Yikes, imagine defending your leftist brethren and then they show you just how honest they are.
perpetual: “No, he wasn’t making death threats!”
WWIII: “Yes I was”
perpetual: “This is all urwrong’s fault!”
Typical of your kind.
Just admit you were wrong perpetual. Say it with me, “I was wrong”.
Now the interesting thing here, is how open and honest everybody is being.
I appreciate that. I appreciate the honesty. See, when you don’t need to hide what you think and feel, you can see where everybody here really stands.
perpetual_burn
lambiguous
shit_smears
zeroeth_nature
kropotkin
dorkydood
All defended this domestic terrorism. And that’s what it is. It’s the Left who started this mess, it’s the Left who continue it, it’s the Left who started the violence.
These are actual-Nazis. They are so busy accusing everybody else of Nazis, that when they got done with their rage, it becomes too obvious who the Fascists are.
And yes, by the way, I am Vindicated.
You all proved me Right.
You need to stop watching Tucker Carlson kiddo, look up the term controlled opposition, that’s all that today’s republicans are. They’re fluff, spineless, or lame duck conservatives. The mainstream media is not your friend, even today’s so called conservative mainstream media, none of it can be trusted. 
Trust no-one other than family and a small group of close friends, that’s where we’re at now.
I was right.
Would is the operative word. “I would love to put a bullet in your head but I am restrained by law, or I’m just too chickenshit to do so” are possible interpretations… That technically is not a direct threat.
However, like I already addressed if you bothered to read thoroughly enough, this is an actual threat that can’t be misinterpreted:
Even the actual second threat isn’t “domestic terrorism.” It’s just a threat from one dude to another…the question is…do you actually feel threatened? Because it doesn’t seem like you do. It seems like you’re just trolling… If you are truly upset about all the lying and cheating surrounding the election (and it seems like you are or were) then don’t diminish your message with hysterical over-reactions and getting into a childish back and forth over who the real Nazi is.
Maybe relatively speaking, but I consider Trump to be much closer to the new barbarians than Hillary.
::
Certainly: see GM I 11—and compare the end of BGE 260: love as a passion was a kind of wilderness, a welcome vacation from the strict discipline of everyday courtly life!
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiulLAnW3bE[/youtube]
Text and translation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_der_linden
::
Well, I have a moderate and an extreme political philosophy. The moderate one is that the small steps of failing and thereby succeeding democracy will have to do for the time being.
“We do not measure with such care:
Woman in thousand steps is there.
But howsoe’er she hasten may,
Man in one leap has cleared the way.”
(Goethe, Faust, I, 3982-85.)
My aim, of course, is to have my extreme political philosophy be carried out as soon as possible: my “panhuman pleistocaust”, that is to say the eco-friendly disposal of most of mankind.
::
Well, yes and no: see BGE 200. I’m reminded:
“‘Have your own way,’ [Sulla] said, ‘but beware of this young man. He wears his belt like a girl, but there is more than one Marius in his heart.’” (Rex Warner, The Young Caesar.)
::
Right, but I in turn am reminded of the following passage, which I already happened to look up earlier today.
“We can easily imagine that a historian living in a totalitarian country, a generally respected and unsuspected member of the only party in existence, might be led by his investigations to doubt the soundness of the government-sponsored interpretation of the history of religion. Nobody would prevent him from publishing a passionate attack on what he would call the liberal view. He would of course have to state the liberal view before attacking it; he would make that statement in the quiet, unspectacular and somewhat boring manner which would seem to be but natural; he would use many technical terms, give many quotations and attach undue importance to insignificant details; he would seem to forget the holy war of mankind in the petty squabbles of pedants. Only when he reached the core of the argument would he write three or four sentences in that terse and lively style which is apt to arrest the attention of young men who love to think. That central passage would state the case of the adversaries more clearly, compellingly and mercilessly than it had ever been stated in the heyday of liberalism, for he would silently drop all the foolish excrescences of the liberal creed which were allowed to grow up during the time when liberalism had succeeded and therefore was approaching dormancy. His reasonable young reader would for the first time catch a glimpse of the forbidden fruit. The attack, the bulk of the work, would consist of virulent expansions of the most virulent utterances in the holy book or books of the ruling party. The intelligent young man who, being young, had until then been somehow attracted by those immoderate utterances, would now be merely disgusted and, after having tasted the forbidden fruit, even bored by them.” (Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing, pp. 24-25, emphasis mine.)
Now ironically, the reason for this art of writing, the threat of persecution, is an example of the passage you quote. Compare:
“[A]ll the world bewails today the evil situation of the philosopher in earlier times, hemmed in between the stake, bad conscience, and the arrogant wisdom of the Church Fathers: the truth, however, is that precisely this was a much more favorable condition for the education of a powerful, comprehensive, cunning and audaciously daring spirituality than the conditions of life at present. […] But things are so much the worse even for superior artists: for are they not, almost all of them, perishing from a lack of inner discipline? They are no longer tyrannized over from without by a church’s tables of absolute values or those of a court; thus they also no longer learn to develop their ‘inner tyrants’, their will. And what is true of artists is true in a higher and more fateful sense of philosophers.” (WP 464.)
But lastly, consider this:
“The wisdom of the Greeks has either no fruit at all or else a pernicious fruit, viz., the doctrine of the eternity of the world—therefore it is extremely dangerous—; but it has blossoms (and evidently beautiful ones)—therefore it is extremely tempting.” (Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing, p109n39.)
Never forget that the core value of Western civilisation is the liberal leap to wisdom, philosophy!
Yep, it’s all my fault, got it.
Attack me, not the one issuing death threats, threats of violence. What a peach.
I’m pissed off because these domestic terrorists need to be stopped, AND, this philosophy forum is now invalidated. He, you, and the rest of the posse reduced to the lowest level.
When you need violence to back your ideas, then you have lost the plot. You defending WWIII right here, and attacking me, proves all I need to know about you.
People don’t know what fascism is.
They think like any kind of nationalism is fascism.
Civic nationalism, economic nationalism…
…protectionism, protecting your borders, your economy…
…asking others to defend themselves or pay for their defense, unilateralism…
DJT is the 1st president since Jimmy Carter not to start a new war.
Biden is much more likely to.
Obama, together with Biden and the Clintons started many new wars.
And domestically, on the economy and society, Trump didn’t govern much differently than a conventional republican, it was his foreign policy and policy regarding foreigners, noncitizens, that set him apart a bit.
Research the difference between paleoconservatism, neoconservatism and fascism.
Paleoconservatism is not fascism, and that’s what Trump did, took the country in a more paleoconservative direction, as opposed to a neoconservative.
Conservatives were sick of neoconservatism, they wanted to get back to their paleoconservative roots in some ways, the conservatism you had from America’s beginning to the mid 20th century, back to the constitution, small government, America minding its own business, not trying to Americanize the world or fight Israel’s battles, a bit more sociocultural conservatism, less sociocultural progressivism/hyper-politically correct.
Neocons slowly took over the republican party during the latter half of the 20th century, and they had a tremendous impact on the democratic party too.
By Bush W’s administration, paleocons had been completely purged from the republican party, and Obama’s admin differed little from Bush’s admin.
The MSM, which pushes a neocon agenda, has bamboozled like a 3rd of Americans into equating any other form of conservatism with fascism.
The reality is, neoconservatism is far closer to fascism than paleoconservatism, but it’s a globalist fascism.
As long as a 3rd of America equates paleoconservatism with fascism, there’ll never be peace.
America won’t give up those values anytime soon, at the very least not for the foreseeable future, not without a fight.
Some paleocons, and libertarians, like Rand Paul, would like to get rid of crony capitalism too, get rid of corporatism, and federalize the private ‘federal reserve’, the banksters and oligopolists wouldn’t like that.
Part of the reason why they have to demonize paleocons and libertarians.
The funny thing is, if Sanders or Tulsi had’ve gotten in there, and stuck to their guns, brought troops home, ended regime change wars and redistributed more wealth from the top tier to the bottom tiers, the MSM would’ve demonized them too, America would be on the lookout for ‘commies’ instead of ‘fascists’.
Libertarians and paleo conservatives are just a bunch of upper middle class bourgeois or wealthy people, they’re not going to do anything other than vent their frustrations because they have too much to lose, they’re always concerned about protecting their financial bottom line because they’re unable to see the bigger picture of things, I don’t really care for them either because of their utter disregard for us working poor.
These republican conservatives can be imbeciles at times, what they can’t see is that us national fascists are the only friends they have at the moment, it’s not the nazis or fascists who are their enemies, it’s the Marxist communists imbeciles!
There’s nothing more stupid, hopeless, or useless than that of a modern neoconservative, but it looks like we fascists will have to show them the light all over again. It’s funny, the modern neoconservative cries out nazi or fascist, yet when the time comes it will be us fascists that will end up saving them from the communist hordes. When that happens they will fall in line kicking, protesting, or screaming of course, but fall in line they will eventually.
Neoliberals and neoconservatives are centrists in an era where political centrism is nonexistent, your real choice and options is either national fascism or international communism, choose wisely. 
There will be a time in the future these ‘nazi’ hating neoconservatives will be paying for a black reparations income tax.
The communists will be like, “Pay up bigots or racists!”, and us national fascists will smirk and grin looking at the neoconservatives saying, “We told you this would happen!” That will be an amusing or very funny day for neoconservatives and national fascists alike, by then neoconservatives won’t even care who is nazi, who isn’t. The absurd charade or facade will be dropped, they’ll join our collective ranks against the communists immediately.
Well, I don’t see eye to eye with them on everything, but I’d rather have national capitalists (paleocons) or global capitalists (libertarians) running things than global corporatists (neocons).
A lot of people are familiar with libertarians and neocons but not with paleocons.
Paleocons and libertarians are similar, in that they’re both constitutionalists (unlike neocons with their patriot act, which undermines the constitution), capitalists and noninterventionists, where they differ is paleocons are nationalists, protectionists, in favor of immigration reduction, and moderately socioculturally conservative, whereas libertarians are globalists and socioculturally libertarian, not conservative, nor progressive.
I agree with paleocons on most things, the main thing I disagree with them on is the economy.
Still, I agree with them a hell of a lot more than with neocons, and paleocons’ hardline stance on the economy could be balanced by the left, just as it was in the mid 20th century.
Well, national fascists would be preferable to the international fascists we have now, altho I’m not a national fascist.
Yea, the neocons at the top are antichristian Zionists, international fascists bordering on Marxists, the ones at the bottom really have no idea what they’re supporting, they’re fools, but some are coming to their senses, hence a resurgence of paleoconservatism and populism.
The neoconservatives and neoprogressives at the top aren’t really centrists, they will keep pushing till the west, and the rest, looks more like China does today.
I speak to people here who are either willing to explore their own moral and political value judgments as “existential fabrications rooted in dasein” or they are not.
To those willing to broach “moderation, negotiation and compromise” as [possibly] the “best of all possible worlds” politically or those who insist that anyone who does not think exactly as they do about “politics” is a scumbag.
And while urwrongx is in a world all to himself when it comes to those you can’t reason with here, yes, there are other fulminating fanatics [mostly right wingers] who come pretty damn close to him. I call them “the objectivists”.
But, as I have noted before, I entertain myself here by mocking and humiliating them. Close to hating them I suppose. But no less given the assumption that my own subjective reaction to them is as well but an existential contraption.
As I’ve always said, I’m a populist, fiscally center-left, socially center-right, there is no party in the US or Canada that represents me, but paleocons, and libertarians come much closer than neocons.
Neocons are trying to demonize paleocons and libertarians.
It’s neocons who’re the fascists, but again they’re international fascists, bordering on Marxists.
The neocons at the bottom have very little idea what they’re supporting, they’re misinformed, but again some of them are catching on.
The Biden admin are basically neocons, there’s very little difference between neocons and, whatever you want to call them, contemporary ‘liberals’.
The US is already in a cold civil war between paleocons and libertarians on the one hand, and neocons and ‘liberals’ on the other, we’ll see if it erupts.
I’ve spoken to enough of them to understand though that its fruitless and meaningless ultimately. I haven’t read much of the paragraphs upon paragraphs these maniacs have been triggered into writing.
I’m a national socialist, I’m conservative on almost everything but economy to which economic socialism within reason is preferable. My economic socialism would be described as a kind of capitalism that fits the social, cultural, biological, metaphysical, intellectual, traditional, and racial needs of the population collectively. I despise democracy, am very much an autocrat, think voting is entirely a sham, and believe a strong leader should rule until they’re dead to which one of their progeny replaces them. There would be no congress or senate in my government, instead there would only be the inner political party structure and some bureaucrats that are constantly watched very closely.
I’m a collectivist not an individualist, and while I respect individual private property I very much believe in the greater general public good.
I believe in a planned economy, embrace nationalism, and think trouble makers overall should just be disappeared.
I’m militaristic believing a strong military is the only way to go forward domestically and internationally.
I very much believe that the only way to a healthy society is having a healthy, prosperous, and happy working class, if the banks give us too much trouble we just send fifty soldiers to the front door of their mansion estate. Same thing with the bank regulators too.
If academia gives us too much problems we simply shut them down, ect and ect.
Again, a bunch of words that define and defend another bunch of words up in a cloudy intellectual contraction that professes to tell us Who You Are.
Well, who are you in regard to what particular set of circumstances in which those Who Are Something Else would insist that Who You Are is not who, as a rational and virtuous human being, You Ought To Be.
What They Are.
Only in regard to that set of circumstances we explore your own value judgment “here and now” given my own approach to human identity out in the is/ought world:
No, seriously this time.
I’m also a national socialist.
Like you, I believe the vast majority of the economy should remain in private hands, but some of the revenue, particularly from the upperclass and big business, should be redistributed to the working class in the form of higher wages, social healthcare, housing and subsidies for small-medium business.
I’m also pro-union.
I believe in reducing, if not eliminating immigration altogether, restricting it to those who’re fiscally and at least culturally compatible with us, and in protecting our housing, jobs and natural resources from being exploited by other nations.
Socioculturally, I’m either in favor of libertarianism, or moderate conservatism, promoting health and traditional culture and values, as opposed to sickness and ‘progressive’ culture and values.
Where you and I differ most, is I’m in favor of constitutional democracy, in free speech, guns, due process, equality before the law, rule of law and so on, whereas you’re in favor of authoritarian dictatorship.
I believe in balancing collectivism, with individualism.
I also believe in having a strong military.
However, I’m not an expansionist.
I don’t believe in preemptive or regime change wars.
Our military’s sole objective oughta be to protect ourselves and our mutual allies from aggressors.
Yea, there should only be one bank, a national, state bank.
It should be able to print money as needed, debt free, and loan it as needed, interest free.
As I believe in free speech, I wouldn’t do that, but I would consider increasing taxes on subversive academia and redistributing the money to, positive academia.
Or if not that, then just giving tax breaks to positive academia.
Lastly, while I think climate change is a doomsday cult, I’m all in favor of clean air, food and water, in improving conditions for livestock and some wildlife conservation.
But this idea that we have to eliminate all fossil fuels or the sky will fall is nonsense.
Covid is also a doomsday cult.
I tend to distrust allopathy in general, naturopathic healthcare oughta precede allopathic.
Transhumanism is a cult.
Either we should approach cybergenetic modification with extreme caution and skepticism, or it should be outright banned.
Populism and individualism must precede all forms of oligarchy, including scientism and technocracy.
Basically we’re both national socialists, but mine is more temperate, harkening back to the Anglosphere during the postwar era, yours is more extreme, harkening back to Italian fascism or German Nazism.
As for Ur and Observr, I’m trying to figure out if they’re libertarians or paleoconservatives? 