Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Pevvania wrote:I support 'celebrities tax'. Any and all celebrities that publicly support socialism and redistribution of wealth should have the chance to give 50-80% of their assets to the state, but they must accept or refuse publicly so we now just how dedicated they are.

The implementation of voluntary tribute to the state in general by means other than bribery or lobbying would make waves in any political climate, really. In an age where political figures can demonstrate the flaws of a governmental system or policy through the exploitation and sabotage thereof, why not make it possible to do the opposite by investing in the outcome of a public sector venture, or the efficacy of a state in general? (Whether that investment is at all likely to pay off is beside the point, of course.)

If nothing else, the uncoerced benefaction of several well-to-do statists could conceivably open an avenue to a slightly reduced income tax burden for everyone else.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, Rateria

Smolcasm wrote:The implementation of voluntary tribute to the state in general by means other than bribery or lobbying would make waves in any political climate, really. In an age where political figures can demonstrate the flaws of a governmental system or policy through the exploitation and sabotage thereof, why not make it possible to do the opposite by investing in the outcome of a public sector venture, or the efficacy of a state in general? (Whether that investment is at all likely to pay off is beside the point, of course.)

If nothing else, the uncoerced benefaction of several well-to-do statists could conceivably open an avenue to a slightly reduced income tax burden for everyone else.

Pevvania wrote:I support 'celebrities tax'. Any and all celebrities that publicly support socialism and redistribution of wealth should have the chance to give 50-80% of their assets to the state, but they must accept or refuse publicly so we now just how dedicated they are.

https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/23779454

Smolcasm wrote:The implementation of voluntary tribute to the state in general by means other than bribery or lobbying would make waves in any political climate, really. In an age where political figures can demonstrate the flaws of a governmental system or policy through the exploitation and sabotage thereof, why not make it possible to do the opposite by investing in the outcome of a public sector venture, or the efficacy of a state in general? (Whether that investment is at all likely to pay off is beside the point, of course.)

If nothing else, the uncoerced benefaction of several well-to-do statists could conceivably open an avenue to a slightly reduced income tax burden for everyone else.

I fully agree. The problem is, most of the time these professed do-gooders are smug, self-satisfied virtue signallers, and would rather keep as much of their wealth as they can than give it up to an organization that they know - deep down - is just going to waste it away. Still, implementing a 'tax' like this would at the very least expose their hypocrisy!

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, Metis Alberta

1 in 5 US prison inmates are criminal aliens: https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/407312-one-in-five-us-prison-inmates-is-a-criminal-alien

Metis Alberta

Pevvania wrote:Still, implementing a 'tax' like this would at the very least expose their hypocrisy!

Cool - then what?

Virtue signalers are nothing new; there will always be people who talk a big game but never put their money where their mouth is. We absolutely acknowledge absurd amounts of armchair activists, astonishingly apprehensive and afraid as an authority addresses any advocacy-associated arguments, such as proponents of excessive military spending and action who've never served and never intend to, welfare supporters who pay no thought to the destitute around them, and everyone's favorite, politicians who promote the use of public services when they themselves rely on private alternatives. Governments the world over are already infamous for the frivolity of some of their ventures and their arbitrary enforcement of subjective morality; being tasked with simply pointing out these blatant hypocrisies would do nothing, I think, to alleviate these allegations.

I find that a lot of what lobbyists and public servants accomplish out of spite for their adversaries could be better achieved by attending to the ambitions of their constituents and the welfare of the public at large. Our current political climate is acerbic enough; perhaps an actuation to point fingers ought to be replaced with an aspiration to build bridges.

As an aside, any a-words around any argumentative advisement are actually altogether... coincidental. Absolutely.

Miencraft, Rateria

post dank meemeehs at the church

Rateria

>tfw your only purpose behind being in introductory ECON is to publicly repudiate leftist economics at every opportunity

>:)

Pevvania, Rateria

The Liberty Brigades wrote:>tfw your only purpose behind being in introductory ECON is to publicly repudiate leftist economics at every opportunity

>:)

Sounds epic.

Rateria

Arguing with "libertarian" socialists is more infuriating than arguing with straight up Communists. They pretty much are Communists, but don't want the baggage of the label. I'm aware of the history of the word libertarian, but that's not it's modern definition, not to mention that, in the time of that word's creation, people were overthrowing kings, and state property was essentially just the private property of the king, therefore it's understandable that the term would become a term for communal revolutionary action.

Pevvania

This poll though.

Gang weed finally getting proper representation

Pevvania, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Gang weed finally getting proper representation

This is a great step, but there is still much work to be done so gentleman gamers like us can finally get the respect we deserve.

Pevvania

Do you mean to tell me the state of Vermont isn't an actual preschool

Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, The New United States, Rateria, Skaveria, Highway Eight

Rateria wrote:This is a great step, but there is still much work to be done so gentleman gamers like us can finally get the respect we deserve.

one day yuo will see.... veronic a..... im the real cha d...... Gang weeders rise up

Smolcasm wrote:Do you mean to tell me the state of Vermont isn't an actual preschool

I was quite surprised to find the same is true about Mississippi and Alabama but as it turns out, they are indeed actual states. It was a pleasant surprise to find out that Wyoming actually existed as well.

Pevvania, Rateria

Would a Minarchist state evacuate people in the event of natural disasters?

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Would a Minarchist state evacuate people in the event of natural disasters?

Anything is possible if you can convince a large corporation that unassailable good publicity will follow. I don't see how else a bare-bones government would accomplish this, however.

the goverment media and corportions are keeping gang weed illegal so gamers don't get girls... tihnk about it... now yuo see...

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Pevvania wrote:the goverment media and corportions are keeping gang weed illegal so gamers don't get girls... tihnk about it... now yuo see...

to those gamers, i say yuo must be the girls you want to see in hte world

and to the govremnent and corparitions, i say legilize group marinara

Pevvania, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Would a Minarchist state evacuate people in the event of natural disasters?

The question rather, would the People of a Minarchist state evacuate their state employees in the event of a natural disaster? ;)

Rateria

All right-wing nations who want to dominate during N-Day³ are invited to join the Federation Of Conservative Nations Army of Freedom faction. Discord for communications, orders, and general excitedness here - https://discord.gg/cCHn9Y

We plan to crush commies once again, and hopefully avoid duplicating our -1 score from N-Day² (thank you Syberian Badgers for that last minute nuclear barrage).

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:the goverment media and corportions are keeping gang weed illegal so gamers don't get girls... tihnk about it... now yuo see...

This Meme Was Made by Gang weed

Pevvania, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:This Meme Was Made by Gang weed

let's not forget Real American Memes. gang patriots rise up!!

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:let's not forget Real American Memes. gang patriots rise up!!

We need to bring meme manufacturing back to America folks. Trust me, no one steals stacies from well-deserving gentlemen gamers than me." -donald drumpf

now yuo see...

Pevvania, Rateria

wrote:

1 day 12 hours ago: The Socialist People's Republics of Kavagrad of the region The Leftist Assembly rejected a request from Libertatem to establish embassies.

1 day 16 hours ago: The Rednecks North of Highway Eight proposed constructing embassies with Pyongyang.

1 day 16 hours ago: The Rednecks North of Highway Eight proposed constructing embassies with Communist Alliance.

1 day 16 hours ago: The Rednecks North of Highway Eight proposed constructing embassies with The Socialist States of the Philippines.

1 day 16 hours ago: The Rednecks North of Highway Eight proposed constructing embassies with Leftist Agrarian Revolutionary Union.

1 day 16 hours ago: The Proletarian Dictatorship of Che Triumphant of the region North Korea rejected a request from Libertatem to establish embassies.

1 day 16 hours ago: The Rednecks North of Highway Eight proposed constructing embassies with The Leftist Assembly.

1 day 16 hours ago: The Rednecks North of Highway Eight proposed constructing embassies with Democratic Socialist Assembly.

1 day 16 hours ago: The Rednecks North of Highway Eight proposed constructing embassies with Hippy Haven.

1 day 16 hours ago: The Rednecks North of Highway Eight proposed constructing embassies with North Korea.

dankness

Miencraft, Rateria, Skaveria

So uh, whats happening with end day? We gonna set it on fire or what?

Also holy hell my Gov't policies are nuts

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:So uh, whats happening with end day? We gonna set it on fire or what?

You’re right. It’s going to start soon. I assume that we’re not participating, but I could be wrong.

Want to nuke some commies?

Join our faction, "Nuclear Helicopter Rides"!

Rateria, The Liberty Brigades

Rubio's "paid family leave" plan is retarded.

Pevvania wrote:Rubio's "paid family leave" plan is retarded.

It would be great on Thanksgiving, especially if they paid our crazy Uncle Joe to leave the country.

Pevvania

The States Of Balloon wrote:wow n day sure is fun

You're doing great

The United States Of Patriots wrote:That didn't last long

Don't contradict me son

Ayy global top 5% for largest populations.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Miencraft wrote:Ayy global top 5% for largest populations.

And all we had to do was destroy the government.

Miencraft, Rateria

I no longer view the Democrats as simply incompetent, mendacious, corrupt or amoral. After the events of the past few weeks, I now see that these people are abjectly evil.[/I]

Will a Pinochet-like figure solve our problems? I'm increasingly thinking yes. At the very least, we need a Second American Revolution. This has gone too far.

Pevvania wrote:I no longer view the Democrats as simply incompetent, mendacious, corrupt or amoral. After the events of the past few weeks, I now see that these people are abjectly evil.[/I]

Pevvania wrote:Will a Pinochet-like figure solve our problems? I'm increasingly thinking yes. At the very least, we need a Second American Revolution. This has gone too far.

These memes are getting weirder every day

Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eight

Pevvania wrote:Will a Pinochet-like figure solve our problems? I'm increasingly thinking yes. At the very least, we need a Second American Revolution. This has gone too far.

I doubt that libertarians and other constitutionalists would have enough support for a revolution. Even if a revolution did happen, our chances of winning are slim. We wouldn’t be fighting a war against a foreign government with no knowledge of the inhabitants or terrain. We would be fighting our own government and its vast resources. As much as I will not entirely rule out violent conflict, I am doubtful of such an action’s effectiveness, and believe that it should not be taken lightly.

Republic Of Minerva

Rateria wrote:We would be fighting our own government and its vast resources.

Though, question becomes how much of that government would actually fight on its behalf?

If we get a proper revolution going, I would bet that the armed forces would be on the revolutionary side, since it stands to reason that the sort of person that would voluntarily join the military would first of all refuse to fight Americans, and secondly be sympathetic to a revolutionary cause.

Then there's probably a number of bureaucrats that would work to undermine the government during a revolution, though that's not exactly the best thing to count on.

But then again the whole civil war thing would indicate the opposite of all of that, but I'd imagine it'd greatly depend on circumstance.

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:Though, question becomes how much of that government would actually fight on its behalf?

If we get a proper revolution going, I would bet that the armed forces would be on the revolutionary side, since it stands to reason that the sort of person that would voluntarily join the military would first of all refuse to fight Americans, and secondly be sympathetic to a revolutionary cause.

Then there's probably a number of bureaucrats that would work to undermine the government during a revolution, though that's not exactly the best thing to count on.

But then again the whole civil war thing would indicate the opposite of all of that, but I'd imagine it'd greatly depend on circumstance.

I see what you’re saying, and I think that you bring up some valid points. It is entirely possible that such things would happen. However, I’m skeptical that the majority of those serving the government would fight against it. As you know, most people tend to follow orders, whether they like them or not. I agree that there would be a degree of resistance within the government, but I don’t know how great the extent would be. I think I’m with you on this with the military having a defection problem, but I would figure that a greater proportion of soldiers would resist than bureaucrats.

Miencraft

Rateria wrote:I see what you’re saying, and I think that you bring up some valid points. It is entirely possible that such things would happen. However, I’m skeptical that the majority of those serving the government would fight against it. As you know, most people tend to follow orders, whether they like them or not. I agree that there would be a degree of resistance within the government, but I don’t know how great the extent would be. I think I’m with you on this with the military having a defection problem, but I would figure that a greater proportion of soldiers would resist than bureaucrats.

Ultimately would probably just come down to what these people are actually loyal to - the government, or the country.

Because that's what a revolution of large enough scale to actually be a revolution would be in the United States. It'd be the country fighting against its government, so anyone who works for the government in any capacity would have a choice to make.

Rateria

Alternatively it's theoretically possible to stage a revolution where so many states depart the union all at once that it's effectively dissolved.

If the right states leave, whatever's left of the United States won't have any real means to take back the states that left. Then all of the newly-independent states could negotiate with D.C. to restore the union, or else just sit around and be independent forever.

In theory, at least.

Almost certainly wouldn't work in reality.

Rateria

"Revolution" implies that a sizeable enough portion of the populace shares a common goal to overthrow the government and believes that whatever will replace it will be better; the issue here is that the American public, by and large, is: 1. too dependent on government institutions and services, and would be in a world of trouble if those were to suddenly disappear; 2. too divided in ideology to have a clear picture of what a post-republic America would look like, let alone agree on that common goal; and 3. altogether lazy, self-centered, anti-intellectual, and lulled into a sense of subservience and misguided nationalism - not that I would consider any of these things true vices, but when you put all of these things together, you get the opposite of a team player.

Without the benefit of foresight, I can only speculate that if America's government were to be overthrown in contemporary times, the most likely replacement would be one already aligned - at least in part - with the current administration; even then, it would be quashed without organized support from within the US military. A socialist revolution would be even more unfeasible, even if leftist ideologies were to receive a sharp boost in adherents at some point in the near future; an even less credible possibility would be an anarchic or libertarian one.

Miencraft, Rateria

real sean hours who up

Venomringo

Pev has gone full fash guys

RIP

Rateria, Venomringo, Jadentopian Order

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Pev has gone full fash guys

RIP

I’m hoping that he hasn’t. I still have hope that he won’t. He said that he’s considering “a Pinochet-like figure”, not that he’s fully decided on it. For one thing, he hasn’t gone full fascist until he calls for all to be subordinate to the state, which he hasn’t done as of now.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Pev has gone full fash guys

RIP

Begone libcuck

The Liberty Brigades

Why is everyone acting so moderate and placid all of a sudden? We have watched as the far left have worked overtime to rip apart the moral fabric of our country, and observed with horror as the state has increasingly encroached on the liberties of the people over the past eighty years. Social Security, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the PATRIOT Act, Obamacare, etc etc etc. All we ever do is complain, stroke our chins and intellectualise a bit and hope our powerful arguments will overturn these monstrosities. It never works, because the statists are not concerned with reason and want the swift obliteration of the American republic.

Thomas Jefferson and other founders believed Americans had the inherent right to revolution if the government ever becomes tyrannical. Right now, the administration is more or less pro-Constitution and pro-small government, but is shackled by the deep state, special interests and around half of Congress that favours the status quo and enslavement to the state. I am the opposite of fascist - I want a radical reinvention of the state to its constitutional parameters so Americans can live in true freedom. And increasingly, I believe the only way to secure the blessings of liberty is to apply defensive force against the corrupt politicians that are subverting the American experiment.

Miencraft, The Liberty Brigades, Metis Alberta

By Second American Revolution, I don't mean physically attacking US troops or police to overturn the government; far from it. In fact, the military and police would be helping us to restore the Constitution. The best way to revolt would probably involve the arrest and prosecution of statist politicians for violating their oath to uphold the prosecution, along with a coordinated effort to break up leftist groups and power bases around the country. We'd also need to send US troops to the capitols of leftist states to dissolve their governments. From there, we'd quickly pass several amendments (e.g. a balanced budget amendment, repeal of the income tax, outlawing welfare programs and so forth) to restore the essence of the Constitution. This would be easy without opposition.

Minerva, you love to sit on your supercilious armchair and lecture others on their ideological purity and commitment to liberty. But what are you doing for the liberty movement? What do you actually do to fight for your beliefs aside from criticizing others within the conservative-libertarian movement?

The Liberty Brigades, Metis Alberta

Pevvania wrote:The best way to revolt would probably involve the arrest and prosecution of statist politicians for violating their oath to uphold the prosecution, along with a coordinated effort to break up leftist groups and power bases around the country. We'd also need to send US troops to the capitols of leftist states to dissolve their governments.

Lost me at suppressing the opposition through force.

Miencraft, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Lost me at suppressing the opposition through force.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

The Liberty Brigades, Skaveria, Metis Alberta

Jadentopian Order wrote:Lost me at suppressing the opposition through force.

we must become the left in order to fight them :wokethink:

Rateria

Pevvania wrote:

Minerva, you love to sit on your supercilious armchair and lecture others on their ideological purity and commitment to liberty. But what are you doing for the liberty movement? What do you actually do to fight for your beliefs aside from criticizing others within the conservative-libertarian movement?

What right do you have to judge my actions, when you have clearly stated you want the strong-arm of a dictator in order to enforce your views, just like those of Stalinists?

Please don't call yourself "libertarian." It's embarrassing

Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:What right do you have to judge my actions, when you have clearly stated you want the strong-arm of a dictator in order to enforce your views, just like those of Stalinists?

First of all, I was merely circulating the idea that the time may come for an autocrat to seize power in order to protect the Republic. This idea is inherently contradictory - but is it any more contradictory than having a government to protect people's freedom, and having a tyranny by majority to protect that government? FA Hayek once said "a liberal dictatorship may be preferable to an illiberal democracy". Democracy is the best means of ensuring a liberal economic and political system, but the point may come in this country where democratic principles no longer protect us. Venezuela began as a "democratic socialist" country. Look at it now. I was more venting my frustration against the evils in our government than seriously arguing for a dictatorship, but that idea isn't necessarily a bad one.

Why are you acting like you're better than me, when I'm simply articulating well-known ideas from libertarian and conservative intellectuals? It seems like you've abdicated all principle and are simply concerned with being a contrarian now.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Please don't call yourself "libertarian." It's embarrassing

Classic, the good old "I'm more libertarian than you are" argument. The truth is, I am far more libertarian than you'll ever be, because I put my money where my mouth is and actively work to promote conservative and libertarian causs. All you do is go around lecturing people on their ideological bona fides, feeling smug and superior as the One True Libertarian (TM). I have every right to judge your actions, because that's all you do, Minerva. When is the last time you campaigned? Canvassed? Wrote letters to the editor? Can you demonstrate any utility to the liberty movement whatsoever, outside of just smugly contradicting people on the internet? I'm not even an American citizen, but I'm willing to bet I've influenced far more votes in the direction of individual freedom than you ever will. Even your debates lack substance now; they're mostly just pointed ad hominems, usually directed at me, rather than logical critiques or arguments. Sad!

The Liberty Brigades

Pevvania wrote:By Second American Revolution, I don't mean physically attacking US troops or police to overturn the government; far from it. In fact, the military and police would be helping us to restore the Constitution. The best way to revolt would probably involve the arrest and prosecution of statist politicians for violating their oath to uphold the prosecution, along with a coordinated effort to break up leftist groups and power bases around the country. We'd also need to send US troops to the capitols of leftist states to dissolve their governments. From there, we'd quickly pass several amendments (e.g. a balanced budget amendment, repeal of the income tax, outlawing welfare programs and so forth) to restore the essence of the Constitution. This would be easy without opposition.

Minerva, you love to sit on your supercilious armchair and lecture others on their ideological purity and commitment to liberty. But what are you doing for the liberty movement? What do you actually do to fight for your beliefs aside from criticizing others within the conservative-libertarian movement?

I respect your views, and see that you’re coming from a place of genuine concern, but I have my doubts about this hypothetical revolution. I like and respect you, so please do not see this as some sort of personal attack.

As I’m sure that you know this, but a revolution needs popular support. I doubt that we would have such support in this scenario. You might point to the gun owners in this nation as the base that would rebel, but I’m skeptical that a large enough portion would rebel. Many gun owners support gun control, and are unlikely to rebel, which leads some to say that they don’t support the 2nd Amendment. You brought up the possibility of police officers supporting this hypothetical revolution, which I also doubt. While some may fight with the revolution, I believe that the majority won’t. As much as I wish it wasn’t true, the laws we both hate (Drug wars, gun control, etc.) are enforced by said police officers. While politicians make these laws, police enforce them. As for the military supporting said revolution, I see the possibility of soldiers defecting, as Miencraft and I discussed previously, but I for one do not know where the loyalty of most soldiers would lie in this scenario.

As we both know, the mainstream media is mostly liberal-leaning/Democrats. We both know that such organizations would resist our efforts, support the government, and brand us as domestic terrorists. To win a revolution, hearts and minds need to be won. This is far more difficult, if not impossible if the most powerful media organizations are set on our destruction. Social media recruiting is also not an option. The most influential platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram would censor the revolutionary movement’s content.

I would like to point out that an attack on state governments would activate a response from the federal government, therefore bringing them into the equation. Even if we try our best to only target certain state governments, it would get to a point that the revolutionaries would be deemed a threat and promptly responded to by federal forces.

You brought up laws that you favor being passed on the federal level. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that your proposed revolution beat all odds and won. What would prevent candidates similar to the ones you despise now, if not worse ones, from being elected by the people who have elected their predecessors? That implies force, which would lead to even more social upheaval, if not a revolution from our opponents. You might point out that most of the opposition may not own guns, which may be true. However, how would it be morally justifiable to jail or murder political opponents?

I have another point. Foreign intervention from a nation or set of nations hostile to our ideals is entirely possible. What’s to say that more authoritarian nations will not intervene to stop us? They would most likely see us as a threat, and rule out the status quo is better for them in the long run. This also brings up the point of them intervening if we win. What would prevent them from invading a now unstable nation?

This brings up yet another point, what would prevent this revolution from going full-circle? We both have knowledge of revolutions that start on promises of freedom, better conditions, etc. The examples I would cite tend to be communistic in character, which may lead you to object that this one would be ideologically different. While I agree that it would be different, I’m skeptical that the diverse movements of this nation would be cohesive or large enough to succeed. For my point of full-circle revolutions, I have a question: How would you stop government from growing again within 300 years and starting this all over again?

This brings me to my final point. What would we do if we lose? My fear is that there would be government crackdowns on people and organizations with ideologies similar to ours. Small-government movements could be outlawed, with adherents being imprisoned and/or executed.

I agree that something must be done to right the wrongs of our government, but I’m doubtful of the effectiveness of a revolution.

P.S. Here’s a source for the gun owner thing:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/17/gun-owners-support-a-wide-range-of-gun-control-measures-johns-hopkins-study-finds/

Miencraft, Jadentopian Order

Rateria wrote: [Insert giant rant here]

Wow, that’s my longest ever. I guess I’ll join the Supermassive RMB Rant Club, lol.

Pevvania wrote:Why is everyone acting so moderate and placid all of a sudden?

You speak as though this happened suddenly; is it not possible that your compatriots have always been moderate in comparison to the extremism you now profess?

Pevvania wrote:We have watched as the far left have worked overtime to rip apart the moral fabric of our country, and observed with horror as the state has increasingly encroached on the liberties of the people over the past eighty years. Social Security, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the PATRIOT Act, Obamacare, etc etc etc. All we ever do is complain, stroke our chins and intellectualise a bit and hope our powerful arguments will overturn these monstrosities. It never works, because the statists are not concerned with reason and want the swift obliteration of the American republic.

The enemy you speak of is fictitious.

There is no grand, unified conspiracy to obliterate the American republic except in the paranoid minds of political extremists; what you perceive as a leftist attack on the masses' morality is merely a stuttering and sometimes strident call for civil rights, and what you see as a united effort on the part of statists to deprive the American people of freedom is more of a competition on the part of various avaricious individuals to take home the largest slice of the pie they can without regard for how it will affect those who have less. What you perceive as pointless chin-stroking and faux-intellectualism is, in truth, an attempt to better understand the complexities of contemporary politics so that participation therein is more effectual; the goal, if nothing else, is to avoid falling into the sort of black-and-white thinking that brings people to believe the government is conspiring against them and condemn themselves to rash and potentially destructive action.

Pevvania wrote:By Second American Revolution, I don't mean physically attacking US troops or police to overturn the government; far from it. In fact, the military and police would be helping us to restore the Constitution. The best way to revolt would probably involve the arrest and prosecution of statist politicians for violating their oath to uphold the prosecution, along with a coordinated effort to break up leftist groups and power bases around the country. We'd also need to send US troops to the capitols of leftist states to dissolve their governments. From there, we'd quickly pass several amendments (e.g. a balanced budget amendment, repeal of the income tax, outlawing welfare programs and so forth) to restore the essence of the Constitution. This would be easy without opposition.

Suppose it were as easy to do this as you say; even if not even a single shot were to be fired in this so-called revolution, America would be overwhelmingly lucky if it didn't incur a death toll in the tens of thousands as a direct result of this roadmap to Constitutional restoration that you describe. What do you think would happen if millions of households - particularly less well-off ones - woke up one morning to a cessation of government benefits? Sure, some might rejoice at no longer being expected to pay taxes, but do you think people, by and large, would simply be content to hear "welp, you're on your own now. Good luck navigating the free market"?

Pevvania wrote:Minerva, you love to sit on your supercilious armchair and lecture others on their ideological purity and commitment to liberty. But what are you doing for the liberty movement? What do you actually do to fight for your beliefs aside from criticizing others within the conservative-libertarian movement?

These questions aren't directed at me, but I generally prefer to advocate for the cause of liberty by not telling potential supporters that said cause necessitates the removal of services they rely upon for their livelihoods. I don't fight for my beliefs - I endeavor to reinforce, expand, and (as necessary) correct them by discussing them with others in good faith who are willing to do the same, and more often than not both parties learn something along the way. And if this understanding between unlike people can calm down the raging flame war of party politics even a little bit, great.

Ideological purity, however, stands in the way of understanding; this conviction that I am right and my opponents are wrong and that the right must triumph over the wrong to set right all that's wrong with the world may sound virtuous, noble, and heroic and all, but it is naught but vanity. No person or movement has all of the answers to society's woes; in politics, there are no silver bullets. It is through acceptance of what we don't understand and willingness to cooperate with those who do that we can begin to address the obstacles in society's path.

Moreover, you can preach all night and all day about the virtue of liberty, but your words will ring hollow in the minds of the poor and downtrodden until true liberty's prerequisite - equality of opportunity - is realized. This is not to say that all who advocate in favor of the lower class are correct or even have their best interests at heart - I'm sure you can provide many examples of this - but it is a worthy consideration nonetheless.

Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

No good ever comes from extremism. Even the founders were moderates in their own ways. Adams stuck to principle by defending British troops in court, Washington by allowing even those Democratic-Republicans remain a strong political force.

I, as an opponent to statism, will not decry statist incursions on my own rights, and then call for statist incursions on anothers.

My experiences as a Marxist were the best political lessona I could recieve. Statism is oppression, regardless of motivations.

Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

Pevvania wrote:First of all, I was merely circulating the idea that the time may come for an autocrat to seize power in order to protect the Republic. This idea is inherently contradictory - but is it any more contradictory than having a government to protect people's freedom, and having a tyranny by majority to protect that government? FA Hayek once said "a liberal dictatorship may be preferable to an illiberal democracy". Democracy is the best means of ensuring a liberal economic and political system, but the point may come in this country where democratic principles no longer protect us. Venezuela began as a "democratic socialist" country. Look at it now. I was more venting my frustration against the evils in our government than seriously arguing for a dictatorship, but that idea isn't necessarily a bad one.

Why are you acting like you're better than me, when I'm simply articulating well-known ideas from libertarian and conservative intellectuals? It seems like you've abdicated all principle and are simply concerned with being a contrarian now.

Classic, the good old "I'm more libertarian than you are" argument. The truth is, I am far more libertarian than you'll ever be, because I put my money where my mouth is and actively work to promote conservative and libertarian causs. All you do is go around lecturing people on their ideological bona fides, feeling smug and superior as the One True Libertarian (TM). I have every right to judge your actions, because that's all you do, Minerva. When is the last time you campaigned? Canvassed? Wrote letters to the editor? Can you demonstrate any utility to the liberty movement whatsoever, outside of just smugly contradicting people on the internet? I'm not even an American citizen, but I'm willing to bet I've influenced far more votes in the direction of individual freedom than you ever will. Even your debates lack substance now; they're mostly just pointed ad hominems, usually directed at me, rather than logical critiques or arguments. Sad!

shut up fashist

Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:shut up fashist

libs owned

Rateria

bash the facsh lets all go beat up pev hes a facsist

Pevvania, Rateria

Smolcasm wrote:The enemy you speak of is fictitious.

There is no grand, unified conspiracy to obliterate the American republic except in the paranoid minds of political extremists;

Perhaps there is no "grand, unified conspiracy," but how is that relevant? Can you really deny that the Republic is not being "obliterated," as you put it? No one here is peddling conspiracy theories; Pev just correctly pointed out that the federal government, in its current form, is far gone and long divorced from the Constitution that established it.

Smolcasm wrote:what you perceive as a leftist attack on the masses' morality is merely a stuttering and sometimes strident call for civil rights,

It is abundantly clear, regardless of motives, that the left has destroyed our nation's moral fabric. The ever-constant expansion of the welfare state and the left's zealous promotion of moral-nihilism has destroyed civil society. I don't care if it's an intentional "attack," because its done the damage regardless. We need to reverse course fast, and perhaps the biggest part of that is drastic, radical downsizing of the federal government.

Intended to say more, but I have to get to class. Will probably have more to say later.

Rateria

The New United States wrote:Can you really deny that the Republic is not being "obliterated," as you put it?

On the one hand, I agree - and think we can all agree - that the republic is almost completely unrecognizable from the way it was during its conception, though I suspect we may have different reasons for coming to that conclusion.

On the other, when it comes to governing a populace of 300+ million people, it's astonishingly resolute for an institution mired in petty partisan politics and plagued with the corruptive influence of saboteurs. So, while a part of me wants to say that no institution has any right to be so inefficient and bothersome to the populace, the rest of me undeniably can't conceive of any that would do better in the federal government's place.

The New United States wrote:It is abundantly clear, regardless of motives, that the left has destroyed our nation's moral fabric. The ever-constant expansion of the welfare state and the left's zealous promotion of moral-nihilism has destroyed civil society. I don't care if it's an intentional "attack," because its done the damage regardless. We need to reverse course fast, and perhaps the biggest part of that is drastic, radical downsizing of the federal government.

Moralism in general has too great an effect on policy and decision-making; if any faction, however well-intentioned, were to have their way all the time, I'd flee the country, seeing as I have no interest in being told by a conservative government that people like me don't exist or by a liberal government that I owe some sort of debt to society. Paradoxically, however, the welfare state is as it is because it represents a compromise between conservatives and liberals - the right wants to make sure those who don't try to find work don't eat, the left wants to make sure the poor are spending their money responsibly, and the result of the moral concessions they make to one another is the bloated morass of bureaucracy we see today.

Practical decision-making would be a welcome change, but good luck deriving practicality from the loudly-voiced moral concerns of the public.

Rateria

I would agree with Pev that the radical left is an extremely toxic cultural and political force that requires resistance, but we must resist with words, not violence when we can. That doesn't mean laying down and taking it though. I suggest matching the force your opponent is using. Debate someone who wants to debate, but if antifa wants to show up with weapons to a peaceful protest, don't be afraid to contact your local militia and kick some commie's teeth in, in self-defense of course.

Pevvania, Rateria

I think my comments on a revolution have been misinterpreted. I don't mean an overthrow of the federal government, I mean a coordinated effort to remove, impeach or prosecute officials who openly abuse their power and violate the Constitution, which they vowed to uphold and protect. And once again, it's just an idea I'm throwing out there that may become necessary if we can't get the situation in this country under control.

Rateria wrote:As I’m sure that you know this, but a revolution needs popular support. I doubt that we would have such support in this scenario. You might point to the gun owners in this nation as the base that would rebel, but I’m skeptical that a large enough portion would rebel. Many gun owners support gun control, and are unlikely to rebel, which leads some to say that they don’t support the 2nd Amendment.

Well there's no need for a revolt of that scale right now but if it was the nation's 100 million+ gun owners and militias versus the US military, it would not be easy. Most veterans and active servicemen are sympathetic to small government causes and gun ownership, so from the get-go there is a problem, because I suspect a tyrannical or socialist president would face widespread mutinies and defections and extremely low morale that would fracture the government's defenses significantly. But even assuming the entire US military organized to suppress a conservative/libertarian revolution comprised of gun owners in numerous states, it would be a struggle.

Rateria wrote:You brought up the possibility of police officers supporting this hypothetical revolution, which I also doubt. While some may fight with the revolution, I believe that the majority won’t. As much as I wish it wasn’t true, the laws we both hate (Drug wars, gun control, etc.) are enforced by said police officers. While politicians make these laws, police enforce them. As for the military supporting said revolution, I see the possibility of soldiers defecting, as Miencraft and I discussed previously, but I for one do not know where the loyalty of most soldiers would lie in this scenario.

If it was a socialist government versus the people, I highly doubt the cops would side with the cop-haters.

Rateria wrote:As we both know, the mainstream media is mostly liberal-leaning/Democrats. We both know that such organizations would resist our efforts, support the government, and brand us as domestic terrorists. To win a revolution, hearts and minds need to be won. This is far more difficult, if not impossible if the most powerful media organizations are set on our destruction. Social media recruiting is also not an option. The most influential platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram would censor the revolutionary movement’s content.

You're right about that, which is why I'm not advocating an overthrow of the US government.

Rateria wrote:I would like to point out that an attack on state governments would activate a response from the federal government, therefore bringing them into the equation. Even if we try our best to only target certain state governments, it would get to a point that the revolutionaries would be deemed a threat and promptly responded to by federal forces.

Ideally we'd have the federal government leading the charge to indict state government leaders, as unlikely as that is. I'm talking about things that should already be happening - Illinois is one of the most corrupt states in the nation that has mismanaged its pension system into oblivion. Why is the Justice Department not indicting its multitude of corrupt politicians? Because the government is fundamentally corrupt and protects its own. Look at the FBI refusing to charge Hillary.

Rateria wrote:You brought up laws that you favor being passed on the federal level. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that your proposed revolution beat all odds and won. What would prevent candidates similar to the ones you despise now, if not worse ones, from being elected by the people who have elected their predecessors? That implies force, which would lead to even more social upheaval, if not a revolution from our opponents. You might point out that most of the opposition may not own guns, which may be true. However, how would it be morally justifiable to jail or murder political opponents?

As I stated repeatedly, I am not suggesting an overthrow of the US government, nor am I suggesting anarchic violence, or in fact violence of any kind outside the realm of the law. I would suggest a constitutional amendment making officials that violate the Constitution liable for prosecution, but such a provision would be open to abuse. Honestly, the Founding Fathers had the right idea with codified limits on government power, so I would expand their vision by putting more concrete limits on the power of the federal government. This, by its very nature, would go a long way to constraining authoritarian instincts, and has in fact done so through most of our history.

Rateria wrote:I have a question: How would you stop government from growing again within 300 years and starting this all over again?

That's the ultimate question. Ronald Reagan once said that "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Aside from clearly codified restrictions on government power, we must teach our children the value of liberty and keep the spirit of 1776 alive.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria

I think that for the Western Civilization we need strong leaders and guides to their peoples, because we are being attacked on the inside by radicalists who have changed and are changing our system of morality and way of living, atheists, feminists LGTB whatever supporters and so on. You Americans are already lost hope when it comes to the racial purity ("civil rights" and whatever) thing but the globalists have been able to make you lose your racial identity, you would have thought there would be hope for Europe but we are being attacked on the inside and outside by policy makers controlled by the elite, and they are flooding our nations with Muslims who they want us to mix with in order for us to lose our identity so they can bring us under their control, so maybe we should forget the whole liberty thing, take out the threats on the inside (feminists, atheists, people who support unlimited Muslim immigration) and heal the damage they have done (like banning homosexuality in public would be a start and kicking the Muslims out) so we can focus on the threats on the outside before it is too late, which I fear will be soon. I pray that I will one day be able to have a strong king in Iceland to rule over me and my brothers, and he will lead us into battle and win

Pevvania wrote:I think my comments on a revolution have been misinterpreted. I don't mean an overthrow of the federal government, I mean a coordinated effort to remove, impeach or prosecute officials who openly abuse their power and violate the Constitution, which they vowed to uphold and protect. And once again, it's just an idea I'm throwing out there that may become necessary if we can't get the situation in this country under control.

Well there's no need for a revolt of that scale right now but if it was the nation's 100 million+ gun owners and militias versus the US military, it would not be easy. Most veterans and active servicemen are sympathetic to small government causes and gun ownership, so from the get-go there is a problem, because I suspect a tyrannical or socialist president would face widespread mutinies and defections and extremely low morale that would fracture the government's defenses significantly. But even assuming the entire US military organized to suppress a conservative/libertarian revolution comprised of gun owners in numerous states, it would be a struggle.

If it was a socialist government versus the people, I highly doubt the cops would side with the cop-haters.

You're right about that, which is why I'm not advocating an overthrow of the US government.

Ideally we'd have the federal government leading the charge to indict state government leaders, as unlikely as that is. I'm talking about things that should already be happening - Illinois is one of the most corrupt states in the nation that has mismanaged its pension system into oblivion. Why is the Justice Department not indicting its multitude of corrupt politicians? Because the government is fundamentally corrupt and protects its own. Look at the FBI refusing to charge Hillary.

As I stated repeatedly, I am not suggesting an overthrow of the US government, nor am I suggesting anarchic violence, or in fact violence of any kind outside the realm of the law. I would suggest a constitutional amendment making officials that violate the Constitution liable for prosecution, but such a provision would be open to abuse. Honestly, the Founding Fathers had the right idea with codified limits on government power, so I would expand their vision by putting more concrete limits on the power of the federal government. This, by its very nature, would go a long way to constraining authoritarian instincts, and has in fact done so through most of our history.

That's the ultimate question. Ronald Reagan once said that "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Aside from clearly codified restrictions on government power, we must teach our children the value of liberty and keep the spirit of 1776 alive.

I suppose that I did misinterpret your comment, my bad. You bring up some excellent points, and a civil “revolution” is something I can get on board with. Thank your for this enlightening response.

Pevvania, The New United States

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:I think that for the Western Civilization we need strong leaders and guides to their peoples, because we are being attacked on the inside by radicalists who have changed and are changing our system of morality and way of living, atheists, feminists LGTB whatever supporters and so on. You Americans are already lost hope when it comes to the racial purity ("civil rights" and whatever) thing but the globalists have been able to make you lose your racial identity, you would have thought there would be hope for Europe but we are being attacked on the inside and outside by policy makers controlled by the elite, and they are flooding our nations with Muslims who they want us to mix with in order for us to lose our identity so they can bring us under their control, so maybe we should forget the whole liberty thing, take out the threats on the inside (feminists, atheists, people who support unlimited Muslim immigration) and heal the damage they have done (like banning homosexuality in public would be a start and kicking the Muslims out) so we can focus on the threats on the outside before it is too late, which I fear will be soon. I pray that I will one day be able to have a strong king in Iceland to rule over me and my brothers, and he will lead us into battle and win

Just because we have mutual enemies, doesn't mean your ideology isn't just as garbage. I can deal with civic nationalists and in certain contexts, like nationalism vs globalism, I even support it, but ethnic nationalism is a whole other ballgame. It's just as bad as Communism, maybe worse.

Miencraft, Rateria

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:I think that for the Western Civilization we need strong leaders and guides to their peoples, because we are being attacked on the inside by radicalists who have changed and are changing our system of morality and way of living, atheists, feminists LGTB whatever supporters and so on. You Americans are already lost hope when it comes to the racial purity ("civil rights" and whatever) thing but the globalists have been able to make you lose your racial identity, you would have thought there would be hope for Europe but we are being attacked on the inside and outside by policy makers controlled by the elite, and they are flooding our nations with Muslims who they want us to mix with in order for us to lose our identity so they can bring us under their control, so maybe we should forget the whole liberty thing, take out the threats on the inside (feminists, atheists, people who support unlimited Muslim immigration) and heal the damage they have done (like banning homosexuality in public would be a start and kicking the Muslims out) so we can focus on the threats on the outside before it is too late, which I fear will be soon. I pray that I will one day be able to have a strong king in Iceland to rule over me and my brothers, and he will lead us into battle and win

y'all hear sumn?

for real though is this a meme or not i can't tellm

Miencraft, Rateria

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:I think that for the Western Civilization we need strong leaders and guides to their peoples, because we are being attacked on the inside by radicalists who have changed and are changing our system of morality and way of living, atheists, feminists LGTB whatever supporters and so on. You Americans are already lost hope when it comes to the racial purity ("civil rights" and whatever) thing but the globalists have been able to make you lose your racial identity, you would have thought there would be hope for Europe but we are being attacked on the inside and outside by policy makers controlled by the elite, and they are flooding our nations with Muslims who they want us to mix with in order for us to lose our identity so they can bring us under their control, so maybe we should forget the whole liberty thing, take out the threats on the inside (feminists, atheists, people who support unlimited Muslim immigration) and heal the damage they have done (like banning homosexuality in public would be a start and kicking the Muslims out) so we can focus on the threats on the outside before it is too late, which I fear will be soon. I pray that I will one day be able to have a strong king in Iceland to rule over me and my brothers, and he will lead us into battle and win

k

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:y'all hear sumn?

for real though is this a meme or not i can't tellm

It isn't

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:It isn't

reevaluate your life choices.

Miencraft, Rateria

>not wanting to execute gays

wow commie libtard. i bet you like to watch jerome cuck you

Jadentopian Order wrote:reevaluate your life choices.

What do you mean

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:What do you mean

What happened to you that made you racist? Assuming this isn't an elaborate troll. I'm really curious. I get that there's racism that goes back forth and cringe whenever some MTV personality proclaims only white people can be racist and I don't buy the institutionalized racism B.S, but what you believe is ACTUALLY racist, and won't help us win the culture war.

I'm wondering if it was a past experience or something. I know when I was in high school, black dudes would stay calling out my shoes and constantly be making school shooter comments, pretty much any white dude who is slightly alternative looking gets those in High School, but my point is that I get it, but you can't let your experiences define your worldview, you HAVE to use rationality and ethics, otherwise we'll have a society where everyone hates each other.

Miencraft, Rateria

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:What do you mean

I imagine that they're reacting mostly to your mention of "racial purity." Ethnic identity may be important to European nationalists, but most of us here are American, and race and ethnicity don't really play any part in American identity. Thus, we don't care about maintaining "racial purity." A black American is just as much an American as someone of European heritage.

Rateria

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:I think that for the Western Civilization we need strong leaders and guides to their peoples, because we are being attacked on the inside by radicalists who have changed and are changing our system of morality and way of living, atheists, feminists LGTB whatever supporters and so on. You Americans are already lost hope when it comes to the racial purity ("civil rights" and whatever) thing but the globalists have been able to make you lose your racial identity, you would have thought there would be hope for Europe but we are being attacked on the inside and outside by policy makers controlled by the elite, and they are flooding our nations with Muslims who they want us to mix with in order for us to lose our identity so they can bring us under their control, so maybe we should forget the whole liberty thing, take out the threats on the inside (feminists, atheists, people who support unlimited Muslim immigration) and heal the damage they have done (like banning homosexuality in public would be a start and kicking the Muslims out) so we can focus on the threats on the outside before it is too late, which I fear will be soon. I pray that I will one day be able to have a strong king in Iceland to rule over me and my brothers, and he will lead us into battle and win

Wow that's memish thing to say.

Rateria

Unrelated:

"Amazon is boosting its minimum wage for all U.S. workers to $15 per hour starting next month and said it will push for an increase in the federally mandated minimum wage, which now stands at $7.25 per hour."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900034656/amazon-ups-wages-for-350k-says-it-will-advocate-better-pay.html

Terrible news. Bezos has to know the negative effects of the minimum wage. I guess it'll hurt his competition, though. :/

Pevvania, Rateria

The New United States wrote:Unrelated:

"Amazon is boosting its minimum wage for all U.S. workers to $15 per hour starting next month and said it will push for an increase in the federally mandated minimum wage, which now stands at $7.25 per hour."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900034656/amazon-ups-wages-for-350k-says-it-will-advocate-better-pay.html

Terrible news. Bezos has to know the negative effects of the minimum wage. I guess it'll hurt his competition, though. :/

Whelp my prices are gonna skyrocket

The New United States, Rateria

Skaveria wrote:-SNIP-

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:-SNIP-

Jadentopian Order wrote:-SNIP-

Condescension and baseless assumptions don't result in productive dialogue.

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Whelp my prices are gonna skyrocket

Are you a small-business owner?

Rateria

The New United States wrote:Are you a small-business owner?

Technically yes, but i was referencing prices in general.

The New United States, Rateria

The New United States wrote:Condescension and baseless assumptions don't result in productive dialogue.

To be honest I can not take a call for a king and crusade like demeanor seriously. I am not intending to offend any serious opinion but unless he has a reasoning behind this I find it difficult to follow

Rateria

I tried to follow the last 40 posts and digest them.

1. There is already a cultural revolution in the US that emerged with the rise of the New Left from the 60s (and end of the bipartisan Progressive Era. -- Progressive is not Progressivist) that is antithetical to the precepts of Liberty through republican constitutional limited government wherein every individual is to be afforded the most extreme amount of liberty that could be allotted through a self-governing citizenry. The goal is a socialist american state by any means necessary including character assassination of individuals, destruction of our institutions that promote education (in the classical sense), morality (as in understanding the consequences of one's actions and taking responsibility for them --including asinine unintended consequences) and individual accountability. Nothing in politics happens by accident, and the US current predicament of delinquent self-serving pleasure slaves who abandon all beneficent self-interest, self-awareness and objective understanding for the delusions of statist power is part and parcel of our destruction.

2. Technically, we do not need another revolution, we just need to stop the lawlessness in our midst -- the revolution began with the First Internationale, and will not be over until every Hegelian sycophant of Cultural Marxism is educated to reality or if persisting in their criminally insane delusions remanded into the custody of a loving, sane, and responsible legal guardian. Pevv is right on the one point that our public servants have been faithless nepotists who need to be held accountable for their crimes. It is a crime for any officer, agent, or contractor of the US Government to deprive any person of their rights (privileges and immunities) without due process for any reason. Deprivation of rights under the color of authority is a felony. When was the last time a petty bureaucrat was fined, removed, or imprisoned for engaging in mixed war against an otherwise law abiding citizen by denying his/her rights?

3. What the hockey-stick does strong leadership have to do with it? Nothing. Technically we aren't supposed to have leaders, we (the People) are the leaders and the several States are our creatures. Together the States and the People lead the Federal Government to protect us from invasion and insurrection, and do the 17 specific things they were delegated to do on our behalf, no more, no less. They have only one job and that is to to stick to the script -- and they cannot even to that.

4. America isn't a race it is an comprehensive idea/ideal -- one country from many nations of several states forming a federal union. From the beginning we have been a melting pot. We believe that people when given the tools of liberty and equality (in the Classical sense not the antithetical Marxist sense) can and will govern themselves well in social contract with civic virtue and great charity/forebearance. Therein lies the seeds of our greatness.

5. American is different from other nations in that our Nationalism is actually Federalism (an idea not a race); our Patriotism is actually Civic Virtue (a personal activity, not statist warmongering but which is summed up in doing good for ourselves and others objectively with self-interest not thrown out the window), and our populism is not nativist interventionism, but a desire to be be treated fairly and to be left the hell alone from the machinations of others.

Still digesting...

Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

The New United States wrote:Condescension and baseless assumptions don't result in productive dialogue.

I wasn't being condescending, I was genuinely asking. Also, the only thing I said about him was that he's a racist, which he clearly called for a racially pure ethnostate, therefore it wasn't an assumption.

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:I wasn't being condescending, I was genuinely asking. Also, the only thing I said about him was that he's a racist, which he clearly called for a racially pure ethnostate, therefore it wasn't an assumption.

The way I read the post was that you assumed that his views were shaped by a traumatic event (eg bullying) or a character deficiency, without considering the role that culture and place have on such views.

Someone coming from a small, homogenous country like Iceland would probably value preserving ethnic and cultural homogeneity a lot more than we would as Americans.

My point was just that dismissing such views without actually discussing them benefits nobody.

Rateria

The New United States wrote:The way I read the post was that you assumed that his views were shaped by a traumatic event (eg bullying) or a character deficiency, without considering the role that culture and place have on such views.

Someone coming from a small, homogenous country like Iceland would probably value preserving ethnic and cultural homogeneity a lot more than we would as Americans.

My point was just that dismissing such views without actually discussing them benefits nobody.

Ah, I understand, I thought that most Nordic nations were very progressive anyways, so I did assume he was, with the rapid Muslim migration issue, it makes sense there's a backlash.

The New United States, Rateria

The New United States wrote:The way I read the post was that you assumed that his views were shaped by a traumatic event (eg bullying) or a character deficiency, without considering the role that culture and place have on such views.

Someone coming from a small, homogenous country like Iceland would probably value preserving ethnic and cultural homogeneity a lot more than we would as Americans.

My point was just that dismissing such views without actually discussing them benefits nobody.

You clearly don't know Lib (aka, the racist). He's not the type of person who wants discussion. He's called for the beheading of the pope, expressed support for the murder of muslim children for throwing snowballs, supported the drowning foreigners, has called Holocaust survivors liars, supports the genocide of the Jewish nation, wants a hierarchal totalitarian hereditary theocracy in which all the "others" are eliminated, refuses to debate, and blames everything on a secret world governing gang of semites.

He does need to reevaluate his life choices, and the question has merit.

Miencraft, Pevvania, The New United States, Rateria

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:What do you mean

I mean that you sound like a parody of yourself. It reads like Wilhelm wrote it.

Rateria

Beautiful soviet titties

Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:Beautiful soviet titties

The first two words are an oxymoron, the last two words are a non sequitur, the first and last words together are a redundancy

I am in awe

Rateria, The States Of Balloon

Highway Eight wrote:You clearly don't know Lib (aka, the racist). He's not the tupe of person who wants discussion. He's called for the beheading of the pope, expressed support for the murder of muslim children for throwing snowballs, supported the drowning foreigners, has called Holocaust survivors liars, supports the genocide of the Jewish nation, wants a hierarchal totalitarian hereditary theocracy in which all the "others" are eliminated, refuses to debate, and blames everything on a secret world governing gang of semites.

He does need to reevaluate his life choices, and the question has merit.

Oh. Interesting. lol

Rateria

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:I think that for the Western Civilization we need strong leaders and guides to their peoples, because we are being attacked on the inside by radicalists who have changed and are changing our system of morality and way of living, atheists, feminists LGTB whatever supporters and so on. You Americans are already lost hope when it comes to the racial purity ("civil rights" and whatever) thing but the globalists have been able to make you lose your racial identity, you would have thought there would be hope for Europe but we are being attacked on the inside and outside by policy makers controlled by the elite, and they are flooding our nations with Muslims who they want us to mix with in order for us to lose our identity so they can bring us under their control, so maybe we should forget the whole liberty thing, take out the threats on the inside (feminists, atheists, people who support unlimited Muslim immigration) and heal the damage they have done (like banning homosexuality in public would be a start and kicking the Muslims out) so we can focus on the threats on the outside before it is too late, which I fear will be soon. I pray that I will one day be able to have a strong king in Iceland to rule over me and my brothers, and he will lead us into battle and win

k

Rateria, Jadentopian Order

The New United States wrote:I guess it'll hurt his competition, though.

Hmmm, it's almost as if the big lobbyists on the minimum wage issue are actually owners of massive corporations that can afford the hike and know that their competition can't.

The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:IT'S THE BANKS

It's always the banks.

The New United States

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.