[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7sn_syAb3k[/youtube]
Just watch the whole vid, you’ll get an idea of the context from Buggs Bunny. What?
When it comes to the fulminating fanatic objectivists at both ends of the ideological spectrum here, they may as well just be cartoon characters.
As always, it’s not what they think so much as how those who don’t think exactly as they do are fucking “retards”.
As though those who do not sneer wildly at the Australian approach to gun ownership are inherently low-down liberal scumbags who probably deserve to be shot themselves.
Me, while, in the end, no less fractured and fragmented given the rational arguments that can be made from both sides…
…I take my own existential leap to the right to bear arms. There’s just no way in this world – America – am I not going to be armed myself. Especially in the privacy of my own home. Fuck with me there and I will defend myself.
Read 10 pages of any world history, and everybody will learn, citizens need to own guns.
The Government will NOT save you, not from crime, and especially not from TYRANNY.
Seriously…
I challenge anyone here to argue that if Urwrong had the power to lead a nation that tyranny would not be precisely what those who refused to toe his dogmatic, authoritarian line would experience.
Just look at his user name, for christ sakes!!
Nobody takes you seriously, Iamb. Shoo away, you may leave now.
Again, notice how this “clever retort” allows him to avoid altogether addressing my accusation that if he were in power [anywhere], he’d be stomping all of those who disagreed with him into the dirt.
For example, gun ownership.
Has he ever been wrong about it? Now, for most fulminating fanatic objectivists, they can never admit that they were. Why? Because if they admit that they were once wrong about it, they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong about it now too.
The whole point of being a fulminating fanatic objectivist is to be able to anchor your Precious Self to/in a frame of mind that allows you to sustain that comforting and consoling psychological sense that you are “one of us” [the really, really smart] and not “one of them” [the really, really dumb].
But they are so hung up on making that distinction between the masters and the slaves, they almost never possess the intellectual honesty and integrity to even go there.
Go ahead, ask him if he has.
Blep
Blep: “In the internet slang of DoggoLingo, a blep is when an animal, often a dog or cat, has a portion of their tongue hanging out of their mouth.”
Must have something to do with obsrvr524’s…
“Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it”
Go ahead, ask him.
Then ask him to connect the dots between this and gun ownership.
Bleep Bloop Blop
Okay, admittedly, that is in the Second Amendment.
Burp
On the other hand, only a “strict constructionist” would argue that this is. Or, sure, a pinhead.
Bloop
If someone like Lenin or Stalin came to power, the right (and perhaps much of the center and left) would be glad they had guns, if someone like Mussolini came to power, the left (and perhaps much of the center and right) would be glad they had guns.
Ultimately it’s not a question of if, but when will someone from the radical left, right or radical center come to power.
Given today’s political climate, I think sooner than later.
As the US Government becomes exponentially Delegitimized, any leaders who stand against them, resist, will rapidly ascend in political and cultural power.
We will likely see the rise of many, competing Dictators.
Im thinking that it isn’t anymore going to be a question of leadership in the traditional sense. The digital world has all but eviscerated the possibility for such a singular, human figurehead to even be credible. Trump was the end of that politics, at least in the west, it seems to me.
Trumps election itself, the way it happened, speaks to what comes after; the internet. Trump was for a good part elected due to 4Chan, the hacker-geniuses that make up much of the actual power structure in this world. Those people that know how to actually stay hidden, stay free.
But what I mean here is that it will be communities which will justify the principle of rule in the future; not ideological communities, not Communist or Socialist communities, not zealous universalist ones, but communities born out of a sense of personal power in individuals, a sense of being too smart and good to be suppressed by a bunch of [ fill in the blanks ] -
How, when, this is going to happen?
For one thing, these communities will for a good deal be religious, as it is by and large the religious folk, pagans as much as christians, and in the west even, muslims, who reject state-imposed values. Atheists are, im afraid to say, the most susceptible to commandments from the state.
Religious people are in general too well informed about the nature of state power. As Urwrong noted before, this is the central function of original christianity; to resist top down narratives, stay close to the ground.
Any religion that provides for this kind of logos, the bottom-up nature of a healthy human congregation, can thrive in this coming time.
Gods and guns.
Okay, let’s settle this…
Your God, your guns.
What is the most rational and virtuous “bottom-up” political agenda?
What can you all agree on?
Given a whole bunch of vast and varied contexts.
And then we can take your God here to these discussions:
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence a God, the God, your God…Gods?
2] the existence of hundreds spiritual paths to immortality and salvation…only one of which [if any] can be the true path. Your own of course.
3] the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual’s religious faith. I know, I know: let’s not go there.
4] theodicy
God and guns and Pure Evil.
What then prevents these religious communities from eventually growing and transforming back into despotic regimes? This whole pro vs anti-covid, woke vs “red-pilled” Christian or whatever all seem like relatively minor conflicts in-between a much greater conflict of values in the future.
-Genealogy of Morals
.
The communities are not based on religion, I just suggest they are largely composed of religious people, i.e. people who aren’t statists. People who believe in the state are naturally not drawn to such communities.
The communities themselves are based on bottom up approach to mankind, which also precludes socialistic committees and Parties and Churches from having any sway.
And Im not designing these things, I just notice them coming into being around me.
Im not a Christian, mind you. Im a kabbalist and most of all a Viking, in that I raid the spirit-realm and Odin is my supreme deity.
But I do understand the necessity of Christ in a large human society, which is kind of like standing water without such agents; without principles of self-sacrifice and healing.
In the ancient, not so populated world, this stuff wasn’t necessary, but now, in our overcrowded world, it is. Or so it seems to me.
Yeah, if not for Marx and the massive slavishness that clings to him.
For Nietzsche, gods were largely metaphor for powers; for me, they are real entities. This is why I struggle with religions - for example, I believe in the existence of Christ and even in the necessity of employing it, but am no Christian - this sort of thing causes some challenges.
A good answer here is the predominance of ancestral gods. Odin is my ancestral God, as I am in both lines from North- and East-Sea peoples, and it must be for this reason that these Gods are so manifest with me.
These Gods are real, and efficient, this is why I do not treat religion analytically like Nietzsche does, but politically.