The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[FlashDangerpants]

Your question is a bit of an unintelligible rant, but in general anyone whi has committed a felony should go to prison for their criminal activities, including Bill Clinton if he did rapes, and DJ Trump if he did all this stuff he's being charged with. The law should apply to all criminals in accord with due process.

Yeah, it "should" apply to all criminals, but it doesn't. So your point is moot.

Democrats are using Injustice since they're out of tools dealing with the likes of Donald Trump.

There is no provision under any US legal code to send somebody to prison for being just bad or being a person the president wishes to imprison.
The accusations are always that specific legal codes have been breached with criminal intent. Trump is charged at present with multiple counts of stealing national security documents, hiding national security documents, showing national security documements to persons unauthorised to view such material. He's accused of multiple counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice by hiding them. Things like this are defined crimes under US statute, if you do them, you are committing felonies.

Now answer my questions:

You said the cases are baseless. If they are baseless then Trump should easily win all his cases by simply getting them dismissed for insufficiency of evidence or inadequacies of law. This is usually all handled in pre-trial motions is it not?

So why are you concerned? You do expect Trump to easily walk on all these cases, surely?

If not, please explain which conspiracies are involved in all the judges not dismissing the cases, and then all the appeals courts not overruling them?

Did I not already answer this? Liberals-Leftists-Marxists-Socialists-Democrats, they have political connections, and ties to prosecutors, lawyers, and judges. The Biden Department of Justice has no intent to give Trump a "fair trial", because there is no "fairness" from the predicate, from the premise. The premise is that Trump is 'guilty' (which is Unjust), and Democrats, the Left, you, others like you, only seek to find the means to imprison.

You have proved that you are partial, not impartial. You have no real cause for Justice or Fairness. If you did, then you would respect the precedent of US history.

You would be respectful of your rightful President, Trump.

Ok, so your conspiracy theory is that all the judges who don't throw cases out for Trump are all part of a cosnpiracy to imprison enemies of the Democratic Party?

Even if those judges are Supreme Court appointees of Trump?

Incidentally, sending fake electors on Jan 6th was a conspiracy to undo the democratic process. So Trump, if invovled, would be a criminal by your own standards.

Congressional Electors are legal according to the US Constitution.

Trump wouldn't need to "undo" the 2020 Election if Democrats voted fairly. Instead they used all manners of fraud possible—it was the only way they could "win". January 6th protestors were justified in their actions, seeing how criminally negligent the 2020 Election was.

Leave it to you and Democrats, to shut down an Election in progress, to 'find' more votes at 3 and 4am, because Biden was losing the night of the election, against Trump.


How many times will I have to remind you and the other TDS sufferers of this?

All the conspiracy theories about this election steal have been mad and untrue though. Only Walker is dumb enough to fall for lies about Italian satellites and time travellers who witnessed Hugo Chavez creating Dominon Voting Systems to win an election in a foreign country a decade after his own death.

Did you not notice that you had to change election steal stories every week depending on which psycho was leading the dance on that day?

[commonsense]

Political campaigns attempt to win elections.
Political campaigns do not attempt to increase an opponent’s chances of winning.
Funds are needed to buy TV ads, among other things.
More funds mean more TV ads.
More ads mean better chance of winning.

You can do the rest.

You're ignoring the apparent, palpable, Trump Derangement Syndrome.

These lunatics want to see him destroyed and desecrated. They are too emotional to consider the positive ramifications of arresting Trump, ultimately will lead him to Democratic Victory. You're implying a rationalization that the liberal-let, simply does not have...so you're wrong.

Trump’s being deranged is not relevant. It’s still not political.

Maybe you weren’t able to complete the steps—should I work it out for you?

There’s no rationalization. This is just what isn’t happening. Dems are not attacking Trump as part of a political witch hunt.

Anyone can see what indictments do to his popularity. Anyone.

And in the same way, those who just don’t like Trump are not so blind as to help his popularity.

So, you’re wrong.

[Lacewing]

Where do you think this extremism comes from, if not your choice to tolerate it?!

Fuck off.

[Lacewing]

yet not need or care to wade into the sludge of the most extremist idiotic mindsets.

I wonder if you would indulge me here. Can you list some of the views (mindsets) that you believe are the most extremist idiotic?

Here's an example...

I saw Wizard's response as extreme on the 'book ban' issue.

No, the dishonesty is in *YOU* ignoring what your own side does and publicly promotes: child genital mutilation!

This is what happens when *YOU* tolerate the *LIE* that a boy can be a girl, and a girl can be a boy, and it's "okay" to debase Western morality in general.

You see a loving, caring, traditional family, and want to destroy it. That means, that Conservatives...need to protect it, from the likes of you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

yet not need or care to wade into the sludge of the most extremist idiotic mindsets.

I wonder if you would indulge me here. Can you list some of the views (mindsets) that you believe are the most extremist idiotic?

Here's an example...

I saw Wizard's response as extreme on the 'book ban' issue.

No, the dishonesty is in *YOU* ignoring what your own side does and publicly promotes: child genital mutilation!

This is what happens when *YOU* tolerate the *LIE* that a boy can be a girl, and a girl can be a boy, and it's "okay" to debase Western morality in general.

You see a loving, caring, traditional family, and want to destroy it. That means, that Conservatives...need to protect it, from the likes of you.

I’m not trying to “play dumb” but is it the reference to a trans-gendering movement that is extremist?

Or that he believes there is an “attack” on the traditional family?

Or that he makes it “personal” by implying you are responsible or that you advocate for non-traditional family combinations?

[Iwannaplato]

Hell, I wonder what people think the traditional family was like. In many Western families, children were not treated as different as adults as we do now. In fact Europeans were stunned by the way Native Americans treated children - as deserving vastly more attention and tenderness and playtime than adults. The traditional family has been shifting through history. From extended families and kin groups to nuclear families to whatever. I do have my preferences but when I hear the traditional family lauded I wonder which one? It seems for some it is working class families in the 50s. But those family dynamics would have disturbed traditional families two generations back. And certainly if there was emigration invovled.

I mean, I do happen to think two parents, one male, one female tends to be best, especially if there are other family members who take on parts of the parenting type roles and the children also get connnected to their friends parents. You know moving in the direction of the old village family, the tribal family.

But I think most people, when they think tradition they mean something specific, hallucinated, limited to a period and culture.

I am not a postmodernist in preference. I prefer some setups to others, but hell, some traditions are terrible.

[Immanuel Can]

Exactly right. And it was deliberate. The Cultural Marxists, in their own literature, describe their intentions as "the long march through the institutions," which they began back in the '40s, but really got rolling in the '60s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_marc ... stitutions

I have a few visceral memories of my "education" in college in the early 2000s, at a Liberal Arts college in the United States, studying philosophy... a Marxist professor was literally breathing down my neck for questioning, doubting, and resisting her methodology. I didn't know it, at the time, what she represented, and what significance those moments had until much later—after undoing that "education". Their indoctrination methods are very powerful. Thus it takes very intelligent and abrasive, rebellious minds, to resist them. I do believe that a lot of Western American young intellectuals, can wake up from these propagandas.

Hence the red-pill trope, now associated with the American Republicans and MAGA movement.

"The red pill" has become a much more general thing, not merely applying to political things, but to social stuff, sexuality, and a bunch of other things. Not surprisingly, though, the trope is hated bitterly by the Left; for their entire care is to generate pseudorealities; and having them named as such and dismissed as "blue pill" thinking really grinds their gears.

The blue pill also calls out their enslavement to overlords, whether Marxist theorists, Leftist political parties, the Leftist academics and public schools, the mainstream media, or the bankers, business monopolists, globalists and arms dealers, all of which sponsor Socialist propaganda so vigorously today.

They hate that trope, indeed. But it's most apt.

A similar trope is the less-common "NPC": the "non-player character" from video game worlds being used as a placeholder for the thoroughly indoctrinated person who has so been submerged in Leftist ideology that he's lost all ability to think for himself, as well as most of his real personality, and thus shuffles about quite stupidly, like a bad NPC.

Also quite a striking metaphor for Leftism today. And apt.

The Cultural Marxists can be exposed on the genetic level. They preach against genetics in the abstract, but practice it privately among themselves. So it's a moral double-standard. You're an "evil Nazi racist bigot!!!" (proof, look at and examine Flasher in this thread) if you look into genetic-human-anthropology, but they themselves want to cultivate and protect their own genealogical understandings. Generally they're exposed simply by rejecting Genetics outright—it's a taboo and verboten concept in general. But if you scratch the surface slightly, the light and clarity shines through.

Do you mean "eugenics"? "Genetics" generally means a scientific field; "eugenics" labels the use of Evolutionary propaganda to insist that some 'races' are fit 'breeding stock' and others are not, as applied to the human race.

Yes,the root of today's race politics is eugenics. Again, they's scream like pigs stuck under a gate that they aren't going there, but that's right where they live, when they dub all "black" or "of colour" things "good," and all "Asian" and "white" things "bad." It's eugenics.

Little known history: eugenics was a huge and popular pseudoscientific area in America prior to the time it showed up in Germany. (That history's mostly suppressed now, but it can be dug up.) But it was the Democrats leading the charge on that, because of the race issue in America, particularly in respect to things like "the one drop rule" in the South. The Nazis, when they adopted eugenics, were fully aware of the American eugenics model -- and found it too extreme for their own purposes at the time, apparently. Even they did not adopt "the one drop rule" of the Southern Democrats.

I have hope and confidence in reason and rationality.

Wow. I sure wish you luck. It would be good for us all, if you turned out to be right.

[FlashDangerpants]

The Cultural Marxists can be exposed on the genetic level. They preach against genetics in the abstract, but practice it privately among themselves. So it's a moral double-standard. You're an "evil Nazi racist bigot!!!" (proof, look at and examine Flasher in this thread) if you look into genetic-human-anthropology, but they themselves want to cultivate and protect their own genealogical understandings. Generally they're exposed simply by rejecting Genetics outright—it's a taboo and verboten concept in general. But if you scratch the surface slightly, the light and clarity shines through.

Do you mean "eugenics"? "Genetics" generally means a scientific field; "eugenics" labels the use of Evolutionary propaganda to insist that some 'races' are fit 'breeding stock' and others are not, as applied to the human race.

Wrong. Just check your racist little friend's post history for the words "genetic" and "miscegenation". A very popular word with a certain type of person that second one.

You should find an exciting confluence of those terms right around where he's arguing for "true racism".

[Lacewing]

I wonder if you would indulge me here. Can you list some of the views (mindsets) that you believe are the most extremist idiotic?

Here's an example...

No, the dishonesty is in *YOU* ignoring what your own side does and publicly promotes: child genital mutilation!

This is what happens when *YOU* tolerate the *LIE* that a boy can be a girl, and a girl can be a boy, and it's "okay" to debase Western morality in general.

You see a loving, caring, traditional family, and want to destroy it. That means, that Conservatives...need to protect it, from the likes of you.

I’m not trying to “play dumb” but is it the reference to a trans-gendering movement that is extremist?

Or that he believes there is an “attack” on the traditional family?

Or that he makes it “personal” by implying you are responsible or that you advocate for non-traditional family combinations?

It is his whole rabid dog attack, foaming at the mouth, mischaracterizing people and exaggerating issues, lunging at perceived enemies, blinded by his own fury, and apparently believing he's in a superior position because of it.

For the record, I do not understand the trans-gendering movement at all. I am not in that position as a child, nor the parent of such a child -- so I do not experience what they are experiencing. My initial thoughts were that it was a bad fad, but when I hear about the lengths that parents are going to for their children, I consider that there may be more to it than I know. I wonder if it's some sort of temporary stage of confusion in human evolution, leading to an androgynous human. Why would we think that humans have stopped evolving?

As for an 'attack' on the traditional family... well, that's one way of characterizing 'changes' and 'varying viewpoints'. I think people should live in whatever model works for them, and they should not be limited by or pressed to follow any particular 'tradition'.

Lastly, I am not 'on a side' politically. I want to lend my support to honesty and clarity. I oppose dishonesty and raging extremism. I think it's pointless to fight amongst ourselves as if that changes anything. I think our most effective power comes from our own clarity... and peace comes from honoring differences and diversity... and flexibility is more reasonable in a changing world, rather than rigidly clinging to a past.

[Immanuel Can]

... "miscegenation". A very popular word with a certain type of person that second one.

Indeed. It was the mantra of the Southern Democrats, in particular, who were the biggest defenders of the laws against "miscegenation."

"After the Second World War, an increasing number of states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, in landmark case Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court under [Republican] Chief Justice Earl Warren." (Wiki)

[FlashDangerpants]

... "miscegenation". A very popular word with a certain type of person that second one.

Indeed. It was the mantra of the Southern Democrats, in particular, who were the biggest defenders of the laws against "miscegenation."

"After the Second World War, an increasing number of states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, in landmark case Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court under [Republican] Chief Justice Earl Warren." (Wiki)

Oh no, that's so sad. That means your little KKK buddy is a Democrat and you have to hate him for writing dirty Democrat stuff like this...

Miscegenation coincides directly with Liberalism/Zionism/Marxism (your worldview).

Of course you can check what he wrote about Zionism if you like, apparently it's ok because he now says he was "half joking" when he flaunted the blood libel repeatedly and blames Jews for making America temporarily wealthy with their dirty jew funy money.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is his whole rabid dog attack, foaming at the mouth, mischaracterizing people and exaggerating issues, lunging at perceived enemies, blinded by his own fury, and apparently believing he's in a superior position because of it.

Sounds to me *very par for the course*. This is what is going on all around us. Now, why is that and what is it? My interpretation: this is what happens when a culture loses its bearings and indeed its moorings. The *interesting thing* then is to choose to stop being so bound up with the questions (the moral and ethical issues) and begin to try to assess causes.

I read Wizard somewhat differently, myself. But he does seem *all over the place*. Myself, I pay attention to lots of media that tries to defend *Right* or *Conservative* positions, so I understand all the arguments, though of course they are always simplified for easy consumption.

Personally, I completely understand the desire to re-moor and to re-anchor within sensible and, say, time-honored traditions, and I have done that work myself and know what those foundations are. But I can also understand how it is that people lose their bearings. Then, having no bearings or strange bearings becomes in itself a way to have bearings!

For the record, I do not understand the trans-gendering movement at all. I am not in that position as a child, nor the parent of such a child -- so I do not experience what they are experiencing. My initial thoughts were that it was a bad fad, but when I hear about the lengths that parents are going to for their children, I consider that there may be more to it than I know. I wonder if it's some sort of temporary stage of confusion in human evolution, leading to an androgynous human. Why would we think that humans have stopped evolving?

Understood. I tend to follow Camille Paglia whose view is that this is a late-phase of what can generally be described as psychological sickness. Again, once a culture and people have for different reasons cut the anchor (so to speak) they begin to drift. So one must understand what are the *anchors* that have grounded people. It all must be rediscovered again or, as is the present case, people just continue to drift and lose their way more.

But you notice that I am defining a *Conservative* platform and that I oppose the movement which *justified* and *encourages* this social madness. One day or another it will have to be reined in.

As for an 'attack' on the traditional family... well, that's one way of characterizing 'changes' and 'varying viewpoints'. I think people should live in whatever model works for them, and they should not be limited by or pressed to follow any particular 'tradition'.

Sure, but in this you allow for a sort of radicalism. You could just as well, and perhaps more *logically*, take a different position and one more conserving. But it does not *come naturally* to you. It does not feel right. So you yourself are part of the radicalism (the shift away from long-standing definitions that are felt to be the right ones) that has our culture in its grip.

Myself, I have chosen, as an act of my will, to oppose that radicalism. And to do so means to establish value-parameters and to defend them. To do this I have had to do lots of reading and research in older material -- all of it pre-Sixties. The Sixties really did represent a profound shift toward *radicalism*. That is why I often reference Robert Bork's book Slouching toward Gomorrah. In combination with Weaver''s Ideas Have Consequences it turned my perceptual structure in a different direction.

Lastly, I am not 'on a side' politically. I want to lend my support to honesty and clarity. I oppose dishonesty and raging extremism. I think it's pointless to fight amongst ourselves as if that changes anything. I think our most effective power comes from our own clarity... and peace comes from honoring differences and diversity... and flexibility is more reasonable in a changing world, rather than rigidly clinging to a past.

You are making value-claims one after the other. I have always felt that in your case you have not ever really *done the research* to even know what your own position is. Your positions are always tremendously vague!

If you are not *on a side politically* -- then where are you politically? You'd have to make concrete statements (but you don't).

What is *honesty* and what is *clarity*? Most people believe themselves to be both honest and clear. But many people have not really done the work of challenging -- really challenging -- themselves to arrive at defined values that they will live and die for.

While I think I can understand what you mean by *extremism* (positions that are powered by emotional intensity or, perhaps, as Yeats put it "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity", I have not got the sense that you have any defined base in your philosophy. What you say is *there's always more* and you also say that those who have opinions and convictions are caught in their *egos*.

But Lacewing as an exponent of clear, defined values -- have I been misreading you?

and peace comes from honoring differences and diversity... and flexibility is more reasonable in a changing world, rather than rigidly clinging to a past

If that were so we would likely live now more within the Liberal Ideal. But we are at war. So peace is not an option right now. But struggle is.

Personally, I agree on one level that difference and diversity are best respected. But I tend to side much more with Immanuel (who is oriented toward thinkers I also read) that the appeal to respect diversity and difference is a rhetorical ploy. They never retreat, they never bend, and they always push forward radical programs. Every encounter with them results in giving in. Therefore: they must be completely resisted. But only when one is clear about the *agenda* they work with. To know about that involves reading and study.

But *they* will not be successfully resisted, nor opposed, until people arrive at intellectual clarity about what they actually are. There is no possibility of a counter-movement as long as they have ideological control.

That is why resisting people like Flash and also Sculptor is, say, *good practice*. They have no idea what really motivates their perspectives. They are like unconscious mechanisms. They are like arguments that seek reasons to argue but they have yet to find them -- and yet they argue with that *passionate intensity*.

Excuse the grandstanding! But it is what I actually think.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course you can check what he wrote about Zionism if you like...

I'm not arguing Zionism with him, nor the Vikings chances at the Superbowl, nor the king's hat size. We were talking about the political issues in hand, and no more. It's interesting to me that you seem to have such a persistent inability to understand the difference between debating a proposition and insulting a person.

But maybe you're just trolling. Either way, I've got no time for it.

[FlashDangerpants]

The Cultural Marxists can be exposed on the genetic level. They preach against genetics in the abstract, but practice it privately among themselves. So it's a moral double-standard. You're an "evil Nazi racist bigot!!!" (proof, look at and examine Flasher in this thread) if you look into genetic-human-anthropology, but they themselves want to cultivate and protect their own genealogical understandings. Generally they're exposed simply by rejecting Genetics outright—it's a taboo and verboten concept in general. But if you scratch the surface slightly, the light and clarity shines through.

Do you mean "eugenics"? "Genetics" generally means a scientific field; "eugenics" labels the use of Evolutionary propaganda to insist that some 'races' are fit 'breeding stock' and others are not, as applied to the human race.

Well now you are up to speed on what that "genetic" stuff really refers to. Glad I could help you out.

[Lacewing]

...

I understand what you are saying, truly. I just don't agree with all of your interpretations and conclusions. Nor do I think you understand the possibilities that exist through other ways of perceiving. It's as if you're arguing that we must all use a certain channel and view of the world based on what you use and where you are. You seem to think that my non-use of specific structures and positions is a short-sighted or unconscious failing... and you are wrong. My intentional focus on seeing with broader awareness than any specific human story or idea, has opened a greater channel for ongoing successes and perfection that I've been experiencing for MANY YEARS. That has been a pretty powerful confirmation. Especially during the last 15 years, the many people in my life have seen this free-flowing energetic quality and the amazing results from it. They say they tell other people about it... so apparently it makes an impression.

I've been meeting more people who have been experiencing it for themselves too. I do not think this is something uniquely special to anyone... I think it's natural and available to anyone when they get all the 'noise' out of the way. It is like divinely beautiful perfection flowing easily through the chaos of the world. This is part of the reason I criticize theists who claim that they are uniquely interfacing with what's divine. They have no idea. And I think too much reliance on (and belief in) structures and platforms can be black holes.

Your perception of me is continually shallow and distorted, so there's clearly no point in pretending that we're even using the same channel for having a conversation. But we keep trying from time to time.

So, maybe another time... another topic.