The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[FlashDangerpants]

By speaking, I'm not being anybody's particular ally here. Only Leftists think in such partisan terms. I'm merely agreeing with a speaker in regard to those elements of his thinking he's got right. I don't know about the rest. And so far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the political conversation we're actually having. But if he doesn't like Jews or blacks, then there's an area in which we're going to disagree as strongly as we agree about Leftist tactics.

A couple of comments

One, Flash seems to set himself up as the Though Police. However, because I was curious, I searched Wizard’s posts and find nothing offensive.

You wouldn't be expected to find it offensive, you are a bit of a holocaust denier and a fan of racial segregation after all.

[Immanuel Can]

By speaking, I'm not being anybody's particular ally here. Only Leftists think in such partisan terms. I'm merely agreeing with a speaker in regard to those elements of his thinking he's got right. I don't know about the rest. And so far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the political conversation we're actually having. But if he doesn't like Jews or blacks, then there's an area in which we're going to disagree as strongly as we agree about Leftist tactics.

A couple of comments

One, Flash seems to set himself up as the Though Police. However, because I was curious, I searched Wizard’s posts and find nothing offensive.

That's interesting.

In my view Judaism in and of itself can be fairly and honestly critiqued.

Anything can. But the Left thinks not. That's why they love the term "hate speech" so much, as well as "deplatforming" and "silencing," and why they insist there's such a thing as "verbal violence," and even that people who say they feel offended have been "subjected to violence." Once again, they're playing their propagandistic game of melding good values with bad ones through amphibolizing language.

Therefore, the “free speech” and free thought issue arises here very strongly.

It certainly does.

When you encounter things you cannot talk or think about, you should be aware that you are the subject of oppressive ideological control.

Or and attempt thereat. One does not have to capitulate to the bullying. Their position is not strong.

But as an afterthought, you and I certainly disagree about Judaism, and sometimes quite forcefully. However, in this case, that does not impede me from agreeing with your present thoughts. Only a Leftist would argue that any conversation with the opposition tars one by association. But then, their minds are exceedingly narrow, and their goal is not discourse but partisanship.

[commonsense]

Only Leftists think in such partisan terms.

Impressively self-contradictory even by your standards.

Projection, on your part.

Ditto

[FlashDangerpants]

By speaking, I'm not being anybody's particular ally here. Only Leftists think in such partisan terms. I'm merely agreeing with a speaker in regard to those elements of his thinking he's got right. I don't know about the rest. And so far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the political conversation we're actually having. But if he doesn't like Jews or blacks, then there's an area in which we're going to disagree as strongly as we agree about Leftist tactics.

A couple of comments

One, Flash seems to set himself up as the Though Police. However, because I was curious, I searched Wizard’s posts and find nothing offensive.

That's interesting.

Yeah ..... well he wrote this....

Jews made the west wealthy for a while?..... how did they do that?

By providing huge amounts of loans at low interest to Western countries, through the banks, from the 1950s onward.

Nowadays, the US just barely agreed to increasing the US debt by trillions of dollars. Eventually this magic funny money won't work.

Then the chickens will come home to roost.


And you will get your chance to see real anti-semitism and meet these real nazis you so greatly adulate.

And he wrote this....

I don't think Trump is in anyway connected to the Sins of Ukraine. Ukraine has a puppet-president Zelensky, who is a staunch Israeli-Zionist-Jew. Zelensky has no issue with sending millions of Slavs to their deaths, in a mass genocide and human sacrifice. Outsiders should have a moral problem with this. But...Ukraine has a long history of foreign rule and foreign rulers. Sadly, they are 'used to' this oppression by foreign interests. Ukrainians are notorious for having their daughters stolen and kidnapped into the globalist child sex rings. Some of these are used for Satanic, human blood child sacrifices.

So I'm gonna have to say that Jacobi .... who found himself entirely unable to say that the conspiracy theory that holds that the Holocaust was invented (under jewish orders) to make the Nazis look bad was false ... is maybe not a good judge for this sort of thing.

[Immanuel Can]

So I'm gonna have to say that Jacobi .... who found himself entirely unable to say that the conspiracy theory that holds that the Holocaust was invented (under jewish orders) to make the Nazis look bad was false ... is maybe not a good judge for this sort of thing.

A sensible person can agree about some issues, and disagree with the same speaker about others, and keep it all without hatred or spite. We have before us particular propositions to consider; have you any interest in them at all, or are you simply interested in tarring the speaker in order to dismiss everything he/she ever says?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You wouldn't be expected to find it offensive, you are a bit of a holocaust denier and a fan of racial segregation after all.

Right, and your rôle is as the Thought Police. You do not at all understand my views, but you feel you can say anything you want to if it furthers your slanderous efforts. When you do this, you expose yourself for what you actually are. Now, I did not create you. You do this all by yourself. Why?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So I'm gonna have to say that Jacobi .... who found himself [viewtopic.php?t=35451&start=195] entirely unable to say that the conspiracy theory that holds that the Holocaust was invented (under jewish orders) to make the Nazis look bad was false ... is maybe not a good judge for this sort of thing.

Except of course that what I wrote in response to whatever you were on about is thoroughly non-offensive! I have written nothing at all offensive about Jews or any one else.

What I refused to do was to defend myself against your absurd claim that I said any such thing or believe any such thing. If you wish to make up such things -- have at it! Don't ask me to correct your mishegoss, son!

[FlashDangerpants]

So I'm gonna have to say that Jacobi .... who found himself entirely unable to say that the conspiracy theory that holds that the Holocaust was invented (under jewish orders) to make the Nazis look bad was false ... is maybe not a good judge for this sort of thing.

A sensible person can agree about some issues, and disagree with the same speaker about others, and keep it all without hatred or spite. We have before us particular propositions to consider; have you any interest in them at all, or are you simply interested in tarring the speaker in order to dismiss everything he/she ever says?

Well one point that we might as well note is that when you asked

Why do you think they call the other side things like "oppressor," "wrong side of history," "unempathetic," "racist-sexist-homophobe-Islamophobe-fatphobe" or "Nazi"?

... sometimes there are racists, anmd nazis and they are on the wrong side of history. And Whizzy there is one of those so I would say it's ok if people remind him of that occasionally.

I've already disputed the inflamatory nonsense that has been written in this thread. After all...

• nobody has been convicted or jailed yet except one or two guys who couldn't get bail on day 1.

• If they are entitled to a1st amendment defence against what they are charged with then they won't do any prison time as they either will not get convicted or else they will win on appeal.

• It's quite absurd to suppose that a president can acvtually order the Justice Dept to convict his foes (otherwise Hillary would have got locked up and you know it).

But at the moment you and your (coincidentally nazi adjacent) friends have got each other all would up just squealing about 'the left' with no real purpose or argument or anything sane to write.

[FlashDangerpants]

So I'm gonna have to say that Jacobi .... who found himself [viewtopic.php?t=35451&start=195] entirely unable to say that the conspiracy theory that holds that the Holocaust was invented (under jewish orders) to make the Nazis look bad was false ... is maybe not a good judge for this sort of thing.

Except of course that what I wrote in response to whatever you were on about is thoroughly non-offensive! I have written nothing at all offensive about Jews or any one else.

What I refused to do was to defend myself against your absurd claim that I said any such thing or believe any such thing. If you wish to make up such things -- have at it! Don't ask me to correct your mishegoss, son!

You had plenty of opportunities to explain why you could say the moon landings thing was untrue but not the holocaust denial thing. That conversation has ended and you are clearly a bit of a nazi.

[Immanuel Can]

Well one point that we might as well note is that when you asked

Why do you think they call the other side things like "oppressor," "wrong side of history," "unempathetic," "racist-sexist-homophobe-Islamophobe-fatphobe" or "Nazi"?

... sometimes there are racists, anmd nazis and they are on the wrong side of history.

All the things listed are their language, of course, no coinage of my own. But the oddest one is "the wrong side of history." Think of how absurd that is: for somebody to claim somebody else is "on the wrong side of history," that person would have to know where "history" is going. In other words, they'd have to have a time machine.

Why does nobody point that out? Because Marxists literally think they can "read" history -- not just the past, but projecting forward into the future, as well. "History" (their reading of it) is their substitute for God. This, they get from Hegel, actually, who passed it down to Marx. They believe there's no supervening spirit or "God" watching over people; but there is a thing they call "history" (or better, "History," with a capital), and only post-Hegelians can "read" what this "history" says, and what is "the right side" or "the wrong side" of it.

It's quite absurd to suppose that a president can acvtually order the Justice Dept to convict his foes (otherwise Hillary would have got locked up and you know it).

Yet Biden and cronies have done this very thing. "Russia collusion" has been exposed as their hoax, and China and Ukraine collusion are live issues. Their roles in the January crisis and ballot-box manipulation has simply been whitewashed as "conspiracy thinking." Document mishandling has remained focused on one side, while the other does exactly the same and goes unpunished. Trump is indicted, but Biden is not.

So the argument you're actually making is that the Dems will fight really dirty, whereas their opponents won't fight quite as dirty. That's a funny argument for you to make...but probably true, except in the case of the most corrupt of the Republicans, who seem to share the jackal-ethics of the Dems.

You've just shot yourself. Congratulations.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well one point that we might as well note is that when you asked

Why do you think they call the other side things like "oppressor," "wrong side of history," "unempathetic," "racist-sexist-homophobe-Islamophobe-fatphobe" or "Nazi"?

... sometimes there are racists, anmd nazis and they are on the wrong side of history.

All the things listed are their language, of course, no coinage of my own. But the oddest one is "the wrong side of history." Think of how absurd that is: for somebody to claim somebody else is "on the wrong side of history," that person would have to know where "history" is going. In other words, they'd have to have a time machine.

Why does nobody point that out? Because Marxists literally think they can "read" history -- not just the past, but projecting forward into the future, as well. "History" (their reading of it) is their substitute for God. This, they get from Hegel, actually, who passed it down to Marx. They believe there's no supervening spirit or "God" watching over people; but there is a thing they call "history" (or better, "History," with a capital), and only post-Hegelians can "read" what this "history" says, and what is "the right side" or "the wrong side" of it.

I was just quoting your words, so not my problem. Either way, GrandWizard22 is one of those things so he can usefully be called out on it from time to time, especially when it is relevant because you have raised this whole thing about what an unfair accusation it is... while he can very fairly indeed be accused of that shit.

It's quite absurd to suppose that a president can acvtually order the Justice Dept to convict his foes (otherwise Hillary would have got locked up and you know it).

Yet Biden and cronies have done this very thing. "Russia collusion" has been exposed as their hoax, and China and Ukraine collusion are live issues. Their roles in the January crisis and ballot-box manipulation has simply been whitewashed as "conspiracy thinking." Document mishandling has remained focused on one side, while the other does exactly the same and goes unpunished. Trump is indicted, but Biden is not.

So the argument you're actually making is that the Dems will fight really dirty, whereas their opponents won't fight quite as dirty. That's a funny argument for you to make...but probably true, except in the case of the most corrupt of the Republicans, who seem to share the jackal-ethics of the Dems.

You've just shot yourself. Congratulations.

All you've done there is show that you are capable of believing absurd things. Try and find somebody who was surpised by this information for me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You had plenty of opportunities to explain why you could say the moon landings thing was untrue but not the Holocaust denial thing. That conversation has ended and you are clearly a bit of a Nazi.

Wait, you *provide me with opportunities*? You set yourself up as the interrogating Thought Police after making up outrageous things, and then, so magnanimously, you give me an opportunity to clear myself of all charges. What a noble creature you are!

I tried to tell you then, and here again now, that I do not respond to these tactics! They are extremely bad-faith and quite stupid. But if it serves your purposes to use those techniques and strategies -- have at it! I will not stop you.

Since I regard the *destruction of the European Jews* as a real thing, I have no idea what you wish me to deny about it.

That conversation has ended and you are clearly a bit of a Nazi

Who'd have guessed? You learn something every day, I guess!

[Immanuel Can]

I was just quoting your words...

And I was quoting the Wokies' coinage. None of those expressions originate with me. They were all invented by the Left, as you can find in their own literature.

But are you somebody who already knows that, and is pretending not to? Or are you one of their "useful idiots," as they have called them, who do not know the literature and history of "the Movement," and so blithely stumble along, being led by the nose?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[FlashDangerpants]

Did you mean it when you wrote this?

We have before us particular propositions to consider; have you any interest in them at all, or are you simply interested in tarring the speaker in order to dismiss everything he/she ever says?

If so, I mentioned material objections I have to your position....

I've already disputed the inflamatory nonsense that has been written in this thread. After all...

• nobody has been convicted or jailed yet except one or two guys who couldn't get bail on day 1.

• If they are entitled to a1st amendment defence against what they are charged with then they won't do any prison time as they either will not get convicted or else they will win on appeal.

• It's quite absurd to suppose that a president can acvtually order the Justice Dept to convict his foes (otherwise Hillary would have got locked up and you know it).

Why are you redirecting to shit like this....?

I was just quoting your words...

And I was quoting the Wokies' coinage. None of those expressions originate with me. They were all invented by the Left, as you can find in their own literature.

But are you somebody who already knows that, and is pretending not to? Or are you one of their "useful idiots," as they have called them, who do not know the literature and history of "the Movement," and so blithely stumble along, being led by the nose?

Inquiring minds want to know.

As I said, if there is a first amendment defence against the charges laid in any of the felonies that Trump is facing, he will, being a billionaire who can afford amazing lawyers, surely secure a relatively simple acquital before the courts?

Why aren't inquiring minds looking into that?

[Immanuel Can]

As I said, if there is a first amendment defence against the charges laid in any of the felonies that Trump is facing, he will, being a billionaire who can afford amazing lawyers, surely secure a relatively simple acquital before the courts?

More interesting is the question of how he ever got charged in the first place, when presidents who have done the same, and far worse (in cases like Clinton, particularly) wholly escaped charges? Something quite new is going on here: the mobilization of the justice mechanisms of the state in an effort to cripple opposition.

Soviet Russia did that sort of thing. One would have hoped the Americans would not.