• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Legitimate Peace And Unity Begins

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
21,615
Reaction score
7,017
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Actually, what I said is entirely accurate. But what I hope that you will notice is that simply by stating a fact you implicate me in moral malevolence. And this is all that I wish to point out: the assignment of moral defectiveness. Your-plural essential argument, insofar as it is an argument, is in this. It begins in this and it reduces to this. And when you are seen as losing a bad argument, you turn really viscious.

That viciousness is present and visible all around us. And the Left-Progressives in the form of the American Democratic Party wield this viciousness in a destructive. acidic manner.

Now is it becoming clear to you? How many times must I drag you through the same rehearsals?!?

What I suggest is that you linger on this. Examine it. Think about it. Talk about it.

Turn the lens of examination around to focus on yourself.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric emboldened the racists for a little while. He kinda spooked the herd and created a rather dangerously destructive stampede for a little while- all for personal agenda of fame and power. He himself has a Jewish son-in-law and a daughter who converted to Judaism and doesn’t care about this nonsense. He just played off of it a little but.

Your fears and misunderstandings were played for a little while. Don’t get too excited. It’s not the beginning of anything. It’s the end. You are going to have to go back and brush up on those pesky social skills you learned back in kindergarten again: play nice, share, and don’t forget your p’s and q’s.

Psychopathic glee and narcissism are so 2016.
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
135
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
The talk of being Anglo-Saxon was mostly propaganda during WWII to express solidarity with the UK against Germany. Like all propaganda, it was not accurate of course, but only to serve a political purpose. Do you really think the majority ethnic group in the US during WWII was Anglo—Saxon? Not at all. It was actually only around 12%.
But what I said was: "...up until 1965 the nation The United States of America was an Anglo-Saxon nation. This is not my word-choice. It was part of the lexicon of terms that were used to describe America by America."

And the point I made is that there was a deliberate effort, arranged by managing elites, to change the fact of America.

Biden himself refer to "folks like me of Caucasian of European descent". That is what I am referring to. Define it through whatever nomenclature that suits you.

Define the composition of America up to that point as as Anglo-American, or Anglo-Saxon, or Pan-Germanic, or South or North European, it doesn't alter the point I make: Social and political conflict are coming to a head in the country and the demographic shifts, in my view, play a significant part.

And the further point that can be made is that the Left-Progressive faction has become, for various reasons, a champion of this process. And they structure their arguments in favor of it in moral terms, and attack those who question or disfavor it in terms of moral condemnation. And as you are aware I have presented you previously with a picture-perfect description of this.

What I suggest is that it is not immoral and it is not unethical to examine the issue, to consider it, to talk about it. Yet I do suggest, because it is obviously true, that such a conversation and such concern is associated with moral deviancy.
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
135
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Donald Trump’s rhetoric emboldened the racists for a little while. He kinda spooked the herd and created a rather dangerously destructive stampede for a little while -- all for personal agenda of fame and power. He himself has a Jewish son-in-law and a daughter who converted to Judaism and doesn’t care about this nonsense. He just played off of it a little but.

Your fears and misunderstandings were played for a little while. Don’t get too excited. It’s not the beginning of anything. It’s the end. You are going to have to go back and brush up on those pesky social skills you learned back in kindergarten again: play nice, share, and don’t forget your p’s and q’s.

Psychopathic glee and narcissism are so 2016.
I am fully aware that simply by mentioning the area and the topic as I did that I am opening up examination into an area that is understood, viscerally and by all, as being exceedingly fraught and also morally dangerous. You can get into serious trouble if you have any social standing and you dare to speak on these topics.

You are aware of this as well, naturally, and seek to exploit the sentiments that are aroused. This is a forbidden zone and one is discouraged from broaching it and even perhaps from thinking about it. You yourself show how it quickly becomes literally ad hominem and you get down immediately to brass tacks. You wield your narratives so to destroy. I am interest in your *psychology* just as much as you are interested in mine. What I do is to turn the moral argument around. It is entirely moral and compleley ethical to a) have the conversation, and b) to be concerned about these issues and what they mean.

But one must understand that these are, as I say, absolutelt forbidden topics. Crimethink in the Orwellian sense.

Is it getting any clearer what I am trying to point out to you?

And that is, of course, why I focus in it. Because it is in the 'forbidden areas' that we can most quickly notice how ideological manipulation and intellectual coercion occur. As I say these are wielded sentiments. And they are deadly.

We do not live in a society that values, or understands, free-speech nor free-thought. We live in coercive intellectual environments in which these are shut down.

Donald Trump, for reasons that he might not even have understod, reacted against a general process that had been going on in America. Could he articulate it? I am uncertain. Donald Trump, kind of like a belligerent disobedient child, said things that no politician could ever say. He demonstrated an unruly will against being made to conform. And this act won him great admiration.

I have been writing here over numerous posts about what the essential issues are. But I have not gone on to make moral or ethical arguments either for or against the demographic shifts that cause social conflict. I simply want to point out *what is*.

That is your vicious term: racist! It is a weapon in your hands. You're a killer. And it is a weapon in the hands of the Left-Progressive class that has learned to wield it with deadly force. I only want to point this out. It is, indeed it is, one of the primary language-tools in that Alinsky tool-box.

When it is examined in its entirety its deviousness and underhandedness can quickly be seen and exposed -- and I would hope defeated.
 
Last edited:

Checkerboard Strangler

Hindsight is 2020
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
39,925
Reaction score
22,484
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The undocumented population > MAGA assholes. Ain’t even close.
Exactly.
In 1951 America fell in love with a Cuban bandleader with a funny accent.
He could have easily been a Cuban who came here on a rusty old boat and wet footed his way here one step ahead of the shoeshine.
The whole Trumpian approach to who deserves to be here goes against everything we stand for.
We are supposed to be the melting pot where everyone loves their heritage but everyone also makes the effort to reinterpret that heritage as a contributing member of American society.
And the funny thing is, we can tell that the candle wasn't completely snuffed out when Trumpians echoed the infamous "Taco trucks on every corner" speech.
A majority of Americans mocked it because they could tell that it was codespeak for some explicitly racist messages.

“My culture is a very dominant culture, and it’s imposing and it’s causing problems. If you don’t do something about it, you’re going to have taco trucks on every corner.”

Everyone from Jimmy Kimmel to Tim Allen to Gabriel Iglesias guffawed, and the social media erupted and the #tacosoneverycorner tag went viral.
"On EVERY corner? Taco trucks on EVERY corner? WOW! That's so awesome!!" 🤣 :love: 🤣

All I ask is that they have a clean record, a little something to OFFER our country, the willingness to learn at least basic English and the willingness to become a good American and to understand our history, heritage and laws.
Love us and we will love you right back.
I don't think that is asking too much and apparently a lot of people from other countries agree.
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
135
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
There is a strange but interesting article in the NYTs today:
Military Chiefs Remind Troops of Their Oath After Fallout From Assault on Capitol

The Joint Chiefs of Staff told the United States’ armed forces to defend the Constitution and reject extremism in a memo that condemned last week’s violence.

WASHINGTON — The military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff sent an unusual message to the entire American armed forces on Tuesday reminding them that their job was to support and defend the Constitution, and declaring that Joseph R. Biden Jr. would soon be their next commander in chief.

“As we have done throughout our history, the U.S. military will obey lawful orders from civilian leadership, support civil authorities to protect lives and property, ensure public safety in accordance with the law, and remain fully committed to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” said the one-page memorandum signed by the eight senior officers who serve as the Joint Chiefs.

“As service members, we must embody the values and ideals of the nation,” the memo continued. “We support and defend the Constitution. Any act to disrupt the constitutional process is not only against our traditions, values and oath; it is against the law.”
That the chiefs, led by Gen. Mark A. Milley of the Army, found it necessary to remind their rank and file of their sworn oath to the country was extraordinary. But the memo came as federal law enforcement authorities were pursuing more than 150 suspects, including current or former service members, involved in the mob that stormed the Capitol last week.

It was also the latest example of an apolitical American military and its top leadership thrust into an awkward, even potentially dangerous, position of possibly having to weigh dubious orders from the president against their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Defense Department officials have expressed worries this week that some of the rioters who assaulted the Capitol are former military members. While the Pentagon has not announced a specific search for deployed National Guard troops with sympathies for the pro-Trump protesters, officials said they were reviewing photographs and videos from the siege.
This obviously points to a very definite seriousness in this political crisis. It also indicates that this is not simply something that will fade away. As I have said I have a very strong feeling -- intuition, a sense -- that we are now living in the outcome of an elaborate election fraud. The more that I think about it, the more that it seems likely. Put another way I'd say that it was understood as necessary that a fraud be perpetrated, in conjunction with all the underhanded actions of the Tech companies and the collusion between powerful interests to undermine Donald Trump (the Russian collusion scandal, etc.)

There is an on-going effort, a very brazen and open, to turn back a tide that has been set in motion and which has popular roots. As I have said there is an ideological régime which is now making very concerted efforts to consolidate the power it has recently gotten or achieved. Yet what this power-faction intends, what they will do, is clearly evident as they start to silence the voices of their critics. Censorship, demonitization, no-fly lists, something equivalent to mediated 'show trials'. This indicates *who they really are* and this shows, beyond any question, where they intend to take things.

Now the really strange thing is that the Left-Progressives (whose face is the Democratic Party) is substantially supported by the most powerful Tech companies of the day, and these Tech companies have the capability of near-absolute control over the *flow of information* -- that which is said to be essential in a republican democracy. It extends to banking, CC processors, academic institutions, to gaining employment. They say 'We must protect our democracy' while they engage directly in actions understood by all to destroy functioning democracy. Oh what a Brave New World has such people in 't!

In my mind it is because they are doing this right now, because they reveal their hand, and because this is so obviously insidious by any conceivable measure, that this indicates that they would certainly have been capable of subverting an election! And that is the basis of my *intuited reasoning*.

That high military officials have to remind servicemen and women that they are subject to civilian authority indicates to me that they recognize that the validity of the civic authority is profoundly questioned right now. This points to a *loss of faith* in the System itself.

The Chinese 'blessing' -- or is it a curse -- applies here: May you live in interesting times!
 
Last edited:

Checkerboard Strangler

Hindsight is 2020
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
39,925
Reaction score
22,484
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
[cont. from previous]

I want to comment on:

The Legacy Media has not in any sense offered a fair and realistic picture of those -- about 1/2 of the voting nation -- who favor and appreciate Trump. So right now they are working a very pointed angle of representing them in the worst possible light. This is a devious PR and propaganda effort and is related, of course, to the original description: the deplorables. [French déplorer, lament, regret, from Latin dēplōrāre : dē-, de- + plōrāre, to wail.]

What takes place here is that The Legacy Media through PR and propaganda techniques focuses your hatred and your virulent contempt into a hatred . . . for your own people. This is something -- a phenomenon -- that needs to be examined closely. You will betray your own people, but this also means your own selves, through some strange but very questionable moral manoeuvre. I simply want to say that though you are free to sell out your own people, and your own nation, I can definitely state that I will never go along with you. And as I say I will work 24/7/364 to expose you for what (I believe) you are.

That 'focused hatred' and 'hysterical rage' do interest me, I mean in the sense that it is a phenomenon worthy of objective study. I suppose I must confess that it is one of the reasons why I simply do not believe anything you say, nor anything the leaders of the Progressive-Left ideological regime through the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party says. This is why I wrote about their duplicitousness.

We are in no sense at the beginning of some *healing* process -- only an idiot could fall into such a ludicrous belief -- we are at the beginning of a long and protracted political and social struggle. "We are men of action. Lies do not become us".
Bullshit, absolute utter bullshit.
Trump is the one who conditioned Americans to hate each other, that was his entire raison dêtre.
And he was doing it long before he ever even considered running for public office.
Your kneejerk reflex of blaming media smells of anti-press hatred that is part and parcel of Trump's authoritarianism.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with Left versus Right either because Trump was a Democrat all the way up until 2009 when Obama got elected.
We wouldn't have him. We already HAD our "Trump Moment" back when Lyndon LaRouche tried to run three times as a Democrat, soundly rejected every single time, and if Trump had been embraced BY the Democratic Party you would be talking to an EX-DEMOCRAT right now, understand?
 

Tlrmln

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
6,084
Reaction score
1,882
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Republicans must:

  • To a man and woman acknowledge the elections were legitimate, Biden won fairly, and Donald Trump’s fantastical claims of election rigging were just that. They must acknowledge the voter fraud hoax they used as a predicate for their campaigning.
  • Those who incited the insurrection by backing these claims should resign. Cruz and Hawley have to go, for sure.
  • Donald Trump must be impeached with strong bi-partisan support. Removal, should it come now or next congress, same. Both parties must speak with one voice where he is concerned.
  • LEadership must ratchet way down the Rush Limbaification of their rhetoric. Stop using commie marxist socialist interchangably in response to virtually every policy proposal a Democratic politician makes (be adults, and stop with the dumb DEMOCRAT POL shit). Stop calling your voters “patriots” vs everyone else.
  • Republican voters themselves need to take a breath and instead of demanding we listen to ”74m of us” stop to think there were 81m who disagreed, we are Americans too, and we should have a say as well. The idea that the 74m are the single most important group of humans in the country demanding all of our oxygen is an idea that needs to be put to bed.
Notice none of these bullet points require accepting policies you don’t agree with, polticians you don’t wish to vote for, etc. But if your expression of peace and unity is simply demanding no accountablity for the GOP while still telling us it was a rigged election and we’re all commies, and George Soros, blah blah nope. Nope.

Elections have consequences.
So, in a nutshell, everyone who disagrees with you has to shut up and give you what you want.

Is there any issue on which you'd be willing to compromise if you were in charge?
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
135
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Trump is the one who conditioned Americans to hate each other, that was his entire raison d'être.
With this I disagree. I think that it was the Obama administration that put into motion many trends that have come to fruition in our present. And my argument is based on the understanding that Mr Obama himself was a trained Alinsky-style activist.

The entire purpose of Alinsky-style activism is to create situations of conflict that can then be exploited for purposes of political gain. But here is the important part: these Alinsky-style activists assume a mask or a costume of angel-pure righteousness. That is how they present themselves. They *sell* themselves, as it were, through these false appearances.

But when they achieve power -- and this is what we all are witnessing now, today -- they immediately demonstrate, with no ambiguity, what their real intentions are. Effectively that is the elimination of opposition and the marginalization of their enemies.

This is what we are facing today. You see, everything is upside-down!

The proof is in the pudding! These are the *apples* that fall not far from the tree. A tree is known by the *fruit* it produces. You catch my drift of course . . .
 

Aunt Antifa

The most powerful woman in the world
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
13,917
Reaction score
5,939
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
So, in a nutshell, everyone who disagrees with you has to shut up and give you what you want.

Is there any issue on which you'd be willing to compromise if you were in charge?
When it comes to respecting our democracy and votes? Nope.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Hindsight is 2020
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
39,925
Reaction score
22,484
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
With this I disagree. I think that it was the Obama administration that put into motion many trends that have come to fruition in our present. And my argument is based on the understanding that Mr Obama himself was a trained Alinsky-style activist.

The entire purpose of Alinsky-style activism is to create situations of conflict that can then be exploited for purposes of political gain. But here is the important part: these Alinsky-style activists assume a mask or a costume of angel-pure righteousness. That is how they present themselves. They *sell* themselves, as it were, through these false appearances.

But when they achieve power -- and this is what we all are witnessing now, today -- they immediately demonstrate, with no ambiguity, what their real intentions are. Effectively that is the elimination of opposition and the marginalization of their enemies.

This is what we are facing today. You see, everything is upside-down!

The proof is in the pudding! These are the *apples* that fall not far from the tree. A tree is known by the *fruit* it produces. You catch my drift of course . . .
Nope, and you just proved that you do not know the first thing about Saul Alinsky and you also don't know that the group that embraced him the most i recent times was the Tea Party. Dick Armey of FreedomWorks ordered EVERYONE to read Rules for Radicals from cover to cover.
And as usual the Tea Party Republicans could not comprehend the PURPOSE of R4R right from the start either.
They did not understand HOW to USE the tools, as usual.

"The entire purpose of Alinsky-style activism is to create situations of conflict that can then be exploited for purposes of political gain. But here is the important part: these Alinsky-style activists assume a mask or a costume of angel-pure righteousness. That is how they present themselves. They *sell* themselves, as it were, through these false appearances"

Alinsky wasn't interested in creating conflict, he was interested in crushing the other side, period.
There is no such thing as an "Alinsky-style activist" because Saul Alinsky wanted his book to be a tool of revolution, not activism.
Activism is for petitioners and leaders of a cause. Causes do not always involve revolution, Mothers Against Drunk Driving did not work to trigger a revolution, they just wanted to engineer useful social change so that drunk driving wasn't "okay anymore".
Conflict is an illusion because there is only one real conflict: WAR.
Everything else is just street theater and virtue signaling. The Right actually understands this better than anyone.
Doesn't mean they are always competent at it but they understand it because some things are very cut and dried.

You do not even realize that the reason the old Left eventually gave up Alinsky is because back in that era, we had WON, and Alinsky was no longer a needed tool. Alinsky's ideas are only suited to ONE purpose, TAKING POWER from an establishment structure.
There is not a single word in R4R that talks about HOW TO LEAD once you HAVE taken power because Saul Alinsky was only interested in counseling how to do battle to win. And the Left had plenty of other tools for that, some of them even a bit conservative, to be honest.
In fact, a mild schism eventually materialized because, just like the Tea Party, the FAR LEFT stuck with Alinskyite tactics and continued to slash and burn all the way to the Chicago Convention. And as a result, our divided house fell.

You have proven that everything you believe was taught to you by rote, probably from PragerU, I can smell a Prager devotee from fifty miles away, you all sound alike, you all argue alike and you all trot out the same tired and debunked tropes.
Next I expect you will wax poetic on "Why America has never been a democracy", right?

Maybe you could read Al....no never mind, you'll just Google something and try to pretend you understand something that you had no intention of learning about in the first place. You think you're coming off as some kind of teacher.
Do you know how many idiots on this forum are convinced they are "educating the ignorant?"
It's about one third of the entire membership, and you think you've claimed the podium.

You might want to drop the pedagogue bit.
 

Aunt Antifa

The most powerful woman in the world
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
13,917
Reaction score
5,939
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Right, because it's that simple.
If you believe and/or support folks that insist the election was stolen, unity is impossible. And unnecessary. The constitution isn’t a suicide pact.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
21,615
Reaction score
7,017
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Define the composition of America up to that point as as Anglo-American, or Anglo-Saxon, or Pan-Germanic, or South or North European, it doesn't alter the point I make: Social and political conflict are coming to a head in the country and the demographic shifts, in my view, play a significant part.
There has never been a time where there were no demographic shifts- in the US or Europe. Here in America, at first it was the American Indians. Then it was the protestant Anglo-Saxon with their African Americans. Then the Irish came. Then the Germans, and then the Poles, and then the Czechs, and then the Jews, and then the Catholics, and then the Chinese, and then the Greeks and Italians, and then... And there were always conflicts. Nothing is coming to a head. It has always been this way. It's just been handled in better and worse ways.

You make it sound like there were no demographic changes until Catholic Londoners were displaced.

Maybe Donald Trump and his Jewish daughter and son-in-law will help you in your anti-Zionist quest to purify the nation. Good luck!
 
Last edited:

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
21,615
Reaction score
7,017
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am fully aware that simply by mentioning the area and the topic as I did that I am opening up examination into an area that is understood, viscerally and by all, as being exceedingly fraught and also morally dangerous. You can get into serious trouble if you have any social standing and you dare to speak on these topics.

You are aware of this as well, naturally, and seek to exploit the sentiments that are aroused. This is a forbidden zone and one is discouraged from broaching it and even perhaps from thinking about it.
Lacking social skills and denying other people their humanity based on things they have no control over (height, weight, baldness or full head of hair, being too hairy or hairless, handicapped or disabled, skin tone, hair color, what religion or village the family they were born into happened to be, etc...) has never been acceptable. Wanting to be hurtful to others based on these things will usually draw visceral reactions. I am somewhat surprised your mom or kindergarten teacher never taught you that. Or maybe you have just forgotten.
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
135
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
You might want to drop the pedagogue bit.
But it suits me so well...
You have proven that everything you believe was taught to you by rote, probably from PragerU, I can smell a Prager devotee from fifty miles away, you all sound alike, you all argue alike and you all trot out the same tired and debunked tropes. Next I expect you will wax poetic on "Why America has never been a democracy", right?

Maybe you could read Al....no never mind, you'll just Google something and try to pretend you understand something that you had no intention of learning about in the first place. You think you're coming off as some kind of teacher. Do you know how many idiots on this forum are convinced they are "educating the ignorant?" It's about one third of the entire membership, and you think you've claimed the podium.
I did read Alinky's Rules For Radicals. I was contemplating reading it again. When I read it I felt that I grasped it. Awhile ago now but I did expose myself to it. My formation has not been through PragerU. It began with Richard Weaver and Robert Bork.

In fact nothing was taught by *rote* as you say.
Do you know how many idiots on this forum are convinced they are "educating the ignorant?"
Exactly 57?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,259
Reaction score
33,023
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is a strange but interesting article in the NYTs today:


This obviously points to a very definite seriousness in this political crisis. It also indicates that this is not simply something that will fade away. As I have said I have a very strong feeling -- intuition, a sense -- that we are now living in the outcome of an elaborate election fraud. The more that I think about it, the more that it seems likely. Put another way I'd say that it was understood as necessary that a fraud be perpetrated, in conjunction with all the underhanded actions of the Tech companies and the collusion between powerful interests to undermine Donald Trump (the Russian collusion scandal, etc.)

There is an on-going effort, a very brazen and open, to turn back a tide that has been set in motion and which has popular roots. As I have said there is an ideological régime which is now making very concerted efforts to consolidate the power it has recently gotten or achieved. Yet what this power-faction intends, what they will do, is clearly evident as they start to silence the voices of their critics. Censorship, demonitization, no-fly lists, something equivalent to mediated 'show trials'. This indicates *who they really are* and this shows, beyond any question, where they intend to take things.

Now the really strange thing is that the Left-Progressives (whose face is the Democratic Party) is substantially supported by the most powerful Tech companies of the day, and these Tech companies have the capability of near-absolute control over the *flow of information* -- that which is said to be essential in a republican democracy. It extends to banking, CC processors, academic institutions, to gaining employment. They say 'We must protect our democracy' while they engage directly in actions understood by all to destroy functioning democracy. Oh what a Brave New World has such people in 't!

In my mind it is because they are doing this right now, because they reveal their hand, and because this is so obviously insidious by any conceivable measure, that this indicates that they would certainly have been capable of subverting an election! And that is the basis of my *intuited reasoning*.

That high military officials have to remind servicemen and women that they are subject to civilian authority indicates to me that they recognize that the validity of the civic authority is profoundly questioned right now. This points to a *loss of faith* in the System itself.

The Chinese 'blessing' -- or is it a curse -- applies here: May you live in interesting times!
You're pretty good at using as many words as possible to say as little as possible.

Have fun self-justifying fascism, though. Nobody gives a shit about your intuition. You're alleging the largest crime in the history of the country and you have absolutely no evidence to support it. What you really have is faith in a god you created for yourself.
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
135
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
There has never been a time where there were no demographic shifts -- in the US or Europe.
But this does not have much bearing on what I have been alluding to.

But please notice that what you are now doing is dragging me down into a bickering back-and-forth more related to your own misunderstanding of what I say than what I am saying.

You are entirely free to advocate for the sort of society you wish to live in. You can even argue for the one that you feel is best. But what you cannot successfully do is create a sound and grounded ethical argument either for the society you envision, or an argument against those who have a different vision. My arguments are based in a more substantial ethics.

My points really have to do with the issue of ethics and morality. You-plural are *moralizing demons* and you beat people up and manipulate them with your sermons and harangues. You employ a dubious ethical argument. You are free to do that. But I am free to dismantle your tactic.

And I am similarly free to develop an ethical and moral argument that would defend the sound base in ethics of people who wish to protect their communities and resist massive social engineering. That is what this issue is about.

This is my main point. It is part of *seeing things as they are* so that the present can be better seen and understood. My object is to disentangle the spider-webs of your-plural devious rhetoric. I admit that it is really a great deal of fun. I really enjoy all of this. I hope you do too!
 
Last edited:

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
135
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Have fun self-justifying fascism, though. Nobody gives a shit about your intuition. You're alleging the largest crime in the history of the country and you have absolutely no evidence to support it. What you really have is faith in a god you created for yourself.
The operative part in what you wrote is in the accusation of being a fascist. Again, this is what you-plural do. You don't have coherent arguments, you have emotional declarations that intend to vilify. That is your primary tool. When you locate your 'enemy' all you need to do is hurl the accusations. They do all the work for you. Except in my case. I am 99.5% immune.

I'd feel more insulted if you criticized one of my soups! or my mousseline! Now that would hurt . . .

It is not that I have *no evidence*. I am not in a position to make ultimate assessments or come to conclusions. I vocalize my suspicions and clearly explain why I have them. It is a contingent mode of argument, I admit, but right now it is what I am working with. It is all anyone can work with.

In time I will either be proven wrong or, perhaps, proven right.

Is there a third option?
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Hindsight is 2020
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
39,925
Reaction score
22,484
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But it suits me so well...

I did read Alinky's Rules For Radicals. I was contemplating reading it again. When I read it I felt that I grasped it. Awhile ago now but I did expose myself to it. My formation has not been through PragerU. It began with Richard Weaver and Robert Bork.

In fact nothing was taught by *rote* as you say.

Exactly 57?
Still, Alinsky is not a tool of guidance for leadership and, once the Tea Party Right had won, they should have dropped it and turned back to mentors like Goldwater, if they really wanted to restore conservatism.
I find it incredible that they and their Trumpian descendants embraced not only Trump, but Bannon, Stone, literally every RW version of a bomb-throwing radical imaginable.

Speaking AS one who leans center-Left, I no longer draw from Alinsky and I do not think Obama did either, not by the time he was running for POTUS.
We are not going to find common ground on this because I suspect where we differ is probably around the areas of Reaganism and Trickle Down.
But we do not have to sync up in perfect harmony. Ike Eisenhower didn't try to blow up the New Deal.
Reaganism was ultimately a repudiation of the New Deal, and if you're in the mood to blow up the New Deal, I guess the way to do it is to call every social program socialism and communism and label anyone who is in favor of them divisive and radical.
I get the RW boilerplate, I know how it works. It is older than I am, and I am pretty old.
 

Alizia Tyler

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
135
Location
Colombia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Reaganism was ultimately a repudiation of the New Deal, and if you're in the mood to blow up the New Deal, I guess the way to do it is to call every social program socialism and communism and label anyone who is in favor of them divisive and radical.

I get the RW boilerplate, I know how it works. It is older than I am, and I am pretty old.
Despite any appearance to the contrary I respect your opinions and I always listen to what people say. I get your point, too. But I might refer to one 'Alinsky-tactic' that I think applies to the animus directed against Trump:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
I also admit to having numerous contradictions. For example I think Reaganism did a great deal of damage to America's social fabric. And I also understand why you would advocate against *blowing up the New Deal*. I also acknowledge that people use the term 'communism' sloppily.

But let me ask you this: How would you fairly and accurately describe the latest endeavor by Big Tech in concert with government to significantly limited free-speech, to demonetize people, and all that we notice taking place just recently? Where does this come from? And what are its ends going to be?

I really do relate to the former values of the Democratic Party, or at least one major plank of it: respect for and protection of the working class, and the working man's family.

I advocate against what I understand to be a *massive sell-out* by the élite class in America. And it is them that have acted against America's demographic integrity. This is not a racist statement! The largest power-concentrations always look for ways and means of to weaken and control people.

I believe that I understand what you mean by the right-wing boilerplate. However, I am more involved with and attracted to the ideas of the Dissident Right. It tends to attack standard republicanism for its toothlessness. I regard Republicans as corrupt in many ways.

In any case: Don't give up on communicating your values and your points. That is what this really should be about.
 
Last edited:

Tlrmln

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
6,084
Reaction score
1,882
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
If you believe and/or support folks that insist the election was stolen, unity is impossible. And unnecessary. The constitution isn’t a suicide pact.
Who said I believe that? Why start a thread about unity, if you don't actually want to talk about unity?
 

Aunt Antifa

The most powerful woman in the world
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
13,917
Reaction score
5,939
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Who said I believe that? Why start a thread about unity, if you don't actually want to talk about unity?
As he OP explains, there can’t be unity without certain conditions met. GOP spent 2 months lying to its base, giving Trump’s false claims about the election oxygen.

Unity without justice and accountability is a false peace.
 
Top Bottom