Dean
Flairless
Variously accused of being an insufferable reactionary post-modernist fascist neo-conservative neo-liberal conservative classical liberal critical theorist Nazi Zionist imperialist hypernationalist warmongering isolationist Jewish-Polish-Slavic-Anglo race-traitor masculine-feminine bitch-man Fox News boomer. No one yet has guessed a scholar, or multiple people. Add to our list of pejoratives today!
User ID: 430
Dean
Flairless
22hr ago
Not just hours of work, but the intensity of work and the conditions of the work during the hours that are worked. Modern blue collar is still a lot sweatier than white collar, but a modern furnace worker is still working a lot more comfortably than a furnace worker a century ago, let alone a millennia.
Dean
Flairless
2d ago
Ah, but is Ibram X Kendi also a tsundere like Hanania-chan?
Dean
Flairless
3d ago
American hyperagentism, applied domestically.
Only the American state / executive has agency. Everyone else either merely responds, or is forced to take action.
Dean
Flairless
3d ago
"The best thing in virtual life is crushing your enemies with facts and logic, driving them to seethe before you, and hearing the lamentations of their forums."
Dean
Flairless
7d ago
Particularly if observations were not in an internet-capturable format... and if the ease of finding internet-captured variations by Democratic party officials, media allies, and high-visibility commentators stands alone as a point of 'yeah, this was a thing that did happen.'
The attempt to frame trivial-to-find examples as if they were the limit of instances is itself an example of the deny / downplay / dismiss technique which has long been used to complimentary effect of the false accusation strategies. Who accused Romney of being fascist, only five people accused Romney of being a fascist, the five examples are irrelevant because you wouldn't trust the Democrat accusations if they hadn't made them...
Well, yes, for the same reason that you would otherwise trust a robber if they didn't have a history of robbery.
If the Democratic party was the sort of party whose party members did not falsely accuse Romneyy of being a fascist, and also were not the sort of party members to later deny / downplay / dismiss that they falsely accused Romney, I might indeed put more weight in their warnings of fascism. But this would be because they would, by their nature, also be the sort of party that did not falsely accuse generations of opponents, and the deny / downplay / dismiss that they had falsely accused generations of opponents, and wouldn't be in thhe position as a party to now be falsely accusing people of fascism.
It's not the single instance, or even five instances, that make a pattern that ruins credibility. But the subset of examples only exist because the pattern of behavior exists. If the removal of the examples is the result of the removal of the pattern of activity, there would be no reason to hold the non-existent pattern of activity against the people who, in the imaginary hypothetical, didn't do it.
Dean
Flairless
7d ago
Even if the "preferrer" intends to try and slow the swing of the pendulum from the left to Nazism once it starts being too Nazi for his taste, at the moment he's all too happy to help it gain momentum.
Take out the word 'Nazi' for something less polemic, and step back from the American political pendulum metaphor that treats the range of outcomes as a linear spectrum of 'left' to 'Nazi', and you'll find that this point is irrelevant. The primary purpose of conflict decision making is to maximize your own position, not to maximize harm to another particular other party's. This is particularly true in situations where there are multiple enemy parties, and prioritizing one leaves the other the space and ability to continue to target you.
Just start with the pendulum framing. It's a bad conflict map, straight up. There are far more variations and potential future outcomes for political momentum than left-wing political collectivism and right-wing political collectivism. Not only is there entire non-collectivist paradigms, both left and right, but even the premise of left and right is fundamentally flawed. It inherently implies a duality to a more-than-two agent problem.
Take a three-way conflict between A, B, and C. Your argument rests on the premise that A must choose between B and C. This is incorrect- A can choose neither B or C. B and C can both be enemies to A, as well as each other. Whether A chooses to attack B or C first or most is not an implication or insinuation that it is choosing to align with the other. It is a reflection of limited action capacity, and that one can only be 'first' or 'most' opposed against a single party. More generally, there is a limited capacity to action.
That party C would be all to happy if party A targets party B, and could use it to gain momentum for themselves as party C, is not actually any sort of reason for party A to not target party B. After all, the same logic applies for party A to target party C, which would thus let party B gain momentum. The momentum definition, by its nature, means party A is 'all too happy' to enable the momentum of the party it is not targeting first/.
The only ways for party A to not grant this sort of momentum to either party B or C is to either not attack either of them, or to attack both of them equally. Both are terrible ideas for A, in terms of opposing either (and both).
Non-attack, or more specifically non-response to attacks from B or C, allows both of them to generate their own momentum. After all, both B and C have their own sources of momentum, independent of A, hence why they are separate parties and not subsets of A in the first place. Non-action also gives momentum.
But equally splitting attention against B and C is also bad, because B and C are almost certainly not equivalent threats needing equal opposition. This could be because they are different in nature (which they probably insist they are), or in capacity, or some other distinction. Capacity to threaten is a considerable, and often overriding, difference.
But even if B and C were equivalent, it would still be the wrong move for A to divide resources to oppose both equally. That, after all, would considerably reduce- even halve- their ability to take out either. Party A may not have the capacity to take out either even with full capacity. But worst of all, equal and equally split opposition would be an invitation / incentive to encourage parties B and C to tactically cooperate against A. This would increase the degree of threat / harm A faces, and also reduce its ability to counter either B or C.
But to bring this back to the start-
It does not matter to A if A attacking B helps C build momentum, because C's momentum is not the terminnal / primary value of success. Party A does not lose if C has momentum, unless C has such momentum that it would overwhelm A. Party A does not win if C has no momentum, and can lose if B has enough momentum to overwhelm A. Party A's interest is based on Party A, not Party C (or B).
But it certainly is in Party B's interest for Party A to prioritize Party C, and especially if Party A harms others parts of Party A that aren't part of Party C.
Or- to translate it back to less-theoretical-
You do better when you prioritize your own interests, not when you prioritize harming your opponents, and especially not if you prioritize targets based on another opponent's judgements.
Dean
Flairless
7d ago
Not quite. Peter Principle is the 'raise to your level of incompetence.' This is more of an inexperience issue, which is not the same thing.
Even competent people need time to adjust to new contexts and surroundings. Their ability to do so rapidly is the proof of their competence, but during that period they still make mistakes as they recalibrate expectations.
The point I am trying to make is that Obama was simply new to the federal government. When he won the presidency, he was still a first-term senator. He hadn't gone through a re-election cycle as a Senator to get a sense of how Congress persons needed to stay in touch with their constitutents (possibly part of why he was taken by surprise by the post-Obamacare shellacking), or the dynamics of the presidency changing parties as seen from others in Congress (and thus what a defeated former ruling party could still do as the minority opposition), and he never had experience on the key committees. There were a host of relevant experiences he never had, not because of competence but because of time.
Dean
Flairless
8d ago
I have no idea who that is lol so I don't think so.
This is not the first time he's been brought up or described in your threads, so ignorance is not a credible claim.
Dean
Flairless
8d ago
Who called Romney a fascist?
Are you pretending to not know what sort of channels in the Democratic coalition would, or are you pretending that the Democratic party and their allies have not been leveraging fascist / nazi themes into political attacks on Republicans for over half a century?
A two-word search of 'Romney fascist' can find this NPR story from the 2011 election cycle whose opening paragraph is-
When Mitt Romney uses the Pledge of Allegiance as a metaphor for all that's good and right with America, how many in his audience know that the two-sentence loyalty oath was penned not by the Founding Fathers in 1776, but a fascist preacher more than 100 years later?
Is this a direct accusation of fascist? No. However, a deflection to that would be willfully ignoring that raising the subject of the fascist preacher in this format is a indirect accusation via presenting the association in the first place, with the purpose of the insinuation being to encourage the perception and linkage of Romney and fascism. In a public media format where irrelevant information is excluded for reasons of space format, the fascism is a critically relevant
That Romeny was also running at the time in part on the merit of his religious morals, and the fascist raised by the NPR article is identified as preacher when [fascist] would have worked just as well as the noun as opposed to the adjective, is an additional form of the accusation-by-insinuation. The not-subtle subtext- but not direct accusation- to the audience is that the preacher's religious nature is relevant and provides another parallel to Romney, i.e. like to like that, which serves to reinforces the fascist linkage.
This and the Maher article were not the only format in which Nazi themes was raised against the Romney campaign, as media covered at the time. 'I didn't directly call them Nazis, I just referenced Nazis while condemning them, and I'm sorry if they take offense to that' is, again, a form of calling someone a Nazi. So is the earlier accusation-by-analogizing of Romeny aides or supporters- 'I wasn't accusing Romney of being a Nazi, I was just comparing the people Romney chooses to surround himself with the fascists who were Nazis.'
What a presenter choose to raise in the context of a denunciation is the context of the denunciation. Democratic politicians, partisans, and partners in the media were calling Romney a fascist, even if they were doing it indirectly and passive-aggressively. An indirect accusation is still an accusation.
Dean
Flairless
8d ago
More specifically, Obama tried to run / reorganize the government like a Chicago political machine, without the experience in federal-level and federal-system politics to understand why a federation with the continental scale of the United States can't run on the model of an city scale political machine, identarian or not.
There's a... I don't want to say 'reputation,' and I don't have a series of studies to point at either, so I'll just say a [reputation] of rising politicians who go from thriving in lower-level politics to tripping at higher levels because they go from being big fish in small ponds to working in an ocean of interests that aren't so easily corralled. In a city like Chicago, you can capture the local judiciary easily enough that extorting corporations to donate to your city machine supporters as a settlement deal is not only feasible, but self-reinforcing. At the federal level, there are too many established judges across too many jurisdictions with too many Congressional interest hooks to get institutional capture in a mere administration. Without that capture, such an effort becomes a destabilizing, rather than reinforcing, effort for security political primacy. Similar dynamics of inexperience played out in other Obama pushes, such as trying to push / pass the Iranian JPCOA as a purely executive authority fait accompli without bipartisan buildup.
The Obama administration did lean into identarian politics, both privately and publicly via media allies. And it did so in part because that was how Obama could displace and supersede the Clinton wing of the party, which had been the more egalitarian neoliberal political machine that replaced the prior, labor-based political machine that had tension with the Clintons and was neutered following things like the anti-WTO riots.
But the identarian versus neoliberal system friction was mostly internal party politics. The broader national political friction came from the new, inexperienced wing trying to apply a political machine model to a scale where it couldn't work, because they didn't have the relative primacy a political machine needs to operate with such impunity. While Obama himself was popular, the Democratic machine had already taken the drubbing as early as his first election, and even had Clinton won in 2016 she would have ended up in the White House with both the House and the Senate in Republican hands.
If nobody is suggesting that these guys are members of the NSDAP, an organization which was disbanded long before they were born, then there is no honesty or virtue in trying to tar these guys with the moral connotations of members of the NSDAP by equating them with members of the NSDAP by labeling them as members of the NSDAP. Many people do so, including the OP, who repeatedly insists on this connection and the sincerity of their beliefs on the charge.
Now, if you want to accuse the OP of bad faith, lying, incompetence, or of being an irrelevant minority akin to a lizardsmen constant, by all means feel free to do so. It will not change that the behavior cataloged here is not the behavior of the Nazis who made the term Nazi a multi-generational accusation.
Jokes in small groups are a great way to reach a common understanding that Nazis are not icky. Obviously not everyone who plays along is a Nazi, perhaps some only like the jokes because the SJ people are whining about the Nazis all the time, but it is very much a step in the right direction, moving the overton window where you want it to go.
The overton window moving towards 'Nazis are not icky' is a natural and not particularly tragic development if people want to use Nazi for things other than members of the NSDAP or people particularly like them. Whether people who would prefer it remains associated with the past connation so they can tar their political enemies with the connotation want the overton window to shift in the direction they are actually pushing it is rather irrelevant.
Dean
Flairless
10d ago
Damn. I really screwed the shark.
I dare you to share your favorite search result for 'Shark Waifu'.
Now I have to disagree with our vice president here, I don't think it is pearl clutching to oppose support of Hitler.
Would you agree with your vice president on the nature of pearl clutching opposition by people who claim they are opposing support of Hitler, when they are opposing things that are not actually support of Hitler?
Some beginner questions for discussion.
is neonazism, support of slavery, and unabashed bigotry such as this actually common among young conservatives as Hanania and the group chat themselves seem to believe?
Is there a reason to believe the young conservatives in the group chat demonstrate / support neonazism, support of slavoery, and unabashed bigotry?
Others have noted the locker room banter nature of the discussion, both on the structural language dynamics and personal experience. You have confessed not understanding such forms of humor, which is a fair admission of a substantial limitation that could be a result of a lack of personal experience and/or ability to model others. However, the nature of such admissions of self-limitation is that the self-limited do not get to set the framing over those more familiar with the topic.
In that same vein which response is better, someone like Ortt and Stefanik or Vance? And should the Republican party be concerned about the rise of neonazis and support of slavery if question 1 is yes?
Since inserting a pejorative assumption is a timeless form of political attack, why should anyone be concerned enough to address such a framing? Should the Republicans be concerned about the rise of wifebeaters after being asked if they've stopped beating their wives yet?
Often what we see now is people "hiding their power level" with extremism, and it's often not revealed till they get to the point no one seems denouce them much. This is happening with Jay Jones now, and has happened before in cases like Mark Robinson "black Nazi". Even now Vance can't bring himself to denouce this. Is this tribalist loyalty helping to empower extremism and violence?
Is there any evidence that denouncing these not-Hitler-supporters would have any correlation, let alone causation, with extremism and violence?
If so, what is this evidence? If there is no evidence, why does the question link the non-dunciations of not-nazis to empowering extremism and violence?
A common complaint among the right is "they called us Nazis". But often, we see some right wingers calling themselves Nazis. The aforementioned "black Nazi" Mark Robinson, candidate for LT Gov John Reid in Virginia, etc. As Hanania himself pointed out, the only major national politicians to refer to Trump as Hitler was JD Vance (and RFK per community note, but that might not have counted under his usage of "national politician"). Even the leaked group chat expressed this belief about the Kansas delegation. Now I've been a strong believer in individual responsibilities and have fought for it consistently, so I do the same here and believe that the only people who should be called Nazis are the individuals who praise Hitler/want gas chambers/call themselves nazi/etc. But question 4 is, why do so many of these self identifying Nazis seem to feel at home in the GOP, and why do they seem to believe they might have decent levels of support? How many others are "hiding their power level" too as suggested?
Why do you believe there are any self-identifying actual Nazis feeling at home in the GOP?
Your own article only points to satirical-Nazis, for whom self-association is a matter of in-group humor that you have treated as dark matter Whether you understand dark-matter-humor or not is actually irrelevant, though. Whether you get out-group humor or not, Satire-Nazis are not Actual-Nazis.
We know this not least because Actual-Nazis had a historical record of being murderously serious about their agendas as identified in formal Nazi literature, and openly self-identified as Nazis in very serious contexts. By contrast these very leaks show the satire-Nazis being not murderous or serious or openly self-identifying as Nazis, and only privately doing so in unserious contexts. Actual-Nazis did not need to resort to clandestine humor groups for safety or security. Doing so is, itself, evidence against feeling 'at home,' as Actual-Nazis at home did not need to cloak their intent with banter. Their open racial animus was one of the historically defining things about them, which this leak- by its nature as a leak- demonstrates a lack of in these young republicans.
A short prompt of good news for starting the week- the likelihood of the current Gaza conflict ending just got significantly higher today, as Hamas has released at least the first 7 of 20 surviving hostages to Israel, with more expected later today (or maybe already completed), as part of a Trump-mediated peace deal that is excepted to culminate in a regional summit this week.
Big if carried through, and while there was leadup to it last week, there was a fair bit of (and fair grounds for) skepticism on if the deal would actually be followed through. There were questions on if Hamas even could deliver all the living hostages given how the hostages were often not under Hamas's direct organizational control (but sometimes under other groups), and this deal does not address the bodies of the dead hostages, among other things.
There is also some irony, or possibly some future culture war conspiracy theories, about how this will not get Trump a noble peace prize, since they announced that late last week.
That said- and I think this is good news in general- it's also worth noting this doesn't mean stability or even a lasting peace. While the Yemen-based Houthis have indicated they will stop their Red Sea attacks so long as Israel upholds the ceasefire, this runs into complications like how Hamas has already engaged in gun battles with gazan clans as it tries to re-assert control, which goes significant premise of Hamas being removed as the military and civil authority of Gaza. Which remains a huge, unanswered question which could restart this problem all over again, if Hamas remains in power for lack of anyone actively displacing. The NYT is running a piece on how mediators are already signaling this isn't a comprehensive deal for either side.
One thing that isn't in question, however, is that the return of the still-living hostages is going to reshape the underpinnings of Israeli politics, as the post-October 7 war cabinet coalition that kept Netanyahu in power will lose much of the reason for being. This means political instability, for worse or for better, as Israel rebalances. The next election would be no later than late next year regardless, and could come earlier.
Absent some new (and detrimental to all) nonsense, this means that a lot of the people who only supported Nnetanyahu because of the war will likely be more willing to withdraw their support and trigger early elections, which would be no later than about a year from now anyways. This does not, however, mean a general discrediting of the Israeli right, and a decades-belated return of the Israeli left (whose original decline was after the failure of the gaza withdrawal almost two decades ago). The war was a significant polarizing effect on Israeli politics and society, and while I'd not bet on Netanyahu I'd also not bet on any part of the political left seen as opposing the war for pro-Palestinian reasonings.
I'll end it there. While there is plenty of reasons things could yet again get worse, and while I am sure eventually they will, for the moment I'll encourage people to view this new news as good news, which can well make many people's lives better.
Under Saddam it had less Iranian influence, and it wouldn't have suffered somewhere between a half million and a million unnecessary deaths and a commensurate amount of permanently handicapped.
Why not? Are we supposed to assume that the Americans were the predominant factor of the Arab Spring, and that no such equivalent could or would have happened absent the US invasion of Iraq?
The reason Iraq had less Iranian influence circa 2000 under Saddam was because Iran under Saddam was a roughly 1/3rd Sunni religious minority suppression state artificially holding down the 2/3rd Shia majority. That 1/3rd is a larger fraction than the Syrian state, which was roughly 3/4th Sunni and 1/4th everything else, but it was still a distinct religious minority with deep, deep sectarian grievances that were not only perpetuated, but grown, by the dictatorship's sectarian tendencies and subversion of civil society dynamics that might have created a bond. We know what was liable to happen when the suppression apparatus faltered, which is to say sectarian revenge, and we know this was liable to happen both if the state was compromised by an external invasion (US invasion of Iraq), or by a popular uprising supported by neighbors (Syrian civil war).
Saddam's Iraq was a country surrounded by neighbors who would happily have fueled a Syrian-scale-plus civil war if Saddam faced an Arab Spring-esque Shia uprising. This includes many of the the real-history states who supported the civil war that followed the American invasion, including- or especially- Iran. As much as Americans like to think they dominate other people's considerations, Iran's proxy-and-WMD pursuit up to 2003 were always first and foremost for use against Iraq, and the Iranian Revolutionaries long saw themselves as the eventual liberators / protectors of the regional Shia. Nor would many of Iraq's neighbors- who saw Iraq as a main security threat- have hesitated to drag it down a peg and build their own influence.
Unless you posit that Iran and Iraq, two arch-enemies who not only aimed but used WMD programs against eachother, were on the outbreak of a kumbiyah moment had the US not invaded Iraq, Iraq was a tender box primed for a half million (or far more) casualties if / when the Saddam regime hit a popular uprising. Iran had been preparing to support Shia groups for decades, and would not have stood by quietly.
Dean
Flairless
16d ago
Based.
There's a currency joke to be made here. I'm not sure what it should be, but I'll pretend to be upset that you didn't make it.
Dean
Flairless
17d ago
This is the point where the potential harm is. If a child spends 1-2 years thinking "Santa breaks my model of reality but I can't think deeply about this because the presents will stop coming" then they are learning to suppress curiosity for fear of punishment.
Lesson successful, then. That 'harm' is a very valuable lesson of the world which failure to learn can lead to far greater harms.
Curiosity does bring forth risk. One can appeal to a just world protest that it shouldn't, but it certainly does. If a young child is curious what a hot stove feels like or a poisonous thing tastes like, they will find out the truth. Similarly, if you are excessively curious of a patron bringing gifts, those gifts may stop coming. But if you are excessively curious of a criminal, that criminal may harm you. If you are excessively curious into the affairs of a neighbor or associate, you may lose a friend or gain an enemy. If you are excessively curious about government secrets, you can be fined large amounts of money and spend a significant part of your time in a small box.
These are not new concepts or an unfortunate modern sensibility either. There are various fables in which the curiosity of children (or child-like substitutes) is the bringer of disaster or misfortune. This even extends to adults, where the experimentations of adults who are curious and ambitious brings forth great and terrible things.
Curiosity is not a virtue in isolation. It does entail risk. Learning that is a lesson befitting a young child. Learning what do with that knowledge, regardless of whether it is to embrace risk and move forward or to temper the curiosities of others, are the lessons befitting a young adult.
Dean
Flairless
17d ago
Not yet.
Please don't.* The profit incentive to fall into a familiar but safe/profitable rut is the deathnell for open-minded exposition.
If you change your mind on any impression and make a concession of a mistake, mis-step, or overreach as a private poster, at worst people don't lean to you as a co-belligerent but at best other bystanders give you more credence. If you change your mind and make an equivalent concession as a for-profit poster, at best you maintain your current leadership and at worst you lose the money of the people who were paying you for being an ideological comfort food / co-belligerent in the first place.
The behavioral incentive of 'money' over 'internet respect' and is powerful, proven, and prone to memery.
*Exception being if this would actually let you spend more time with your family, friends, and performing more charity for your community of friends and partisan enemies alike.
Dean
Flairless
17d ago
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—
Death waved a hand.
AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
If local governments aren’t actually compelled to provide aid, then they don’t have to run the investigation. They don’t have to provide riot police, or give access to every city building. I have a hard time squaring that with the absolute vitriol getting thrown their way.
They also don't have to actively oppose to the limit of the laws / rules that would make further active opposition outright illegal. They certainly do not have to proactively create new laws / rules that make it actively illegal for other people to voluntarily provide aid, with all the coercive implications that has.
If you have a hard time squaring not providing aid with the amount of vitriol involved, it's probably because you are presenting the civil administrations involved as trying to be studiously if oppositionally neutral and not support something they dislike, but not taking action beyond that. This false caveat would naturally confuse someone. It is true sanctuary cities and states do not have to support ICE. It is also (probably) true that your neighborhood homeowner association does not have to support your child's club activities or birthday parties. You would not be confused as to their neutrality if the HOA threatened nuisance fines against any of your neighbors who attended your child's parties except to the degree that it was required by superseding city ordinance.
The antagonism that is going towards sanctuary cities like Chicago is not because of what they are not doing, but because of what they are doing, and using their own available power to coerce others into going along with.
Dean
Flairless
18d ago
Because the bailey wouldn't have been as advantageous, obviously.
'They are agents of the state' is the motte. 'As much legitimacy as enforcing slavery' is the bailey.
Dean
Flairless
18d ago
This is happening, and the optics do suck. You can tell they suck because people hate and fear ICE officers in a way they didn't a year ago.
Not too many years ago many of the same people hated a couple of catholic kids for standing at a bus stop and smiling.
Truly the proof of the fault was how many people hated them in a way they didn't the week prior.
Them not being Real Muslims is the justification for why killing them is okay / moral / righteous, rather than theological fratricide. Sometimes its claimed on grounds of apostasy, sometimes that they are heathens, and sometimes qualified theological language is thrown out the door as well as any religious principles of how you should/should not treat other Muslims.
It's the same twisting of categories for why [insert denomination of Christianity] isn't Christian. Tailor a definition of the [Good Group] to some theological claim of [Subgroup], declare opponent outside the bounds of [Good Group], categorical ejection removes the target from the beneificary/protected claimed macro-group.
Indeed. Inflation is the final tax for all variations of modern monetary theory.
More options
Context Copy link