It’s official!!! Military is in control of the United States of America!!

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (112).

[–] • 0 pt

Marvin....at least you tried this time. However I completely disagree with your "math" regarding potential voters...(3rd party seekers). Interesting point on the splitting effect. Will give you that. May be temporary. However I am most interested in your comment regarding not Right Wing enough. So you seem to be in that category YES? That far right would be fascism....yes?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

>That far right would be fascism....yes?

No.

Left wing is more government; more government controls, more government restrictions, more government, more government.

The government runs the hospitals, the government builds the roads. the government decides how many guns you can have, the government restricts what type of guns you can have. That's left wing.

Right wing is less government; fewer government controls, fever government restrictions, less government.

The government doesn't run the hospitals, the government doesn't build the roads. The government doesn't have any say in how many guns I have or what types I can have. That's right wing.

There are many terms and phrases that people try to use to describe certain chunks of the political spectrum. There are large percentages of the population that are say, right of center. But their political beliefs only extend a certain distance right. They're given some pointless term in an attempt to well... describe their wants, needs, and voting habits in one or two words.

The problem is that individuals, groups of people, and political parties are almost always left wing on one topic and right wing on another.

Here's an honest question - Could a brand new political party be left wing on one topic and right wing on another? Could someone create a political party that wants universal healthcare, and the right for people to own as many guns as they want? - The answer is yes. I'm not saying anyone would vote for them, but a political party like that can exist.

Next honest question - If someone says that they should be able to own whatever type of gun they want, as many guns as they want. And the government should have no say, there should be no government restrictions. That the government should have no say, no restrictions. Are they left or right wing? Obviously right wing.

Now replace the word gun with abortion, or marriage.

Most people, not all, but most people are right wing on one topic and left on another. Most political parties are too. That's why nearly all of those political terms - Republican, Democrat, fascist, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian - those terms are bullshit.

Fascism - The first use of fascism was to describe Mussolini's politics. He's quoted as describing fascism as, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - The state, the government, has complete control. Not only does the government run the hospital and builds the roads, the government runs the companies and corporations. Sounds like far left politics, sounds like Communism, doesn't it?

Far right fascism is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is phrases like "an organized mess". It can't be a mess if it's organized, and can't be organized if it's a mess. Same with far right fascism. It can't be fascism if it's far right, and can't be far right if it's fascism.

Also, Fascism is usually described as "Ultra-Nationalism". But what is "Patriotism"? Can Patriotism be defined as Ultra-Nationalism? Yes.

Me personally - I don't want the government restricting me on what job I work, or business I own. I don't want government restrictions, so I'm right wing. But I want the government to restrict Jews and foreign corporations from owning media outlets. I do want government restrictions, so I'm left wing.

Do you want capitalism or communism? If you want capitalism you're right wing. If you're a Patriot, then you're a Fascist. If you're a Capitalist Patriot, then you're a Right Wing Fascist. Either that or these terms are bullshit.

>>That far right would be fascism....yes? No. Left wing is more government; more government controls, more government restrictions, more government, more government. The government runs the hospitals, the government builds the roads. the government decides how many guns you can have, the government restricts what type of guns you can have. That's left wing. Right wing is less government; fewer government controls, fever government restrictions, less government. The government doesn't run the hospitals, the government doesn't build the roads. The government doesn't have any say in how many guns I have or what types I can have. That's right wing. There are many terms and phrases that people try to use to describe certain chunks of the political spectrum. There are large percentages of the population that are say, right of center. But their political beliefs only extend a certain distance right. They're given some pointless term in an attempt to well... describe their wants, needs, and voting habits in one or two words. The problem is that individuals, groups of people, and political parties are almost always left wing on one topic and right wing on another. Here's an honest question - Could a brand new political party be left wing on one topic and right wing on another? Could someone create a political party that wants universal healthcare, and the right for people to own as many guns as they want? - The answer is yes. I'm not saying anyone would vote for them, but a political party like that can exist. Next honest question - If someone says that they should be able to own whatever type of gun they want, as many guns as they want. And the government should have no say, there should be no government restrictions. That the government should have no say, no restrictions. Are they left or right wing? Obviously right wing. Now replace the word gun with abortion, or marriage. Most people, not all, but most people are right wing on one topic and left on another. Most political parties are too. That's why nearly all of those political terms - Republican, Democrat, fascist, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian - those terms are bullshit. Fascism - The first use of fascism was to describe Mussolini's politics. He's quoted as describing fascism as, "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - The state, the government, has complete control. Not only does the government run the hospital and builds the roads, the government runs the companies and corporations. Sounds like far left politics, sounds like Communism, doesn't it? Far right fascism is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is phrases like "an organized mess". It can't be a mess if it's organized, and can't be organized if it's a mess. Same with far right fascism. It can't be fascism if it's far right, and can't be far right if it's fascism. Also, Fascism is usually described as "Ultra-Nationalism". But what is "Patriotism"? Can Patriotism be defined as Ultra-Nationalism? Yes. Me personally - I don't want the government restricting me on what job I work, or business I own. I don't want government restrictions, so I'm right wing. But I want the government to restrict Jews and foreign corporations from owning media outlets. I do want government restrictions, so I'm left wing. Do you want capitalism or communism? If you want capitalism you're right wing. If you're a Patriot, then you're a Fascist. If you're a Capitalist Patriot, then you're a Right Wing Fascist. Either that or these terms are bullshit.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

It is a circle too far left you turn fascist to far right you turn communist. Most folks know this instinctively. You hate jews.....ALL? You hate blacks....ALL? You hate non-whites....ALL?

Sorry not there Marvin....That is not what a more perfect union means. I smell this shit all over the board.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

If you're sick of my ramblings, and don't want to read this whole thing, that's fine. But at least read the last 4 little paragraphs.

Hate is the result. The root of the issue is that we have evolved to have different brains that are as different as our skin color; our facial features.

It's not necessarily that I "hate" non-Whites. It's that I want to be free of them. We would all be happier if we were surrounded by our own kind. Surrounded by only those who had the same morals, the same wants and needs, the same priorities, the same brain. Surrounded by people who have the same capabilities of abstract thought and empathy.

It's not that the White's way is the right way or the best way. It's not the best way. But it's the best way for us.

Just like the nigger's way isn't the wrong way, or the worst way. It's the best way for them.

I read a cute article once by someone who worked all over the world, and they talked about the differences in culture. (I'm paraphrasing here) -

>If you tell people that there will be a meeting at 10am -

In Northern Europe, everyone is in the meeting room, sat down, pen and paper ready. They're expecting the first word of the meeting to be spoken the second it hits 10am. And they're annoyed, stressed, and unhappy if it isn't.

In the Caribbean, 10am is not when people are at the meeting, but when people start to getting ready to go to the meeting.

The Caribbean guys, their brain works differently. To put them in a Northern European culture and force them to watch the clock, rush, and all that, it just makes them stressed and unhappy. Also, to put Northern Europeans into a Caribbean culture, where they don't stick to the schedule, things don't go according to plan, it'll cause them to be stressed out and unhappy.

It's not that one way is right and the other is wrong. It's what is right for each race and how their brain works.

With "diversity" we're forcing people to live in cultures that their brain isn't designed for; to live under rules that don't work for them. The American Dream isn't everyone's dream. Not everyone is happy living it. People fall for the advertising, the marketing that makes people think that it's what they want, but it can't make everyone happy.

Some people are happiest in a big house with a yard. Some are happiest in quiet cabin in the woods. Others are happiest in an apartment that's surrounded by the hustle and bustle of the city. None of them are right or wrong. It's just how their brain is wired.

Some people are happiest growing and hunting their own food. Others are happiest working a job and then paying for their food.

I'm rambling, so I'll get to the point.

Surround yourself with people like you. People who have the same brain as you. Ignore all of the marketing and advertising that tells you what will make you happy and figure out what actually does. The first place to look in order to figure that out is to look at how your people evolved; how your brain evolved.

An ethno-nationalist is not always a White Nationalist. An ethno-nationalist is someone who wants to be surrounded by their own people. People who have evolved to have the same brain. It's also people who don't want others around who'll make them unhappy, or others that'll force them to live in a way that will make them unhappy.

Help fight so that we can all live in our own ethnostates. To live in the ways that we evolved to live. To live in ways that our brains evolved to feel happy and fulfilled. It's the only way that any of us will ever be happy.

And you thought I was your enemy. When in reality I just want you to be happy.

**If you're sick of my ramblings, and don't want to read this whole thing, that's fine. But at least read the last 4 little paragraphs.** Hate is the result. The root of the issue is that we have evolved to have different brains that are as different as our skin color; our facial features. It's not necessarily that I "hate" non-Whites. It's that I want to be free of them. We would all be happier if we were surrounded by our own kind. Surrounded by only those who had the same morals, the same wants and needs, the same priorities, the same brain. Surrounded by people who have the same capabilities of abstract thought and empathy. It's not that the White's way is the right way or the best way. It's not the best way. But it's the best way for us. Just like the nigger's way isn't the wrong way, or the worst way. It's the best way for them. I read a cute article once by someone who worked all over the world, and they talked about the differences in culture. (I'm paraphrasing here) - >>If you tell people that there will be a meeting at 10am - > - In Northern Europe, everyone is in the meeting room, sat down, pen and paper ready. They're expecting the first word of the meeting to be spoken the second it hits 10am. And they're annoyed, stressed, and unhappy if it isn't. > - In the Caribbean, 10am is not when people are at the meeting, but when people start to getting ready to go to the meeting. >The Caribbean guys, their brain works differently. To put them in a Northern European culture and force them to watch the clock, rush, and all that, it just makes them stressed and unhappy. Also, to put Northern Europeans into a Caribbean culture, where they don't stick to the schedule, things don't go according to plan, it'll cause them to be stressed out and unhappy. It's not that one way is right and the other is wrong. It's what is right for each race and how their brain works. With "diversity" we're forcing people to live in cultures that their brain isn't designed for; to live under rules that don't work for them. The American Dream isn't everyone's dream. Not everyone is happy living it. People fall for the advertising, the marketing that makes people think that it's what they want, but it can't make everyone happy. Some people are happiest in a big house with a yard. Some are happiest in quiet cabin in the woods. Others are happiest in an apartment that's surrounded by the hustle and bustle of the city. None of them are right or wrong. It's just how their brain is wired. Some people are happiest growing and hunting their own food. Others are happiest working a job and then paying for their food. I'm rambling, so I'll get to the point. Surround yourself with people like you. People who have the same brain as you. Ignore all of the marketing and advertising that tells you what will make you happy and figure out what actually does. The first place to look in order to figure that out is to look at how your people evolved; how your brain evolved. An ethno-nationalist is not always a White Nationalist. An ethno-nationalist is someone who wants to be surrounded by their own people. People who have evolved to have the same brain. It's also people who don't want others around who'll make them unhappy, or others that'll force them to live in a way that will make them unhappy. Help fight so that we can all live in our own ethnostates. To live in the ways that we evolved to live. To live in ways that our brains evolved to feel happy and fulfilled. It's the only way that any of us will ever be happy. And you thought I was your enemy. When in reality I just want you to be happy.

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

However I am most interested in your comment regarding not Right Wing enough.

I'll take some time to talk about this. - Yes I'm going to use the bullshit terms I just talked about. I'm lumping people together under those terms for simplicity.

There are divisive topics where a political party can't please everyone. It just can't be done. Abortion is a good example.

What will the Patriot Party's stance be on abortion?

If 100% against, they'll grab the far right on this topic, but lose many undecideds and all of the left.
Be kinda against, and they'll lose the far right for not being 100% against, and all the left for not being 100% for it.
Be kinda for, and they again lose the far right and the far left for not being 100% for or against.
If 100% for, and they loose all of the far right, some of the mid right.

But either way, the Dems and Repubs (D's and R's) won't let them have a kinda stance. People don't only vote for things, they also vote against things.

Abortion - The D's will force the P's to say they're 100% against abortion. That way everyone for abortion will vote D, and the voters against abortion will be split between P and R.

Meanwhile, the R's will force them to be 100% for abortion, so that the R's get all of the anti-abortion voters.

Another thing to take into consideration is if you drew a spectrum with left on one side and right on the other.

Left I------------I Right with 50% of the population right of center, and 50% left.

Lets do an example where Trump got twice as many votes as Biden. It would look like this

I----B------T-----------I

So, Trump was that far right wing, Biden was that far left wing compared to the voters. And the result can be drawn as

I----B---<>---T----------I Trump gets twice as much as Biden and wins 66% to 33%.

So where will the P's fit politically on the spectrum? If the P's are right in the center between the D's and R's in order to be a 3-way tie It'd need to look like this

I---D-------P------R---I

Which would result in I---D---< >---P---< >---R---I Each party has 33% of the vote.

But the thing is that the D's and R's don't have to be that far right and left. They just have to be the lesser evil to get votes. So what the D's and R's will do, is they will try to do this

I--------D--P--R--------I

The Democrats don't need to be extremely left wing. They just need to be the most left wing. Same with the Republicans.

Meanwhile, if the P's and R's compete for who is right wing, that'll result in the D's grabbing more of the center.

I----------D-----R--P---I Which will result in I----------D--< >--R-< >-P----I

So in a 3 party system, you need to be the furthest right or left party. And then get the other 2 parties to fight over who's the furthest on that side of the spectrum so you grab more of the center.

Now it is possible that Trump is purposely creating a small centerist party. One where the D's have 45% of the Senate and Congress while the R's have another 45%, and the P's have 10%. Then the P's (who won't be able to push anything themselves) do decide what the others pass.

But that also means the P's will need to compete for the leftist vote. With this I-----D-P-- The P's will need to try for I---P-D-- In order for the D's to take a stance where they I--D-P--

Does that make sense? The P's at times will need to act more virtuous more leftist than the D's in order to force the D's to take an even more virtuous leftist stance. Because if the P's only compete with the R's pushing each other further right, then the D's will just take all of the center.

Maybe. Or maybe the R's will turn into that 10% centrist party.

Or it's all rigged and this is all a show.

> However I am most interested in your comment regarding not Right Wing enough. I'll take some time to talk about this. - *Yes I'm going to use the bullshit terms I just talked about. I'm lumping people together under those terms for simplicity.* There are divisive topics where a political party can't please everyone. It just can't be done. Abortion is a good example. What will the Patriot Party's stance be on abortion? - If 100% against, they'll grab the far right on this topic, but lose many undecideds and all of the left. - Be kinda against, and they'll lose the far right for not being 100% against, and all the left for not being 100% for it. - Be kinda for, and they again lose the far right and the far left for not being 100% for or against. - If 100% for, and they loose all of the far right, some of the mid right. But either way, the Dems and Repubs (D's and R's) won't let them have a kinda stance. People don't only vote for things, they also vote against things. Abortion - The D's will force the P's to say they're 100% against abortion. That way everyone for abortion will vote D, and the voters against abortion will be split between P and R. Meanwhile, the R's will force them to be 100% for abortion, so that the R's get all of the anti-abortion voters. Another thing to take into consideration is if you drew a spectrum with left on one side and right on the other. Left I------------I Right with 50% of the population right of center, and 50% left. Lets do an example where Trump got twice as many votes as Biden. It would look like this I----B------T-----------I So, Trump was that far right wing, Biden was that far left wing compared to the voters. And the result can be drawn as I----B---<>---T----------I Trump gets twice as much as Biden and wins 66% to 33%. So where will the P's fit politically on the spectrum? If the P's are right in the center between the D's and R's in order to be a 3-way tie It'd need to look like this I---D-------P------R---I Which would result in I---D---< >---P---< >---R---I Each party has 33% of the vote. But the thing is that the D's and R's don't have to be that far right and left. They just have to be the lesser evil to get votes. So what the D's and R's will do, is they will try to do this I--------D--P--R--------I The Democrats don't need to be extremely left wing. They just need to be the most left wing. Same with the Republicans. Meanwhile, if the P's and R's compete for who is right wing, that'll result in the D's grabbing more of the center. I----------D-----R--P---I Which will result in I----------D--< >--R-< >-P----I So in a 3 party system, you need to be the furthest right or left party. And then get the other 2 parties to fight over who's the furthest on that side of the spectrum so you grab more of the center. Now it is possible that Trump is purposely creating a small centerist party. One where the D's have 45% of the Senate and Congress while the R's have another 45%, and the P's have 10%. Then the P's (who won't be able to push anything themselves) do decide what the others pass. But that also means the P's will need to compete for the leftist vote. With this I-----D-P-- The P's will need to try for I---P-D-- In order for the D's to take a stance where they I--D-P-- *Does that make sense? The P's at times will need to act more virtuous more leftist than the D's in order to force the D's to take an even more virtuous leftist stance. Because if the P's only compete with the R's pushing each other further right, then the D's will just take all of the center.* Maybe. Or maybe the R's will turn into that 10% centrist party. Or it's all rigged and this is all a show.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Most of this post example is old school thinking on how political parties ring their hands on how to vie for votes. You now seem less dimwitted than before however your line of thinking is no longer relevant. But take heart because the very thing (I assume) you wished for tired to manifest. True leadership. You speak of abortion...great example. Trump said no way will I support it. Plain as day, clear no grey area. As I said before i am on the fence when it comes to a 3rd party. My preference would have been to reform the GOP. Trump showed that it is not that hard to get the people's business done. You just need to work hard and stay focused and not worry which way the wind is blowing.

True leadership vs positional leadership. What is the difference? Positional leadership like Pelosi/McConnell just used/navigated the "machine" to achieve their status. Bravo for them but nothing gets done. Ironic is it not? That both the left and Trump followers want the system broken and rebuilt. Yet in there is where the stark differences reside. Some you have already mentioned. Do the positional leaders have "followers''?... Does Trump have followers? Is there a difference>?...I think you see my point. **Suggested reading: 21 Irrevocable rules of leadership by Maxwell. ** So while this is a interesting conversation I am thinking you are a closet skin head. Seen enough of your posts to surmise this. If I am wrong then please plainly state you position. No word games. Under Trump all you white pride types had to and did vote for Trump. Because going back to your example above Trump checked off enough boxes that you had to. However it must have killed you what he did with Israel. But I say spot on True decisive leadership. oh....and i am not jewish. ...

What we need is more outsiders running for all offices. With the same decisive qualities as Trump. Fuck the consequences because they are not looking for a career in politics but rather to effect real change. ...and like you stated above that means smaller less intrusive Govt/regulations/taxes...etc.

There are in my estimate way more than 74 million people who will vote for a true leader.

Also to counter your example above how many D's "Walked Away"....Did Trump gain more black votes? Hispanic? ....True leaders have followers. Hand ringers do not.

Most of this post example is old school thinking on how political parties ring their hands on how to vie for votes. You now seem less dimwitted than before however your line of thinking is no longer relevant. But take heart because the very thing (I assume) you wished for tired to manifest. **True leadership**. You speak of abortion...great example. Trump said no way will I support it. Plain as day, clear no grey area. As I said before i am on the fence when it comes to a 3rd party. My preference would have been to reform the GOP. Trump showed that it is not that hard to get the people's business done. You just need to work hard and stay focused and not worry which way the wind is blowing. True leadership vs positional leadership. What is the difference? Positional leadership like Pelosi/McConnell just used/navigated the "machine" to achieve their status. Bravo for them but nothing gets done. Ironic is it not? That both the left and Trump followers want the system broken and rebuilt. Yet in there is where the stark differences reside. Some you have already mentioned. Do the positional leaders have "followers''?... Does Trump have followers? Is there a difference>?...I think you see my point. **Suggested reading: 21 Irrevocable rules of leadership by Maxwell. ** So while this is a interesting conversation I am thinking you are a closet skin head. Seen enough of your posts to surmise this. If I am wrong then please plainly state you position. No word games. Under Trump all you white pride types had to and did vote for Trump. Because going back to your example above Trump checked off enough boxes that you had to. However it must have killed you what he did with Israel. But I say spot on True decisive leadership. oh....and i am not jewish. ... What we need is more outsiders running for all offices. With the same decisive qualities as Trump. Fuck the consequences because they are not looking for a career in politics but rather to effect real change. ...and like you stated above that means smaller less intrusive Govt/regulations/taxes...etc. There are in my estimate way more than 74 million people who will vote for a true leader. Also to counter your example above how many D's "Walked Away"....Did Trump gain more black votes? Hispanic? ....True leaders have followers. Hand ringers do not.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

>I am thinking you are a closet skin head...... If I am wrong then please plainly state you position.

Ethno-Nationalist. And because I'm White, and my goal is an ethnostate for me to live in. So a White Nationalist.

>Under Trump all you white pride types had to and did vote for Trump. Because going back to your example above Trump checked off enough boxes that you had to.

There are no superheroes. Everything has pros and cons. Everything.... EVERYTHING has both pros and cons. But yes, in the last 2 elections Trump appeared to many to be the lesser evil.

>it must have killed you what he did with Israel.

Wait...What? Are you saying that Trump was the controlled opposition? A Jewish puppet. You're probably right. At least he kept a war with Iran from happening too soon. Delayed Kurdistan from becoming the next welfare state for a few years.

>What we need is more outsiders running for all offices.

Yes. More people who aren't career politicians. That aren't people who are where they are because they were pushed into that position by other career politicians.

>There are in my estimate way more than 74 million people who will vote for a true leader.

I disagree. The only way that that would ever happen is if every MSM outlet and major website was taken out.

We laugh at leftists and sheep who live in their echo chambers, in their little bubbles. But.... we also live in echo chambers. We avoid dealing with the brainwashed, and they avoid dealing with us. There's a lot more of them than we realize.

>Did Trump gain more black votes? Hispanic?

Yes he did. And that type of support would have grown exponentially if the Covid crap didn't happen.

But at the same time, while Romney got 6% of the black vote, Trump got 8% against Hillary. And then Trump got (I can't find the numbers now) I think it was 12% against Biden. But that still means that over 85% still voted for Biden.

So yes, Trump doubled the Republican's black vote over Romney. A 100% increase. That's true. But it was so small to begin with that while Trump gained 100% more, the Dems only lost 6%. And still more than 85% voted against Trump. (Yeah, ok. Those are the rigged numbers. But still, Trump never came close to grabbing 50%.)

But the unemployment rate - Like him or not, Trump did that right.

>>I am thinking you are a closet skin head...... If I am wrong then please plainly state you position. Ethno-Nationalist. And because I'm White, and my goal is an ethnostate for me to live in. So a White Nationalist. >>Under Trump all you white pride types had to and did vote for Trump. Because going back to your example above Trump checked off enough boxes that you had to. There are no superheroes. Everything has pros and cons. Everything.... EVERYTHING has both pros and cons. But yes, in the last 2 elections Trump appeared to many to be the lesser evil. >>it must have killed you what he did with Israel. *Wait...What? Are you saying that Trump was the controlled opposition? A Jewish puppet.* You're probably right. At least he kept a war with Iran from happening too soon. Delayed Kurdistan from becoming the next welfare state for a few years. >>What we need is more outsiders running for all offices. Yes. More people who aren't career politicians. That aren't people who are where they are because they were pushed into that position by other career politicians. >>There are in my estimate way more than 74 million people who will vote for a true leader. I disagree. The only way that that would ever happen is if every MSM outlet and major website was taken out. We laugh at leftists and sheep who live in their echo chambers, in their little bubbles. But.... we also live in echo chambers. We avoid dealing with the brainwashed, and they avoid dealing with us. There's a lot more of them than we realize. >>Did Trump gain more black votes? Hispanic? Yes he did. And that type of support would have grown exponentially if the Covid crap didn't happen. But at the same time, while Romney got 6% of the black vote, Trump got 8% against Hillary. And then Trump got (I can't find the numbers now) I think it was 12% against Biden. But that still means that over 85% still voted for Biden. So yes, Trump doubled the Republican's black vote over Romney. A 100% increase. That's true. But it was so small to begin with that while Trump gained 100% more, the Dems only lost 6%. And still more than 85% voted against Trump. (Yeah, ok. Those are the rigged numbers. But still, Trump never came close to grabbing 50%.) But the unemployment rate - Like him or not, Trump did that right.

parent
link