conspiracy theorists and other labels, as well as the groups the later are defending.
Of course, while the "no problem here whatsoever" bias of those who are motivated to throw everything under the carpet, enforce a stupid party line by shaming and intimidating people into silence is the wrong approach, I wouldn't suggest we censor people who correctly show that some things are taken out of proportion.
It is also possible for people who get some things wrong and are biased in one or another direction also get things right.
In any case, if the goal is to have a limited discussion that excludes people, for the purposes of improving outcomes, regime pro censorship types who always overreach, and usually slander and find some excuse to censor others must be the kind of people who are targets of censorship, and of being labeled with a nasty label. Dunno what the equivalent of conspiracy theorist would be. Albeit conspiracy theorist is a ridiculous label that people shouldn't use because by using puts you in the company of CIA types who want to suppress genuine conspiracies and to stupefy discussion. It is obvious that it often used not merely to criticize inherently unreasonable and ridiculous theories but to suppress actual truths of what groups have genuinely done and do and to suppress discussion for any and all of the wrongdoing and even plots for the party they protect and to shut up any and all legitimate complaints. Usually in favor of different factions influential in the regime. Indeed regime supporters seem to try to promote the party line that there are no nefarious or criminal plots going on among people with power which is just false and ridiculous.
So, they should be excluded. Conversely a decent number of the people they would exclude must be allowed to have access to influence and to decision making discourse. I dunno who is going to be the gatekeeper of this, but it can't be the current figures who overreach by nature and would actually would be the targets of censorship.
The aspiring political commissars of the current regime that are defending zealously its conduct are in fact people who both take the freedom of others away, and create a political environment that also takes away peoples freedom and brings forth disaster by fanatically pushing that doing things that are bad is actually good. And not just good but unquestionably good. They try to make only one way to operate as unquestionable since only X bad labeled people would think otherwise. And of course they remove dissenters from platforms or reduce their reach. Their censorship and manipulation of discussion is dangerous and destructive, and so I actually not just as a "rules applied fairly", in favor of actual suppression and punishment of such political commissars. We will be both freer and have better without the regime political commissars.
In all honesty, in the way I see it, freedom is valuable, but I am also interested in the duty of people following the role they have in the manner they should do so, within reasonable expectations. That can constrain some freedoms but also is part of certain freedoms and means we ought to suppress those who constrain them. For example the freedom to criticize wrongdoing towards those who violate their duty in an important position. Their duty is about what role their position serves in society and at least not screwing things up. It isn't the cultural leftist dogma, nor is the ethical obligation of a company to only make money regardless of how they make the money. That is if you make money by making the public's health worse off, and making them addicts, you are engaged in wrongdoing.
One of the issues that mustn't be suppressed is accountability towards those who genuinely deserve it.
While I wouldn't be in favor of delusional commies harming people who aren't to blame, the Sacklers and those who collaborated with them haven't been held sufficiently accountable. There is too much "lets forget the old thing and care about current issue" while ideally society should remember, go back and punish people who are responsible for significant enough crimes. And also remove from decicion making positions people who screwed up. Some people lower on the food chain who for example protected people like Anthony Fauci might deserve not to go to prison but to be notorious and have a negative reputation and lose their position, while others deserve much harsher punishment.
The biological weapon program research backers and/or gains of function research, and all sorts of bad actors of the covid episode haven't been held sufficiently accountable. Including those who overly censor discussion on such issues, which must be done today as well. We also have no assurance that their disasters wouldn't repeat. So discussion should be done for the purpose of uncovering genuine problems and those to blame, and where sufficient blame, for the purposes of holding them accountable. Certainly there can be changes without punishing people, but there also issues where sufficient crimes or huge errors have been made. Accountability of genuinely blameworthy parties is necessary and good.
Social norms can in fact change because modern social norms are themselves due to change.
While it is true that working, having stable relationship and marriage are good, and it is commendable you follow them, your overemphasis on education is something I find more disagreeable
Part of what is modern education includes propaganda and miseducation. When it comes to people acquiring skills, and that is in fact part of education too but there is also credentialism and the fact that education leads to the unbalanced less fertile modernity way of living. So education becomes a tragedy of the commons at some point since you might benefit individually to have X credential, but society suffers from too much time wasted on that.
I disagree with valuing $ and social climbing above all. This idea of people leaving their area for high income schools is the way of progress results in people abandoning their communities instead of improving them and having a common ethos. Why leave for just higher income schools and not go to a different place altogether. It can be the case, maybe less in the USA, or places like Fishtown that certain schools aren't high income but are made by people who come from stable families.
There is something ugly about social striver modernity type of ethos. And I notice that part of that also includes a disdain towards blue collar work. Low skilled janitors are an expectation but we need competent people to be doing some blue collar works.
Take the Amish. https://www.f0xr.com/p/the-amish-fertility-miracle-part
Who are competent and do mainly blue collar work. Are rooted parts of their community rather than migrants with no strong ties to a place. Have plenty of children, and live in stable relationships but don't empathize education and follow strict religious norms. Have in general strong guidance and a set path to follow as a people. Have stronger gender roles. And of course don't personally use some of the modern technology. I am not saying everyone should be Amish, but I find your approach strays too much to the opposite side on some key issues and it isn't really the template for everyone to follow.
Marco Rubio who is the new foreign policy minister doesn't really represent something new.
If you look at Trump's appointments and their rhetoric it is more like he is putting a MAGA lipstick on the same old neocon zionist policy. I don't see any indication that Trump's agenda will be to abandon the middle east.
Also, Trump's rhetoric on Syria have been quite contradictory. Both talking about the red line and in the past blaming Obama for the rebels. The USA, turkey and Israel supported and are to blame for the civil war in Syria. The Turks did it to gain mercenary forces, to fight the Kurds and to gain more land. The Israelis did it to weaken Iran allies and to gain more land. There were also other parties involved like Quatar which also helped the rebels and coincently the Qatar Turkey pipeline that Assad rejected would pass through Syria.
So why is the USA doing regime change in the middle east? It is mainly in service of expanding the power and influence of Israel and maybe some part of it has to do with weakening Russia and possible friendly countries. At least with Syria. There has definitely been a march on institutions of Zionists and pro Israel extremists and the Jewish lobby which includes both donors and organizations is powerful and American politicians are even transparently ridiculously servile to Israel in their over the top rhetoric. In a manner that exceeds say the Reagan administration under which Netanyahou also thought the Israel lobby was powerful.
Trump is just rhetorically all over the place, but it seems that for the most part he aligns with the neocon agenda even if sometimes his rhetoric was against them when he criticized them. Now, I would prefer he wouldn't align with the neocons but I have to call it as I see it.
Suffice to say letting the Jihadis loose, allowing Erdogan to expand his empire, and use mercenaries which he also used on Armenia and might also use against other countries in the future, and all of Israel's conduct, new land grabs, and the whole Syria, Libya and Iraq policy, cannot at all be defended from an ethical point of view. Even from a sheer benefit point of view for the USA, it is significantly questionable. But American + others aligning with it involvement in the middle east has been one of the biggest crimes in the 21st century so far. What has transpired has destroyed very large number of lives, leads to significant reduction of Christian communities, has costed enormous amount of money and played its role in large migration waves that have been destructive to european countries.
I agree that liberals and the left fit into parts of what you describe above but there is also a part of the establishment left that is somewhat different.
We could consider the left to also include the:
Pro war left.
Pro Israel left.
Pro rich woke left. Indeed, rich people who want cheap labor might be more sympathetic to multiculturalism.
Pro technology under their control left.
Pro intelligence services/FBI left.
and a left that sees the current west and finds plenty to like in the status quo and desires to push things even further.
Kamala Harris actually gained voters from Biden with voters that had incomes above 100,000. This could include some of the above categories of voters.
The video I mentioned above of Fink directly talking of forcing companies to have change effectively counters the idea of the guy as an inconsequential centrist.
The reality is that Fink is still pushing ESG and also he responded to the backlash by limiting to an extend how much he pushed it.
Downplaying the ESG issue and excusing Fink helps the DEI agenda.
It isn't happening and it isn't (much of) a problem is how the real ESG problems enlarge. There is a woke/stockholder capitalism model that promotes a DEI agenda where there is pressure to be ESG compatible.
With all the downplaying and accusations of people being conspiracy theorists and all in their head, it is as if things change just magically. It isn't Moloch. It is people like Larry Fink. In fact things change more if people don't notice and downplay and less in that direction and can even reverse if they notice and oppose it.
The numbers seem completely wrong. Bloomberg found that $7tn in AUM was in funds where ESG was “mentioned” in the prospectus. That could be three lines in dozens of pages at the height of the ESG boom. A much smaller fraction. In any case, that a prospectus contains the buzzword ESG doesn’t mean for one second that core allocation / portfolio management decisions are made for ESG / DEI reasons.
Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that ESG funds means ESG etfs while the bigger figure is ESG assets. For example, if Microsoft is considered ESG then it counts fully in the bigger figure but only to the extend it is part of ESG funds in the smaller figure.
If ESG assets are a sizable part of the global assets then that matters however. ESG corporations are at least much more likely to have DEI but also policies such as with the AI if big tech companies that are culturally far left.
Moreover, if a pro ESG organization like Blackrock manages assets in a fund that isn't ESG, that doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be bringing their influence in a pro DEI direction. Influencing things in such direction doesn't mean they need to call this ESG To be doing it. And due to backlash they have made statements of rebranding as the term has become too charged, they say.
There is also ESG lending incidentally given to companies that pass these criteria.
Additionally that 7 trillion can matter too because organized minorities that are pushy can often get people to go along with them over larger groups that are less forceful and don't push a singular agenda. Which is why backlash and institutions turning away from Blackrock is useful in stopping the likes of Fink from forcing the changes that he wants to make.
It seems so far that the reaction to Trump has been muted which undermines this argument even more.
Of course Trump isn't great for rolling back the culture war excesses of the left because his administration shares plenty of ground with the deep state agenda. He might at best roll parts of it back.
There has been a right wing version of your arguement which is that right wingers would oppose it if Democrats do it but might support it if Trump does it. Which is about Trump's rhetoric for legal migration.
Neither Trump nor Harris was a good candidate for CW-temperature purposes
In my experience people who talk about CW temperature purposes are after retaining or expanding a cultural agenda that is too far to the left. If the other side to rolls over and accept this, it results in highest culture war temperature which isn't about conflict but also about enforcement of harmful agendas. Submission to that is worse than opposition.
Changing things from the far left excesses to a moral point and fixing things is how you reduce the culture war problems. I don't care about the problem of CW temperature if it means to retain or expand massive problems. Which would be the case with the Harris super woke agenda.
Trump's real problems is despite some rhetorical pandering he is still pretty quite aligned with neocons, we can see after his administration has been picked this is especially the case. There is also his rhetoric about mass legal migration where he actually didn't expand it in his first term but neither did he limit it, even as far as illegal immigration goes he wasn't that great even if a huge improvement over the Biden administration.
He even in his first term had an agenda for massive black targeted goverment spending with the platinum plan.
Another possible problem is perhaps too much corporatism and big pharma, weapon manufacturers collusion.
Or despite the rhetoric, deep state, secret services overreach continuing.
His problems are common problems with the republican party. We have seen constantly the right purge figures who aren't in fact too far right on the culture war, for being too far right on the culture war. The result has not been a reduction of culture war temperature. Even if someone promotes such counter intuitive strategies because they earnestly believe that they help things along, even if the strategies seem to be self defeating, then what they are proposing is something that we have repeatedly seen doesn't work.
Fink is on video talking about forcing behaviors which was pretty infamous and is probably something that those who talk about ESG and Fink, one way or the other ought to be aware of.
"You have to force behaviors. If you don't force behaviors, whether it's gender or race or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you're going to be impacted. That not just recruiting, it's development," Fink said. "We're gonna have to force change."
The guy wanted and still wants to throw his influence around to transform or lock in social governance goals which are DEI goals. It isn't a credible argument to claim he didn't do nothing, only a little and he was just pressured into it.
ESG was always a fake movement and the amount of money invested in ESG-focused funds, while high in nominal terms, was tiny compared to aum in the global asset management industry
Global Assets under management is set to rise in 145 trillion by 2025
https://www.pwc.com/ng/en/press-room/global-assets-under-management-set-to-rise.html
And ESG assets were according to bloomberg 30 trillion on 2022 to reach 40 trillion by 2030 https://www.bloomberg.com/company/press/global-esg-assets-predicted-to-hit-40-trillion-by-2030-despite-challenging-environment-forecasts-bloomberg-intelligence/
This isn't a tiny part of global assets.
Larry Fink has no major politics beyond being a mainstream Democrat, at most he’s a centrist neolib.
This is like saying that apart from the shooting, Lincoln's theater experience was uneventful.
I agree that he is like a mainstream Democrat which puts him firmly in the cultural far left.
Centrist is one of the most abused words in the motte. Sure he fits with the kind of people who tend to get the title centrist neolib here, but it is often people who are in fact quite culturally left wing and very willing to push an agenda on that direction. In addition to those, at best those who do so on some key issues and are also zionists, but might not be leftists on some other issues also are too easily inaccurately called centrist. Which doesn't make them centrists since on the issues they are converging with the left and hardcore about, because they aren't really anywhere near the center. For example pro mass migration types such as Hanania fail at being centrists too.
I somewhat disagree. High IQ people are not the only ones who can do these jobs and there is a value in cultural production, preservation and appreciation.
There is a benefit of a shared culture and that requires more than just highest IQ people to sustain it. While some subjects can be more niche and others need to be removed entirely.
What is necessary is to purge far leftists, those who side with foreign ethnic identity while are deconstructing and are hostile to their own. So the field must be reformed. I am not against cutting it down though, so you have a smaller but more efficient at transmitting positive culture. Or exchanging academia for hobbyists who then would be more funded. Someone like the Culture Critic on twitter is reaching a lot of people. Things outside of academia such as having more neoclassical styles over more minimalist and ugly architecture, or more films that touch on themes can be part of the change.
It is fundamentally important to promote the passing the torch idea and show people a connection through their roots, and to create a common continuous culture that appreciates that they stand on the shoulders of giants and want to continue on that legacy.
A common culture that appreciates this isn't just the result of academia and so there might be areas that we can get more bang for our buck for normies while also retaining the humanities but in a more lean form, while more focused on what is good and important and with less of the negative.
This requires people writing books on history, and appreciating it. Same for great works of literature. It doesn't require certain niche stupid obsessions and certainly if we get rid feminist, marxist lenses academia, ethnic minorities and women studies, nothing of value will be lost.
Regarding Egyptology, Chinese civilization studies, even Russian studies, etc, etc, some fields can be legitimate but makes sense for them to be niche. Appreciating foreign history cannot be too subsidized but can exist in a limited degree as part of legitimate study. It isn't healthy for them to be too mainstream of an obsession, but also not necessarily a bad thing for people who retain objectivity to have such understanding and interest. But certain subjects that are pushed as a X group studies are just part of subversive foreign nationalism, and meant to instil self hatred and guilt and grievances and hatred on the intersectional alliance member groups and fit too much within progressive activism ideology and so they are much more destructive. They also have been pushed too much with the attempt to make them a mainstream obsession that parasitizes over healthier issues.
This divide and conquer education at expense of your own civilization is a net negative and I would rather to just reject that than throw away the humanities concept. Education became much more far left leaning, and much more for retaining self hating guilt complexes due to a march on institutions of ideologues who had this agenda and it can change again to promote healthy values.
Whining about false antisemitic tropes follows to the letter pro Jewish anti gentile racist tropes. Just cause you have a bingo card of isms like feminists do, that doesn't make it a valid argument.
You are perpetuating racism and slander by doing so.
Lets not forget that the USSR that made antisemitsm a death penalty crime murdered millions of Christians, a USSR in which Jews were very overepresented among political comisars and among some of the worst and most notorious mass murdering personalities were Jewish. Now, I won't pin all the blame on the Jews, but this and other incidents such as thousands of Jews migrating to fight in Spanish civil war and taking part in murderous conduct against Christians, points that there is a danger and a connection between antisemitism complaining and violence.
We see this with the behavior towards Palestinians.
Of course, I think there is a potential for trouble by different ethnic groups if they are too fanatic in their favor and disrespectful of other groups. And other groups have a right of self defense but also when one behaves badly a reciprocal bad behavior is to be expected. Unlike your one sided rhetoric that wants it all for the Jews, I explained the choice for mutual coexistence and compromise. Those who reject compromise and treat others rights as antisemtisim, supremacy, etc, etc, choose to be the worst racists and not only others have a right of self defense, but when you choose to screw over others, you ought to expect to get screwed over as well. You can't leave people no choice but destruction and boot on their face forever, and make demands to be happy with it. And slander them besides!
Unlike the letter signed by the architect, these statements are strangely congruent with old European tropes of antisemitism. Per Wikipedia, some 8% to 11% of the 'eligible' Jewish population (that is, the ones being allowed to migrate to Israel) live in Europe. Are you seriously suggesting that their purpose is to destroy their nations from the inside to further some Jewish-controlled New World Order? (Also, the reason that there are not more of them is that in 1945, there were very few Jews left in Europe due to antisemitism, and quite a few were understandably reluctant to return after the war.)
American Jews oppose European self preservation. Yes they support destroying European civilization.
Jewish organisations support mass migration, oppose european nationhood, and attack those who push otherwise as nazis, white supremacists, antisemites, etc.
Yes the left and the dominant agenda of American Jews and Jewish influence and the most influential Jewish organisations and dominant agenda on the european question of rich Jewish donors is to destroy Europeans as a people.
It is really incredible for groups (both ideological and a where it is a majority among ethnic groups) to have a disgusting insane extremely destructive agenda and then because their agenda might sound insane and extreme because it is so extreme, pretend the issue is a racist accusation. It is the fault of those who support this agenda that is its so destructive and extreme. Nobody forces majority of X or Y group including other migrant descendant groups than Jews, to follow this destructive agenda.
This is like the Norm McDonald joke of worrying about the backlash if Islamists nuked europe, where the backlash and recognising the issue is the issue he worries about, not the actual problem.
The problem is this agenda, not the recognition. But those who have it and those who deny it and the oscillate between having this agenda and denying it.
You are committing racist rhetoric that is completely false in a manner that is verifiable when claiming that anti European Jews are victims of antisemitism when others say the truth that they are anti european Jews. They should stop being racist against Europeans.
It isn't even a plausible theory, which would still be justifiable, it is the blatant agenda of Jewish organisations, influential Jews, and the majority of American Jews who are quite willing to use their influence.
are you seriously suggesting that their purpose is to destroy their nations from the inside to further some Jewish-controlled New World Order? (Also, the reason that there are not more of them is that in 1945, there were very few Jews left in Europe due to antisemitism, and quite a few were understandably reluctant to return after the war.)
it isn't ridiculous as you are insinuating, it is the opposite, it is ridiculous to deny it.
I am not suggesting anything but stating the situation. This isn't an issue that is actually up to debate, because the facts are not unknown. Jewish anti european racism that supports both the eventual extinction, and Europeans as a lower caste is not an issue where the facts are up to question for you to arrogantly deny and make dark insinuations about people pulling things from their heads. Jews should stop being anti european racists and pro Jewish racists, including non Jews, should stop justifying it and make that demand of Jews and of themselves.
Jews deliberately are pushing for more influence for themselves and others. Whether in greater Israel or in the collective influence of Jewish organisations, laws against antisemitism, preferential treatment, and march on institutions, there is a Jewish supremacist agenda.
There is also a crossover between a Jewish agenda and a leftist/neocon/fake conservative agenda. It is not only Jews who deserve blame here but they do deserve blame. Also some of the non Jews promote this agenda on behalf of Jews and some other ethnic groups and are part of the Jewish supremacists I complain about. There is in fact an agenda to destroy European countries and to create societies dominated by other ethnnic groups that have a caste system of which Jews are a superior caste to Europeans in their homelands. I don't doubt that many of Jews involved in such agendas might love to rule as the superior caste from all, (others seem to also like that but also buy into intersectionality with whites screwed) but maybe the agenda that they have to compromise might be an intersectional one. Or maybe with Jews on top and groups like Muslims or blacks bellow and Europeans at the bottom.
The caste system already exists and is expanding. As is the agenda of denying national existence, representation, demonizing it as nazism and even an agenda of extinction. You are part of this with your false rhetoric about antisemitism towards those who oppose the caste system and oppose the agenda for national extinction of Europeans. Or oppose the agenda against the extinction of national sovereignty and self determination. While if you accepted both the caste system and the agenda for extinction and agreed that is in fact a bad, destructive and immoral racist agenda, you would be progressing into decent behavior.
To empathize again, this agenda is not speculative but a fact. Even if there were speculative elements in ones claims those could be backed by evidence. That is a legitimate field to explore for on issues of fact there can be some relevant issues to explore that aren't fully known. But it is not at all speculative that the Jewish supremacists are a faction today who push their agenda through and then pretend their actual agenda is racism and false accusation from others. When the Jewish supremacists are doing in a verifiable manner exactly what they deny doing.
For example, if someone pushes that people should be subservient to Jews because of the bible, and god blesses those who bless Jews. That is Jewish supremacy.
If it is because of holocaust, oppression, antisemitism, or because if he you don't do that and fail to align you are called a nazi, antisemite, woke, blah, blah, blah, that is the same.
Jewish supremacists who want the destruction of European nations and the strengthening and continuing influence of Jewish nation which includes Jewish organisations and strong Jewish identity is a faction. One that doesn't exist only in Israel. It also includes some non Jews. And there is a crossover between that and the general intersectional coalition. Jewish supremacists are a very core component of it.
Really absurd for people who are a part of this faction to call others woke.
I disagree. Hamas, the elected government of Gaza, behaved pretty horrible, but that does not invalidate your concerns about racism against Gazans. No matter what you and the wokes think, most conflicts in the world are not one-sided fights between the heroic freedom fighters and evil oppressors. Look at the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and you will find that there is plenty to blame on all sides.
Where did I paint Hamas as heroic freedom fighters? This demonstrates once again how Jewish supremacist worldview requires what is dishonest labeling to function. Its the blood it operates.
The reality is that Israel has murdered many thousands and has pushed openly genocidal policies. Jews are openly ridiculously sadistic, and the place is full of torture rape prisons. This is a society that the majority are for raping Palestinians and are protesting in favor of releasing members of Israeli military that raped Palestinians. The racism of greater Israel types throwing crocodile tears about antisemitism, looking for schmucks is legendary.
The reality is also that your position is ridiculously pro jewish racist and anti palestinian and anti european racist. And you want to push a completly immoral position that is utterly unfair towards Palestinians and Europeans, by promoting dishonest rhetoric about woke (as if you who converges with the ADL are supposedly antiwoke), antisemitism and
Instead of constantly examining antisemitism which includes as part of it, questioning and examining pro jewish racism, you need to actually stop the slogans of painting an attempt of being even handedness as tropes or antisemitism, and examine anti european and anti palestinian pro Jewish racism. Examine whether you are actually exhibiting this type of racism.
It is part and parcel of those whining about antisemitism. Just like many blacks whining about racism, their way of thinking about racism is to be racist against others and to see any opposition as anti black racism.
Or as a feminist who starts from the idea that everything is misogyny and those opposing their dogma of misandry are misogynists.
Well, Jewish supremacists have a dogma that in the same manner falsely pretends unfairness towards Jews while it is actually racist for Jews and against other ethnic groups like European ethnic groups or Palestinians.
Note that my tangible complaints against Jewish organisations, and influence and opinion against Europeans and Palestinians is a legitimate issue and not like the antisemitism, misogyny, black identitarian conception of racism, which is about dishonest dogmatism that always takes the sides of such groups and paints the situation even where they wrong others and need to change, as one where they are victimized.
It is precisely about the situation of where people are willing to compromise and respect the rights of others, or want it all for themselves. Grey areas exist that can be debateble, but the Jewish supremacists are definetly in a black and white manner, operating outside any gray area. Ideally people wouldn't be cowards and challenge their dishonest racist agenda.
Throwing slogans that are projections about wokeness works as a tactic of using soldiers as arguements but for anyone who wants to engage on such things honestly, trying to copy Jonathan Greenblat and activists is a road towards a very destructive ideology and being a fanatic who says falseties after falseties.
Now, people copy influential figures and unfortunately, in addition to the completely malicious we have those who think that dishonest activists who are actually racist supremacists but call everything and anything antisemitism and anti whatever, are the kind of people whose rhetoric they must follow. Because of a march in institutions, influential networks, and the elites going sufficiently along with it and these kind of people having victories.
So there are those who try to mimic them wanting to experience cancelling heretics. We really need to fix civilization and both stop this rhetoric, have the Greenblat's of the world and their fellow travelers lose influence, sufficiently punished to stop this moral hazard and their actual crimes and be condemned. That way we can actually promote good behaviors for others to mimic for a change. We ought to have positive role models for people to follow. That, and unfortunately too many people would rather join forces and side with evil if it is called good, and oppose good, if they are called evil. Which is why we need to align labels with content. And call bad as bad, even if it breaks immoral rules that people like Greenblat have implemented and you have followed. Rules such as when X group behaves abominably, we should spare them the judgement, and condemn their targets for hostility towards X, whatever the consequences to their victims.
And sorry, but I am actually interested in some level of respect for human rights, and some good and not in the commie sense, but in the sense of not having your country being taken from you, or your group subject to mass murder, rape and other genuine abuses. As for the commie pretense, you don't have a right to take others countries under Commie/marxistoid idea that they belong to everyone that is usually promoted dishonestly and one sidedly by people who are very hostile against those who lose under this predicament and is destructive insane extremism anyhow. Reciprocal principles are good. We are better off with people being loyal to their group but also loyal to principles over being loyal in a cult of personality towards foreign groups like Jews. Or being insantiable uncompromising ultranationalists for their own group who try to use rhetorical tricks and monopolize the idea of oppression so they can monopolize nationalism and disregard the rights of others. Or those Principles are important and are a part of the the reason much of the world hates Israel conduct and even votes to recognize Palestine. Everyone else aren't Hamas supporters or racists but are in fact responding negatively to Israel's bad conduct.
You using the holocaust as a card to justify the extinction and mistreatment of whites who are currently hated and targeted give special treatment of the Jews at expense of other ethnic groups is precisely why what you are doing ought to be criminalized.
It should be a crime for people to use slavery, holocaust, colonialism, or "We are unique at being at threat of oppression" bullshit narratives to excuse a permanent boot to their ethnic outgroup's neck or their destruction, and for their favorite group to lord over others.
To the extend we need to protect people from malicious racists, we got it backwards, we need to destroy the disgusting racist holocaust lobby. Which includes creating an environment where people like you wouldn't have the opportunity to make these arguments. At least not for long.
Obviously the idea that whites aren't at threat of being treated rather badly when they become minority is preposterous. They are already mistreated and those who hate them have shown intensions to intensify things in the future. It isn't even true that multiple white ethnic groups haven't been victimized through genocide and mass murder. Including by Jews in eastern europe. Or blacks in Africa. Or by foreign ethnic nationalists such as Turkish nationalists and muslims as in Greeks who were subject to genocide in Anatolia along with other Christian groups.
Even subject to genocide by other Europeans and even by the Nazis. But even the Germans were also subject to genocide as well.
Even if someone did find a group that was historically more lucky than the Jews, which isn't the case here with all groups in white category in modernity, that wouldn't justify this repulsive argument. Being more lucky historically does not justify, OBVIOUSLY, this idea that you aren't at threat, or don't have a right to exist and should accept your own extinction.
It's why any distinction of what you are selling with the worst woke extremist is completely fake.
This idea that fuck whites, they have no right to not go extinct, or of national self determination because they can't be oppressed like Jews (and if you disagree with the narrative of Jewish oppression you are evil of course out to murder Jews) is obviously disgusting in general, but shouldn't be tolerated especially in any white society.
It falls completely under categories such as treason, genocidal racist extremist rhetoric, absurdly intense racist hatred, hypocrisy, etc, etc. And it threatening in a murderous way since currently Palestinians are defined by Jews as an illegitimate ethnic group while the Jews doing so are happy to support attrocities against them. If whites are not a legitimate ethnic group, and you deny any of their historical suffering, trying to greedilly concetrate all suffering just to the Jews, perhaps you are willing to support and are after for even worse things.
Perhaps you aren't sincere when you claim that whites won't be mistreated as a minority but you expect them to be mistreated, and are just out to support and deny it. The general concept of X ethnic group not existing of X group never having suffered, and not being capable to suffer, (especially when they demonstratably are and you are denying the truth) makes future mass violence towards such group a much more likely possibility.
This is the ethnic version of the Trotskyist idea that the people of the revolution can do no wrong and classifying other classes as oppressors that can't be wronged. There is no fixing this and no way to have a peaceful, prosperous world if this rotten ideology of genocidal antiwhite Jewish supremacy is not rooted out. Same applies to other versions of this disgusting ideology with a different ethnic group on top as the exception.
The idea of destroying other nations except the Jewish one is an insane megalomaniac ideology that ironically shares plenty with pop culture idea of Nazism. Albeit you are a bit more sneaky about it.
I find overly obsessing about anti black racism, antisemitism, misogyny to be an example of being a racist in favor of blacks, Jews, sexist in favor of women, etc, etc. The whole ism obsession is about people who are racists in favor of these groups and against other groups. It is stupid to take the concept seriously and when doing so one becomes a gullible useful idiot to people who are ironically far worse racists than the people they whine about.
A lot of people through such one sided obsessions become that despite their virtue signalling. To overly discuss antisemitism and not anti palestinian racism, does not make the first truer and the second false, it just makes people biased and ironically worse or actual racists over most people they complain about.
They are just accusations to get people to be foolishly overly guilty about what they oughtn't be.
The reality is that Jews but also non Jewish Jewish supremacists both behave like and take positions that strongly disrespect the rights of other nations. At times like today, with murderous consequences. In addition to the ridiculous war crimes including, rape and protests in favor of raping, in the USA for example majority of American Jews even more than black Americans oppose over 70% the preservation of European civilization when polled.
Jewish supremacists who are those using these term (like most whining about anti black racism are black supremacists) are completly incapable of being even handed and compromising with the continued existence and rights of other ethnic groups and compromising with moderate nationalism. The Jews as a people have a strong pervasive immoral Jewish supremacist ideology of which zionism is one angle. Zionism isn't about opposing migration, or keeping a limited Israel that compromises with other nations including Palestinians, as majority Jewish, but is expansionist and extreme nationalists.
Similiarly on the basis that european nationalism can threaten Jews and other so called minorities, they are unable to compromise with even the existence of European nations.
In all honesty, although I notice patterns and will make accurate negative accusations about ethnic groups where the patterns apply, I am willing to accept existence of exceptions and I am a curious observer who hope for improvement and want to see how behaviors among groups evolve. I don't expect miracles though. I have a problem with people who don't belong in groups that such narratives are widespread, who are supremacists for such group, while I am not going to be an asshole to someone who might belongs to a bad behaving group but isn't a supremacist, of which non compromising with the collective ethnic group of rights is an important component. Whether someone is doing it openly as a nationalist, or being sneaky about it, its the same to me and I don't buy or care for any excuses. Albeit a nationalist who is nationalist for X group while arguing that Z group doesn't exist or doesn't have a right to exist, and is sneaky about it, is just being a sneaky supremacist.
In regards to the concept of racism, I consider it to be about unfair treatment, and much of the things that people whine as racism are not only not unfair treatment but those whining are promoting unfair treatment. Like if a communist complained I am classist for not giving my home to the entire community. The communist way of understanding isms is utterly broken and ought to be abandoned.
When a group of people behaves horribly towards others it becomes quite rich to obsess about racism towards them. Only in a very limited manner is unfairness towards them a legitimate issue and only when aknowledging the harm they do to others and taking more seriosuly what is in fact a more serious issue. It is the only way to objectively take this issue.
So you can't choose to be a racist in favor of the Jews so pro Jewish racists don't call you a bad name.
A negative reaction to horrible behavior is one of the only ways to control it. Secondly, if group X is trying to dig the grave of group Y and Z, it is insane to obsess about whether you are insufficiently sympathetic to them. People who are massive pro X racists who never strive to be at all fair or objective and so quick to label others as haters and ists, should not be taken seriously.
Ideally, groups try to strive for a win win position. If a group's position is I win, and fuck you all the rest, and you need to support me, or you are evil racist, and fuck your sovereignty and your own interests, then the idea of obsessing about being unfair towards them is a tool for being racist in their favor. But also it is more about being foolish and insane.
So the concept of the, to use a Jewish word, schmuck is a more useful way to understand the whole bullshit issue over the issue of racism/antisemitism. It is the key element of it.
It is actually incredibly dangerous how Jewish supremacists promote totalitarianism and since Stalin made antisemitism a death penalty crime, he has found many admirers of this kind of behavior, not just because of persecuting people but because the issue is also about interest prioritations. If Palestinians or Europeans have human rights, or even Lebanese, then that is antisemitism. If in addition to rights of not being bombed to death for greater Israel, or preserving their nation and not self destruction, or not being discriminated, or not being dominated by a foreign lobby ngos (whose existence is also antisemitism supposedly to akwowledge according to the dishonest). My view on the matter is that these isms that are about supremacy and zero rights of those slandered, is the number one problem.
So my approach would be to criminalize all organizations including political parties doing so, or reform them so this agenda ends by making the agenda illegal but the organization can continue if it abandons it. Some organizations that is what they are about should just be made outright illegal though. And to start arresting those who are part of attempts to strip people of their national rights, of rights to tell the truth, such as those who lobbied or voted for hate speech laws. And also to remove defamers from controlling platforms and treat such defamation as rhetoric we are better without and not something to pollute dominant public discourse. And to the extend and countries that there has been persecution on the issue to apply the rules on the persecutors while being more willing to forgive randoms who spewed some BS but weren't out to keep promoting propaganda, and didn't abuse a significant position of power, or have sufficiently saw the light on the issue and changed teams.
But there must a genuine idea of defaming people as all sorts of ists by people who are pro jewish or pro black or pro migrant or anti XYZ racists, is a very big deal, and something to be condemned and not to be tolerated. If such people were to be subject to condemnation and removal from the position to spew their poison, humanity would avoid future catastrophes and fix the current massive problems created by this shit movement. Principles of which include things Communist defame as ism, like the existence of nations and people (albeit most people pretending to be against nations are hardcore blood and soil nationalists about some ethnic groups at least) need to be reasserted. While those who pretend to hold principles like universal nationalism and self determination only to play motte and bailey and disrespect it completely and support the destruction of their ethnic outgroups, need to be sidelined.
Unfortunately Jewish supremacists do this (and are the dominant strain of Jewish influence and even of non Jews who are pro Jewish), but not only those. You will find many people who are pro Palestinians but also support mass migration in the west and whine about fascism, nazi, racism when it comes to the existence of European nations. In general this is a guarantee for never ending conflict and I prefer nationalism for your own but with limits in favor of existence of foreign nations elsewhere. The Jewish way, that is copied by others is to look for schmucks, who will buckle under the pressure of being defamed, or manipulated by some disingenuous argument, under the presumption that you will always keep getting away with it, until you create your Jewish Reich. I don't think it will work as well as Jewish supremacists think it will and it is disgustingly immoral as well.
Morally speaking too, we need to sideline these kind of people over those who are in favor of a system of coexistence, and continued existence of different nations and civilizations. That is national sovereignty, enforced borders, preservation of ethnic groups, and where possible nation states. Where it isn't possible, for example in a place that has been historically multiethnic, you at least can preserve the country, and you don't promote that the native ethnic group doesn't exist, and allow them to follow a path to being eliminated from history.
But perhaps the most alarming implications are for democracy itself. RFK's endorsement likely won Trump the election, not least because it paved the way for the Rogan endorsement. Republicans won by increasing their share of the stupid vote.
While going full "vaccines are bad and unecessary" is stupid the pro establishment fanatical close minded position is also stupid and there are valid issues animating RFK and others.
Most of twitter reactions you quote is in fact about the covid vaccine which isn't the same as vaccine in general.
It really seems that you haven't learned any of the lessons of covid, opioid crisis and Sacklers malfeasance. Or even the lesson of the eternal Marcuse's "we enlightened elites against stupid masses". The masses can be stupid, but the problem is that self proclaimed enlightened elites can be even stupider, or just have a tunnel vision that is animated precisely by this idea of them possessing all wisdom and others just wholly irrational idiots. Another complication is this resentment and hatred leads these self proclaimed enlightened elites to support harming the "stupid" under pretext of safety, and we saw with the reaction to the unvaccinated.
Pretending that this faction are the smart enlightened ones and others are idiots is Hanania tier propaganda talking point repeated ad nauseum. I find it interesting how a rationalist esqe associated space have this bad behavior as a common norm. A lot of shared people from both spaces and Tabarok retweets approvingly Hanania promoting a Thiel guy as the preferred option over RFK. Unfortunately it is propaganda here because the pro big pharma establishment faction is close minded and has huge tunnel vision.
Consider Covid's origins, which is actually a pretty big deal that it is plausibly developed for gain of function research (or perhaps that is the pretext for bioweapon research). That would be an example of a genuine overreach of the industry.
As would the overpromotion of opioids and the Sackler's malfeasance that lead to appreciably different outcomes in life expectancy between USA and other developed countries.
There is also an issue of whether foods in the USA are under-regulated since they do seem to have different and more risky substances than foods produced by at times the same companies for other parts of the developed world. Although overegulation can be a problem.
There is also the possibility that report from the national toxicology program that high fluoride water might be linked to lower IQ scores. Complaints about fluoridation has been another issue dismissed who pattern matched it as kooky, and low status.
Or whether these vaccines which are based on new technology actually are genuinely safe.
If we are going to have an authoritarian pro science regime, it should shut down wannabe "I am the science" types pro establishment types who are fanatical and close minded in a heartbeat and allow informed debate and not put in the pedestal those who don't have a willingness to oppose what ought to be oppose.
What we don't need is the dominance of those who are in practice pro corruption if it is entrenched elites doing it and servile to them and demonize those raising a fuss. Or have build up an understanding based of symbols of prejudged kooky issues not to be touched and side automatically with the way things are going. The "don't question XYZ sacred cow, you morons!" are a net negative that not only shouldn't be authoritarians but should experience themselves exclusion from running institutions and media, moderating social media and forums on the basis of their inadequacy for what their role ought to be.
Scientists, Big Pharma, politicians are all accountable for fuck ups and can only work well if they are willing to listen to reasonable criticisms and in fact, even among people whose agenda can include both some unreasonable stuff and some genuine opposition to corruption and plausible problems, there is a duty for those who pretend to be the smart people to be the types who can separate the baby with the bathwater. Those who want to be close minded and not accept valid problems, and promote this stupid "we the enlightened versus idiots" should make way for actual genuine enlightened elites instead of self proclaimed ones full of hubris.
Indeed, someone who claims to be a scientist might in fact be mistaken about their own essence, if they abandoned their role to be a scientist, and came to believe that "I am the science" and became a believer in unshakeable orthodoxy. Much of this problem can also relate to symbols like the fluoride one that had the symbol to their mind of ridiculousness even though it is a legitimate issue to consider and determine.
Of course, since I say you shouldn't throw the baby with the bathwater, we do need pharmaceutical companies developing cure. It is good when they get things right to be rewarded. But corruption and failure needs to be examined, opposed, and stopped. And it is in fact valid to consider the issue of whether expediency let standards to drop in vaccine development. Whether it is sufficiently safe and so on.
In climate change, and in other issues, the close minded fanaticism of pro establishment types is dangerous. Although the issue when it involves certain people involved with lobbies and networks, might include corruption and willingness to back down entrenched elites for their own benefit of being rewarded from it. Which can include funding, it can also include getting a more positive response from the media.
The reality is that the gains of function research that probably lead to covid might not have happened if the right people were in charge, and we had more people willing to question and oppose corrupt and immoral activities by powerful groups whether these is scientists or are pentagon if it was actually weapons research masquerading as research on diseases. It is dangerous to have people promote close midned, pro establishment gullibility and painting it as the epitome of enlightened intelligence thinking and demonizing opponents of it, by overly focusing on weakmen. While we can oppose both approaches of throwing away the baby with the bathwater, the entrenched elites are actually the bigger problem.
RFK who has wrote a book attacking Anthony Fauci therefore does not represent only a possible overeaction to elements of big pharma, and pharmaceutical research, but also part of a legitimate reaction. There can be both elements in people like him.
After covid, I see the climate change frontier as the one that raises the issue of overreaction of the "we are the science" types both in terms of reduction of freedoms, overreaction against opponents of their agenda who are going to be branded as enemies of science and in terms of a destructive net zero agenda.
This is a really bad idea.
Activist rich people like Soros, are bad enough. It isn't true that they are wasting their money. Now you want them to be able to just directly buy votes which will not reduce at all the influence they can exert through other means of funding politicians, journalists, NGOs. Which includes both direct quid pro quo but also attack dogs organizations that influence outcomes by attacking people who don't play along.
My impression with your constant "its fine" is that you rather sympathize with the ideological characteristics and agendas of the people who are most involved in funding politicians who do have some similarities ideologically, and even ethnically (plenty of Jews very highly overepresented among the top republican and democrat donors) and want them to get their way. In observing the results of their agendas, these rich activists are more fanatical, less objective, and reasonable on various issues, like policing, prosecution policies, DEI, relations with Israel, than what a good policy, that is independent, objective and in line with the common good would promote. They have bad ideas of how to change things, and their character is questionable too.
I would rather someone like Sam Bankman Fried who was one of the top donors in last election, to not be deciding things.
They are also more connected with foreign governments too. The negatives of one's goverment becoming subservient to foreign goverment interests are real and it is pretty obvious how this would lead to bad governance against the interests of the actual people but in line with the interests and agendas of foreign governments and billionaires.
These rich activists, do not have an inherent right to rule and in fact such claim for their right to run things can be very fairly interpreted as a form of treason. My wacky idea is that they can in fact be stopped from exercising their current influence, and their NGOs banned, and restricting large donations, giving all candidates a goverment backed x amount of money and a right to get small donations. In so forcing politicians to not have to do what AIPAC, ADL, a shitload of NGOs, or rich donors want them to do. Which will result in representative democracy which is already like many systems, a flawed system and not a perfect formula, to come closer to something that could potentially work.
That and restricting citizenship rights to natives with minor exceptions and restricting numbers of foreigners and deporting where there has been mass migration. Not allowing parties to hack democracy by replacing the electorate with foreign population who has to be loyal and prioritize getting away with replacement, or other benefits. Which is it self constitutes an example of a violation of the inherent rights of a people for their continued existence and service of their common good, since you are replacing them and destroying their nation, and also putting the rights of foreigners above them.
Modern states should take much more seriously the currently huge problem of treason and of the violation of the rights of the people that happen when their rights are disdained and foreign groups are favored. Even if we consider a society to not just be one nation's state that has guests but a multiethnic society, even there the consideration of not screwing the majority ethnic group of its inherent rights, which include cultural/ethnic rights, to perpetuate their ethnicity, instead of having an oppressive negative identity that treats this as evil.
Plenty of constitutions have things written in line of this, but an unwritten constitution has been followed that does the complete opposite. My wacky idea is restore the nation state democracy and enforce it, while restricting the agendas that destroy it. Down with the idea of fake postnationalism oppresses the natives, while allowing nationalism for groups of the progressive intersectional coalition.
The influence of billionaire activists and most NGOs result in a very skewed, harmful direction. With enormous overepresentation of certain identitarian agendas and complete absence of the interests of other groups such as white people in the USA for example. It represents massive agency problems and makes a complete mockery of the idea of democracy. So yeah, my idea and favorite evolution of democracy is one in anti corruption, anti treason, where both laws and elite ideology is against the DEI, replace the natives, multiculturalism (which isn't even genuine multiculturalism but no culturalism for natives and allowing culture and nationalism, and even extreme versions of that, for approved groups), and where such tyrannical agenda is not allowed to run the media, governments, NGOs. Where it is taught as an example of tyranny, oppression, corruption and civilization destruction. It has backlash today where its supporters have marched on institutions and created their influential networks, NGOs. Imagine how much it would be hated if it was encouraged to dislike it.
So under this system there would be much fewer influential active NGOs, while all these state within a state NGOs would be banned and subject to further justice measures where necessary and where they are found to have done other crimes like spying. NGOs should be few and influential NGOs involved in activities that enhance the common good, and not in civilization self destructive criminal agendas. They must operate under a framework that has such restrictions, so you don't get any new ADLs to ever come into existence.
I would also add that the system to not become predatory internationally, while should be very adamant and vigilant against foreign subversion, and agendas at the expense of one's own nation and represent a self confident civilization that perpetuates it self and serves its common good and its interests, it should be willing to have genuine win win cooperation with foreign nations were there is a genuine opportunity to do so, rather than being predatory and out to win by screwing over others. Else it isn't a scalable model.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't betting on winning/losing demographic groups just a bet on exit polling? Or will it resolve based on county/precinct level voting data correlated across the country?
Correct.
It just feels like betting on an NFL players PFF grade.
Depending on the question, some questions are more predictable than how players are rated because even good players have bad matches, and even a rare bad year, while some scenarios are more likely than that. I am not sure if PFF grade is about how an NFL player is rated over the year.
I have no idea about anything NFL related so I would never even consider betting anything on it but I have some knowledge about politics. Seems that 30% of black men voting for Trump, isn't that likely.
Same with Harris increasing the % of unmarried women over Biden after roe vs wade which has a 79% for yes but actually gives 22.55% return.
Sport results can be more unpredictable than some scenarios about what will happen.
But this is indeed gambling, and it there are comparisons to be made with betting on sports. It even has an option for sports betting. Since most people using the platform lose money, I am not going to counter too much your skepticism. Most questions are going to involve things that aren't predictable. The most predictable possible choices give little return. And if you think that something is predictable while it gives a decent return, you might be missing something. But markets aren't perfect, and people might be underestimating how likely something is too.
Lets explore Polymarket and what bets are the best choice to make money in this election. You can bring alternative platforms if you want.
This post is not advice, just some ideas. I write this here because I am curious if I see multiple people who find a particular example to seem like an opportunity. I recall reading that only 12.7% of people who have used Polymarket have had positive returns. https://www.bitcoinsensus.com/news/polymarket-only-12-of-users-achieve-profits/
So, I am not encouraging anyone to bet money and to use this platform. Statistically, it is is a bad idea for most people.
In addition to the political element, the culture war element can be using politically incorrect knowledge to gain an edge.
Lets start with the sure ones: https://polymarket.com/event/california-presidential-election-winner
Black voters for Trump https://polymarket.com/event/trump-increase-share-of-black-voters
If Trump gets 13% of greater black votes at 21.95% return.
https://polymarket.com/event/will-trump-win-30-or-more-of-black-men?tid=1730390110917
Trump not getting 30% of black men at 23.45% return.
So which of the two is more likely? Seems that both are likely, but based on the sentiment and polling, Trump will increase his share of black voters.
Similar questions about women
https://polymarket.com/event/will-kamala-win-60-or-more-of-women
Only 14% choose this when Biden won 57% of women. Seems to be undercounted.
This one is with the cat lady picture
https://polymarket.com/event/will-kamala-do-better-than-biden-with-unmarried-women
Seems a likely yes with 31.57% return
https://polymarket.com/event/who-will-win-white-women
White women question. Trump won with white women vs both Biden and Clinton. This gives a bigger return, with bigger uncertainty. However, now there is Roe v Wade as a factor.
I am not going to explore the question of who gets elected as there is too much uncertainty and also I wonder if there is any possibility of ballot harvesting and fraud. And here is the Israel question.
https://polymarket.com/event/us-arms-embargo-on-israel-in-2024?tid=1730390749663
This one is until end of 2024.
Considering how powerful the Jewish lobby is in the USA, to put it in more politically correct terms, I find an arms embargo from the USA towards Israel as highly unlikely. However, the people who wrote this question are sneaky and offered this as sufficient for it to be yes: A limited embargo, restricting only certain categories of military equipment, will qualify for a "Yes" resolution.
This is a pattern with various questions, asking something that the expected answer would be X, but when clicking it, it gives a loophole where it becomes yes under less stringent requirements.
Like this example:
https://polymarket.com/event/will-the-us-confirm-that-aliens-exist-in-2024?tid=1730391254453
This market will resolve to "Yes" if the President of the United States, any member of the Cabinet of the United States, any member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any US federal agency definitively states that extraterrestrial life or technology exists by December 31, 2024, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
A member of the cabinet claiming this is not sufficient to be a genuine confirmation! Even that is still highly unlikely, of course.
The problem with having the DoJ go after anti-racist companies is the same as the difficulty going after racist companies - dog whistles. They can always just say that promoting diversity is innocuous free speech and that it just happened to work out that the best candidates aligned with their diversity goals. You have to prove something like them saying they're not hiring you because you're white, and no intelligent person would do that.
No, this isn't that big of a problem, because they openly say it. Because it was allowed without sufficient backlash, plenty of not very intelligent and intelligent people in journalism, media, politicians, presidents, CEOs, NGO leaders and even people who run corporations and other institutions that are able to bully and nudge people around like Blackrock, openly supported, and continue to support racist discrimination against whites, men, etc. There have also been plenty of intelligent people who haven't been organized and didn't openly oppose it, but will more strongly oppose it with a political environment that is more hostile to this. You could even have some who in the madness of group thing might have went along with it in 2020s and BLM was more active, but now would be enthusiastic in working together with those who wish to crush this. Or do so, because of wanting to raise through the ranks.
Making DIE policies taboo and to be (accurately) treated as racist while making opposing it the non taboo position can be done.
Some have started hiding their power level though after the affirmative action ruling.
There has been no problem in the political establishment to openly condemn pro white discrimination and even exaggerating and making shit up. There is a lot of opportunity to crash those who obviously do antiwhite racism, which is not anti-racism, which requires to just not be guilible.
Forcing companies to fire pro diversity ideologues and to enforce controls to make sure these kind of people don't decide, is something that can be done.
You could even reward whistelblowers and make it open season for people alleging to have been discriminated to sue them. This is already happening with the disparate impact, except people who haven't been discriminated are getting massive payments over nothing. It is feasible to even take into consideration studies evaluating performance, IQ differences, and the specifics in each case, and i am not suggesting we enforce a system that is guilible in any accusation, but one that stops the blatant antiwhtie discrimination happening today.
Much of modern politics is based on the demand for the right and associated ethnic groups to be guilible pushovers in a self destructive manner. When you don't behave in a gullible manner, the possibilities of what can be done open up. They can't get away with it just by pretending they aren't doing so, if there is sufficient effort to keep them accountable.
Why not force companies suspected in engaging in discriminatory practices, such as companies that have engaged with ESG, Woke, policies, or followed AA policies, to demonstrate they have change course. To actually hire people who openly condemn such policies past and present a demosntratable record of taking measures within company to ensure that such practices are condemend and people who support following them and are to violate the law (what will be bolstered with additional legislation too). Suing companies will also helps things. The idea that the company's duty is to its shareholders.
These things can be polled. A field that is very lopsided to the left is going to engage in these because this the ideology of the left today.
I would also add that the agenda that favors massive waves of mass migration that would demographically change the country that makes whites a minority and claims that is a good thing to demographically change the country is another woke policy. One that Biden bragged about before becoming president and executed when he was president. Again, Trump's numbers on mass migration aren't good but Biden's were at least twice as bad, while in terms of rhetoric the first was wishy washy on mass migration and openly opposed illegal migration while the Democrats effectively are for open borders and illegal migration. Trump might also have reduced illegal immigration more if other politicians, judges, etc were more willing to share his vision.
And of course, the policies of the goverment in regards to these issues are enormously influential. It does matter if an administration promotes DEI policies and ideologues as Biden's did and Harris will do. Or if it passes executive orders against it.
It's like dealing with someone who might not be sufficiently effective in fixing a problem but at least tries to fix facets of it, vs those who strongly support making it worse and doubling down on it.
The polls have noted a dramatic rightward shift for young men. My hope is that Dems will learn from that.
There is no reason to have hope in the Dems changing from their trajectory. The ideologues are running the show and Kamala Harris who is especially woke even for Democrats woke standards is part of that. If someone hopes that Dems learn from that and change and have demonstrated their change in ideology and deserve support, only after they have changed a case can be made.
Since it is their ideology and also they expect to benefit electorally by mass migration and pandering to their progressive identity coalition, they are unlikely to change.
Voting for someone who is super woke today under the hope that they will change is not a wise course to follow.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, Barrett has actually been pretty good. As has Jackson overall, even I oppose the reason she was picked. I do support their affirmative action ruling, though that has been overshadowed by my strong dislike of their presidential immunity ruling.
Jackson has ruled a dissenting opinion in favor of retaining affirmative action. So there would have been a different rulling if the Democrats picked supreme corut justices.
She also responded to the case of the Biden administration pressuring Twitter to censor speech with supporting it and claiming:
“So, my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson
snip
“So, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Jackson said. “I’m really worried about that because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems.”
The Democrats want to put supreme court justices that would bring hate speech laws. Kamala and her running mate has been pretty outspoken about their view on freedom of speech and misinformation and hate speech. The Democrats flipping the courts will escalate things in a worse direction on such issues.
The evidence is pretty overwhelming that Democrats are far worse on wokeness/intersectional progressive ideology, than Trump. Which is why we observe the very strong trend of supporters of wokeness who care enough about the issue support the Democrats because they see them as woke and opponents of it, who also care about the issue, oppose them. I guess someone could argue that some of supporters of aspects of the general woke ideology tree who genuinely oppose other aspects of wokeness might oppose Democrats, while supporting Trump. But these people, still oppose the Democrats because they are too woke.
For context for the low, I consider myself center-left and anti-woke.
Being anti-woke is not consistent with supporting the Democrats on the issue of wokeness over Trump. This inconsistency is there, however someone wishes to identify as.
To be about X you need to have standards about X and follow them through when evaluating when someone passes or doesn't pass standards.
Rather than trying to square a circle, teaching the Democrats a lesson and holding them accountable for being so woke should be the path for the anti-woke to do.
It seems that that among some people here there is some emotional attachment to belonging in the team, and party that isn't associated with being right wing. For people who have voted for them, expecting to be something better, or voted them in the past before they moved as far to the left as they did now, it doesn't mean you need to have as a permanent part of own identity to be a Democrat. Since you consider yourself anti-woke, and they fail the test, you don't need to defend them on this issue. They aren't entitled to your support.
If you're worried about wokeness, you should honestly be voting Democrat.
If Trump gets elected, what do you think is going to happen, that his opponents will just shut up? No, we're going to left-wing opposition to absolutely every one of his policy proposals, regardless of whether these proposals are actually right-wing or not. The entire Democratic apparatus will shift into a mode of limiting the damage as much as possible, and this will include protests, and resistance to policy changes and all the other bullshit that happened during the first Trump term. And Trump will be about as effective in stopping it as he was in his first term, unless he wants to turn the country into a full-on police state. I'm not saying you shouldn't vote what you feel, but if you seriously think that a Trump presidency will put an end to whatever woke bullshit you're concerned about, I have some swamp land in Jersey that's for sale.
You are looking for a schmuck to play heads I win, tails you lose here.
There really isn't a point with giving in to people who act like this. The correct treatment to people who make such demands is to understand their open hostility and treat people who are hostile to your agenda and try to manipulate you into losing, as people who are in fact hostile to your agenda, and are just using arguments as soldiers and willing to play dirty. The later is important information that justifies a stronger and more decisive reaction.
It is of course insulting. By offering this blatantly bad self destructive advice you are telling the right and the people you are discussing with, not without any reason since this arrogance has been cultivated by much of the political space uselessness and spinelessness against the left, that you think they are enormously gullible.
This escalation is helpful since it helps clarifies even more so the uselessness of appeasement. This tactic of lose, or we will massively overreact and you have to give in, or we will make things far worse, does not work on people who have a modicum of intellectual courage, aren't highly gullible, and so I think you chose a poor strategy. In addition to it being a disreputable tactic. It actually is going to piss off your targets that you think so low of them, that you can manipulate them in this manner.
The returns of S&P 500 over decades have been huge and are based on owning some of the best businesses and also some business with deep state and goverment connections. You can't use this argument to argue against people who manage to be very successful because they did not perform to the level of S&P 500.
Also, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Maybe it will be more impressive than the market over 40 years.
I dunno how successful Trump has been, but the skill set to grew successful business is one that can't be so easily dismissed by the alternative of just putting your money towards an index. You actually need people who do the work to benefit from owning a small slice of the top 500 businesses.
into the market, or indeed just handed it to any of the major other family owned real estate companies in that region (the Dursts, the Kushners, whatever) he’d have made more money (so much more that he could build the Trump tower and not have to lease out a single floor), I don’t know that that reflects well on him.
Handing out his money to the Kushners if by these you mean the family that includes Jared Kushner whose father was a con man, wouldn't have made Trump much money, because he would have just given them his money. And dealing with them otherwise from a weaker spot and giving them money expecting a return, if that is what you mean, might have ended with them conning Trump or giving him a bad deal.
Joseph Kushner developed a portfolio of 4,000 apartments. He left the business to his sons, Murray and Charles Kushner,
And as per the quote, they have been already successful apparently while Trump build more generational wealth from a lower base if indeed he is as successful as Slowboy portrays.
You can't just be the son of Kushner dynasty by being Trump. Just like Trump's own rise isn't the same as more self made men who started from a lower spot. It is good for people outside the biggest dynasties to also work to build bigger generational wealth. Just like you can't just dismiss success by pointing at putting the money at S&P 500.
Although they did join together eventually. Plus, you haven't provided any evidence that the Kushners could use the same money by Trump, from the same point (modest real estate business claimed by Slowboy), to be more successful.
I doubt you have really investigated the issue in the depth it requires and made the calculations.
And of course Charles Kushner tried to screw over his brother in law. https://eu.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2020/12/23/prosecuted-chris-christie-charles-kushner-pardoned-donald-trump/4034767001/
Charles Kushner, it turned out, had hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law during a family feud and sent it to his sister.
More: The events that changed Jared Kushner's path
Mask plea: Chris Christie releases ad targeting 'all those people who refuse to wear a mask'
"Of all the sordid cases my office had been involved with over the past few years, this was a new one. Not what I was expecting," Christie wrote in his book, "Let Me Finish: Trump, the Kushners, Bannon, New Jersey and The Power of In-Your-Face Politics."
However, since the Kushner family and Trump family joined together and he pardoned Charles maybe this episode does reveal something negative about Trump too.
Wokeness accelerated before Trump and under actual policies followed by Biden, Harris and the kind of people they promoted and excluded. Trump actually tried to ban DEI ideology in his goverment. Even in terms of the supreme court, the appointments of Trump hasn't been that greatly conservative while Biden's appointments and Harris future appointments would destroy freedom of speech and the first amendment.
There has also been the supreme court decicion against Affirmative Action. Which wouldn't have happened if the supreme court was staffed by the kind of people that are selected by Clinton, Biden and would be selected by Harris.
We have also seen the rise of right wing opposition to wokeness. To be frank some of the people opposing it also agree with elements of it.
Without Trump as a unifying force on the right if instead of him we had someone who compromised (much more) with such policies, the reaction would have been even weaker. An appeasing right would be itself woke. Elon Musk capture of twitter is also an obvious factor in the decline of elements of wokeness although there are elements of cultural far leftism such as mass migration that Elon himself doesn't oppose, although the change in ownership has lead to more speech in that direction too which is a good thing. And Musk does not appease Kamala in the way you suggest he ought to.
And there might also be left wing fatigue.
This idea that people who do X should be appeased while people who sort of oppose X but not sufficiently should be opposed because they are to blame to X has always failed when it comes to the cultural left losing influence and it is is a manipulative argument.
Somehow this bad advice that liberals offer is not given to the left. The self destructive course that you win by losing is freely given to the right.
The answer can be nothing but a No. But also in itself there is something "bellow the belt" in trying to manipulate people to vote against their interests by presenting what is blatantly self destructive course as helping them win on the issue.
The right should oppose more strongly wokeness and keep the politicians they elect more in check because they actually have been appeasing cultural/identity far left, too much and sharing too much of its perspective. No, this doesn't mean they should elect leftists who would be far worse on these issues.
For example, Trump on wokeness is better than Harris, Biden and Clinton would have been, but he is still the guy who promoted the platinum plan which gave specific 500 billion investment to blacks. Like the Biden administration gave disproportionate funds targeting even in general economic help bills, its progressive stack demographics.
And if one examines Bush, Reagan, Nixon, they would find worse examples of this than Trump's platinum plan. So, in addition to this bad advice that is one sidedly given, the part of the problem of rising of wokeness is that the left is in fact extremely biased in favor of its favorite groups and against its hated groups. The right which does sort of oppose this and isn't as bad, often both appeases them and doesn't do enough to oppose them and does some similiar things. And there are also elements within right wing movements who are much more false opposition and on team liberal and are four step back for any limited hangout pretension of opposition. And others who are one step forward, one step back, or two steps forward, one step back.
So, if you got to elect someone else than Trump to oppose wokeness more effectively, it ought to be someone who is more antiwoke than Trump is, not Harris who is far, far more woke. And while electing leftists is a worse option, it is good to criticise those who claim to oppose wokeness but either do not, or are two steps forward, one step back types. That is they compromise too much in certain areas which probably applies to Trump, who is still much better on wokeness than Harris would be, based on what we have seen from their rule.
Maybe if the people who demoralize right wingers put effort at demoralizing liberals, cultural leftists, woke types, and joined the rising movement against the cultural and identity left, things would be worse for woke types and we would see stronger decline on policy by organizations and the goverment.
The much advertised decline of wokeness can't be just sentiment change that we ought to be satisfied with but sentiment must be used to change policies.
For one example, to effectively oppose wokeness, if Trump is elected, the Trump administration must use the department of justice to go after companies violating the civil rights of their employees by choosing to discriminate against hiring white employees over blacks and other by default "diverse" demographics, following BLM's direction. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/
Another facet of this can be Soros prosecutors who not only promoted but still promote decriminalization policies.
Exercising power to restrict it rather than electing its supporters who use their power to support it, is the only way for the "woke" agenda to genuinely lose. And since this is a big deal that includes significant violations of the most basic civic rights, especially of nation forming people in their own homeland, and there is also an issue of the criminality involved and further escalation in abuse of rights as those who have been getting away with this get more arrogant, it really is an issue that must be seen from the perspective of criminal and civic rights violations that is a priority to stop people from doing, and to punish.
Same with the moral obligation of prosecutors to prosecute crime. The state and media, corporations can not be run by any sort of ideologue, who does as they please to screw over non progressive favored groups but there are both laws, precedent, the constitution, and certain virtues, moral obligations and even professional traits that must be part of the system. In practice there has been an usurpation of such system by the new left shadow constitution, of which wokeness is a continuation and expansion of, and which has a continuing trajectory towards more South Africa type of polices and governance. Whether we are talking about bureaucrats, journalists, CEO's. These people have a duty not to follow the progressive stack ideology, and it is possible to even interpret laws against the shadow constitution already in the books to go after them. But not reason not to institute new laws and revoke bad past ones where necessary.
The supreme court interpreting disparate impact as unconstitutional which there is no chance happening by Harris appointments can be one way things can move closer to the direction of limiting wokeness. But like the AA decision, which by it self was helpful but not sufficient to stop it, there must be follow through both by the goverment and the development further of real journalists exposing such violations, and a lobby, including law proffessionals willing to sue and go after them. The kind of movement that even wants to do anything like this is is not going to comprise of liberal nevertrumpers.
Belisarius
.
1mo ago
Yes I deleted it because I wanted to change the post. I will add it later after editing it.
It is begging the question to assume there is a wise class of non narcisist experts and Trump with his narcicism and lack of critical thinking stinks up the show.
Take Ezra Klein the guy you cite.
He is a very woke individual who excuses antiwhite racism and he and his site favors a caste and massive double standards.
So, I am not going to take very seriously his hatred of Trump, and your view of Trump being against expertise when on various issues Klein's views and those similiar to him are far away from what an actual competent, and objective leader would follow. https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17648566/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-twitter-andrew-sullivan
You are applying an uncharitable mischaracterization of Trump when you present him as someone who opposes expertise, because the deep state, people like Ezra Klein, and many partisan leftists and others promoting groupthink of powerful factions, are not actual experts on various issues. Same applies with narcissism, when part of the complaint with Trump is that he has been willing to be critical of agendas that people that are greater narcissists like Klein who supports enormous group narcicism would approve. Well not really that much, but even the little deviation is part of the outrage. Trump actually goes too far along with the deep state agendas even if he deviates more than many others would in his position.
Whether it is invading the world in disastrous wars, mass migration policies, enforcing anti white cultural agenda, or the idea that Trump's previous term would definetly cause a recession. In many issues, the conventional "wisdom" of people who marched on institutions, captured them and then promote their agenda as if it is the mandate of heavens, is not what a competent, objective and ethical leader ought to do. JOften quite the opposite. Additionally such agendas are often remarkably one sided and in line with group narcissism or the narcissistic tendencies of the politician who wants to gain power even if he sells out the common good over getting the support of donors (which is a much greater problem with Trump too than the fake or even any real quotes of the outrage of the week) or of extreme far left ideologues.
There has been a right wing derangement syndrome pushed in the media with an explosion of use of racism, white supremacism, and other terms. The same media were biased and bad in the same direction before but this explosion of fake news which predated Trump is the problem and what leads to polarization. These factors are the more dominant elements of Trump hatred, and figures that stand against the faction who has this ideology have been hated before (like Buchanan) and will be hated after Trump.
For that manner, Nixon, Reagan and Bush were also hated for being too right wing, even though all of them compromised perhaps even more than Trump too with the cultural left agenda.
What is at play is extreme zealotry that is much stronger than say the fanaticism of most Christians. A religion, or a cult of presumption of science. This ideology of presuming scientific understanding of which scientific Marxism was one of its fruits, has a shared outlook on the world, is extremely conformist, and strongly overreacts and misjudges both its own irrational nature, and the nature of those who don't share their outlook. Rather than defying expertise, the real problem is "heresy" from an irrational faction that is all too convinced without sufficiently examining its own presumed wisdom. Add to that people who are more self aware but are pushing for propagandistic purposes this idea of a wise consensus that "dumbasess" like Trump break the echochamber of wisdom by their politically incorrect talk.
It is a bad idea to be manipulated by these people to be scandalized by deviating from their orthodoxies. Because their orthodoxy is harmful and untrue and deviating from it is good.
As for Trump, the guy has some correct instincts and shows some level of critical thinking, and some courage to say good things that this immoral faction makes to be politically incorrect, but Trump is also a politician who tries to compromise with the establishment and wants to be liked. Political incorectness is a necessary element of following a correct and ethical path, but sure sometimes he does say some things that are both politically incorrect and kind of dumb, but most anger is over either irrelevancies, or over things that he has a big point or even a small one He is more like the half eyed man in the kingdom of the blind.
Belisarius
.
1mo ago
Pompeo seems enthusiastic than just influenced "I was the CIA director, we lied we cheated, we stole".
Seems he found an agency in his image. Maybe he was influenced for quite a while, but the guy doesn't seem to be afraid of others but to fit in.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-zXn05ac
Trump doesn't seem that courageous but I hope he doe reign them in instead of being reigned in by the CIA. Do I expect him to do that? No.
Trump loves to make promises, but he didn't really deliver in reigning in the deep state the first time. At least it is something that he throws some dirt on Pompeo.
Belisarius
.
2mo ago
This post provides a collection of evidence for intelligence decline.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/recent-evidence-on-dysgenic-trends-february-2021/
Seems I see much of dissident rightist figures and even some people who aren't exactly there like Matt Walsh sympathize with Nick against hiis address being leaked and targeted, even if they have their disagreements. Including the fact that Fuentes can be off putting in his behavior.
Like with some of Fuentes fans, there are always some people who are insanely hostile and I actually suspect in addition to mental cases there are bad actors spreading division by being as off putting people who overeact supporting vile things to happen to other right wingers and promoting extreme narcissism of sometimes small, other times greater differences. And such overreactions is a bad thing in general.
There is a constant argument that twitter must censor doxes or ban those who make them. And that Elon has abandoned his responsibility and original strong claims on the issue.
I do think that organisations like ADL, SPLC, hope not hate, and other defaming hate groups should be banned from everything for their track record of trying to destroy anyone who is against their far left extreme anti white agendas.
Fuentes is also in some trial because after his address was leaked and a Jewish feminist he was fighting on twitter, visited him in his home, and he maced her after opening the door.
In my view he deserves to get no punishment whatsoever for macing her. If you stalk and try to enter someone's home that you got a political disagreement and they mace you, and you are otherwise unharmed, you got off lightly. People who are confronted under such circumstances and don't even suffer permanent damagey, well I say she got a lesson not to visit people again. Or rather a message was sent. And the person that must be dissuaded in their actions is her, and not Fuentes for macing her.
Twitter suppresses even under Musk certain views.
Leaking addresses of people in a manner that would lead to physical confrontations should be banned on twitter and that is a way to discourage such attacks without more suppression of political speech. Which twitter already does too much and too much in the radical neocon/left wing activist side.
And additionally when there is such a physical confrontation, unless the guy who is confronted is actually some sort of sufficiently vile criminal escaping the law (I would side with a parent killing rapists of their children), then to discourage attacks we need to give benefit of sympathy to the guy hounded by others finding them and attacking them, unless their reaction is wildly disproportionate under the circumstances.
Albeit, when it comes with politicians and sufficiently influential people they do deserve public scrutiny and the public deserves the opportunity to comment on their influence more directly, but even then there can be limits. Fuentes who actually has been blacklisted in many ways by the system isn't this but the people do deserve the right to criticize him.
With anonymity it is both necessary and good but also you can have bad actors including intelligence agencies, fbi agents and political networks that pretend to be something different than they are. So it is more complex. Still whatever the complexity, If anonymity was removed things would go in a more radical turn because the backlash towards mainstream radicals that comes from anonymous accounts will be reduced. Anonymity does not necessarily always lead to that but it allows correct but persecuted views to be spread and makes it less likely that people would be afraid of saying that the emperor has no clothes. Without anonymity, the more neoconish or ADL type people would be able to defame their opponents as much as they like which as it happens here would cause violence. In addition to the violence, or restriction of rights like de-banking of a more organized sort. Having people around who oppose this thing is a deescalating force. Additionally more violence by the side I mentioned being enabled, will lead to more right wing violence as well.
More options
Context Copy link