Win / TheDonald
TheDonald
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

I can't say I'm really in a position to bring about a major discussion on these points; it's more a sense based on my understanding of history (which is not, dare I say, insubstantial) that events do not, in fact, repeat themselves: the context in which humans make decisions is always changing; only humans themselves, and their impulses and proclivities remain the same. That is relevant specifically with regard to your second point: unified a scant 40-odd years before being plunged into a catastrophic war and blockade (and then wracked by various varieties of direct communist agitation afterwards), the German economy in its sad state in the late 1920s bears very little resemblance to our own (Bolshevik designs on both notwithstanding). Though distressed as several sectors may be--some by shifting industrial fortunes and some by deliberate sabotage by way of economic treaty--the US economy is capable of supporting virtually limitless construction, revitalization, and military expansion simply through retrenchment of waste, prosecution of graft, and reevaluation of foreign agreements and commitments. We need no outside investment and require only that the shackles of foreign (and domestic) enemy intervention be removed for the actual prosperity the incredible technological advancements the latter half of the twentieth century created to have a chance to reach individual citizens that lack capital reserves (rather than being siphoned off by those with the ability to manipulate the mechanics of money supply). With regard to the funding of a political movement specifically, I point simply to the enormous amounts of money the uniparty GOP is able to raise with lies and then sequester for the continuation of their own loyal-opposition sham existence.

As to the first point, it is quickly becoming apparent that the lack of specific notation in our founding documents against explicit opposition to the continued existence of the nation not just specifically as envisioned, but even as loosely considered, was a catastrophic oversight. Without getting into the philosophical underpinnings of the definition of the modern nation state, and even leaving behind the extent to which it may be seen a function of its peoples or perhaps in contrast exists in some a priori state prepared to absorb anyone who is physically present (the latter being the farcical notion foisted on those unfortunate populations on the receiving end of limitless hostile immigration), we can likely agree that a state as a separate entity has some right to exist, and to attempt to continue to exist. We can even simplify to the point of ignoring the duties of a state (if any) to its citizenry. Thusly, I feel confident in saying that "liberty" to act against the very existence of a nation can be limited, or even removed in the event that these actions refuse, some by their very nature, to participate openly within a system of governance that already included a wide variety of built-in measures for facilitating change (even substantial change) without requiring subversion. These actors having made their intentions openly clear do not deserve liberty, and I will gladly remove it from them.

We can stop this without sacrificing who we are.

I consider this unlikely, but only in part; most citizens will not participate any extra-judicial political action at any level, for any reason (I believe this is hardly a bold statement considering how few even bother to vote). But the minority that do engage will need, in my estimation, harder hearts than perhaps you feel necessary. As for the rest, they can be made to accept that freedom to commit treason is not a freedom they will enjoy moving forwards, regardless of their money or connections. I do not believe this is a negative. Our commitment to freedom needs some shoring up insofar as its vagueness has, to now, set us on the path to our own ruin.

Perhaps because of the continued impact, conscious or otherwise, of a half-century of One-World "Antiracist" gaslighting mass "education" I feel compelled to point out that in spite of my vehement opposite to the former (as well as my hesitancy towards the perceived universality of some Enlightenment ideas that in truth have not actual survived the test of time particularly well), I'm not actually a monster, but these days I feel increasingly compelled to grant that I'd become one without regret in order that the masses never need to (in addition to getting to survive without experiencing communist genocide). I get the sense that while in the minority (for now), I'm also hardly alone.

Anyway, thanks for reading this novel; look forward to the Netflix adaptation coming soon with an exceptionally diverse cast and the exact opposite message

56 days ago
1 score
Reason: Original

I can't say I'm really in a position to bring about a major discussion on these points; it's more a sense based on my understanding of history (which is not, dare I say, insubstantial) that events do not, in fact, repeat themselves: the context in which humans make decisions is always changing; only humans themselves, and their impulses and proclivities remain the same. That is relevant specifically with regard to your second point: unified a scant 40-odd years before being plunged into a catastrophic war and blockade (and then wracked by various varieties of direct communist agitation afterwards), the German economy in its sad state in the late 1920s bears very little resemblance to our own (Bolshevik designs on both notwithstanding). Though distressed as several sectors may be--some by shifting industrial fortunes and some by deliberate sabotage by way of economic treaty--the US economy is capable of supporting virtually limitless construction, revitalization, and military expansion simply through retrenchment of waste, prosecution of graft, and reevaluation of foreign agreements and commitments. We need no outside investment and require only that the shackles of foreign (and domestic) enemy intervention be removed for the actual prosperity the incredible technological advancements the latter half of the twentieth century created to have a chance to reach individual citizens that lack capital reserves (rather than being siphoned off by those with the ability to manipulate the mechanics of money supply). With regard to the funding of a political movement specifically, I point simply to the enormous amounts of money the uniparty GOP is able to raise with lies and then sequester for the continuation of their own loyal-opposition sham existence.

As to the first point, it is quickly becoming apparent that the lack of specific notation in our founding documents against explicit opposition to the continued existence of the nation not just specifically as envisioned, but even as loosely considered, was a catastrophic oversight. Without getting into the philosophical underpinnings of the definition of the modern nation state, and even leaving behind the extent to which it may be seen a function of its peoples or perhaps in contrast exists in some a priori state prepared to absorb anyone who is physically present (the latter being the farcical notion foisted on those unfortunate populations on the receiving end of limitless hostile immigration), we can likely agree that a state as a separate entity has some right to exist, and to attempt to continue to exist. We can even simplify to the point of ignoring the duties of a state (if any) to its citizenry. Thusly, I feel confident in saying that "liberty" to act against the very existence of a nation can be limited, or even removed in the event that these actions refuse, some by their very nature, to participate openly within a system of governance that already included a wide variety of built-in measures for facilitating change (even substantial change) without requiring subversion. These actors having made their intentions openly clear do not deserve liberty, and I will gladly remove it from them.

We can stop this without sacrificing who we are.

I consider this unlikely, but only in part; most citizens will not participate any extra-judicial political action at any level, for any reason (I believe this is hardly a bold statement considering how few even bother to vote). But the minority that do engage will need, in my estimation, harder hearts than perhaps you feel necessary. As for the rest, they can be made to accept that freedom to commit treason is not a freedom they will enjoy moving forwards, regardless of their money or connections. I do not believe this is a negative. Our commitment to freedom needs some shoring up insofar as its vagueness has, to now, set us on the path to our own ruin.

Perhaps because of the continued impact, conscious or otherwise, of a half-century of One-World "Antiracist" gaslighting mass "education" I feel compelled to point out that in spite of my vehement opposite to the former (as well as my hesitancy towards the perceived universality of some Enlightenment ideas that in truth have not actual survived the test of time particularly well), I'm not actually a monster, but these days I feel increasingly compelled to grant that I'd become one without regret in order that the masses never need to (in addition to getting to survive without experiencing communist genocide). I get the sense that while in the minority (for now), I'm also hardly alone.

56 days ago
1 score