USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[jamesd at echeque.com]

On 2020-10-19 21:10, grarpamp wrote:
> Most people on earth would never kill anyone simply
> "living their own ways", provided those ways don't include
> trying to force themselves over someone else.
> 
> Govts are different, people are deluding themselves if they think
> any of today's Govts will let them "live their own ways" without
> ultimately killing them for resisting the conflicting law
> while trying to live as such.

This is true, and is the argument for anarcho capitalism.

But:

If people are left alone to live their lives, they need to have stuff to
live it with, property.  Other people will covet their stuff, and their
entire lifestyle, if it is a peaceful, cooperative and happy lifestyle,
which covetousness fueled rage has been spectacularly on display in
antifa and BLM attacks on the suburbs.

They will demand inclusion, and if included will destroy the productive
high trust, cooperative, community, so need to be excluded.  Observe the
catastrophic impact of codes of conduct on the open source community.

So people gang up to predate on other communities, and other communities
have to gang up to protect themselves.

And thus you get states and state religions, the largest scale ganging
up, and the most extreme for of violence by the gang.  If you don't have
a state and state religion, you get conquered.  When a hostile elite
fails to protect the community that created it, you get state failure,
as is happening in the US.

And the only way out is a loyalist elite, and loyalist state religion.
Trump and the Trumpists love America and the greatness of our ancestors,
and the Christianity that Trump trumpets, but probably does not take too
seriously, loves America.  Trump's God loves America and the greatness
of our ancestors.

The deep state elite hates America and Americans, as was apparent in the
Paris Treaty and the Trade Pacific Partnership.

It is also apparent in their art of the deep state elite and the Harvard
elite:

If you twit a member of the elite over the shittiness of a Mondrian or a
Picasso, he may well condescend that he is a sophisticated art
appreciator and you are  not.  Maybe he is, though I doubt it.  Twit him
over the dog poop statue in the bay area, the reply is likely to amount
to "Racist".

That statue is just our elite giving us the finger, same as tearing down
the statue of Lincoln and vandalizing Churches.

You reckon that when they smash their way into a Church and behead the
statue of the mother of Christ, it is a signal of sophistication?

Nah, it is a signal they have power, we don't, and they hate us.  Same
thing the dog poop statue signals.  They want to erase all signs of our
past greatness.

Compare and contrast with Putin's great Cathedral, which celebrates the
past greatness of Russia and Western Civilization.

If you try to get an member of the elite to give you the supposed
rationale for the dog poop statue, he will garble it incoherently, if he
responds at all, thereby not even trying to display sophistication.  The
reply, if you get a reply at all, is going to be "racist" - If you
object to our erasure, you are racist.  That is what it is all about,
and the reply is likely to be related to what it is in fact about.

When people make a show of appreciating Mondrians, they are usually
indeed signaling sophistication, as well as signalling their progressive
credentials, that they support the erasure of our history and
civilization.  If they appreciate the dog poop statue, they are
performing a victory dance over their defeated enemies, and if you twit
them on it, they are unlikely to even try to signal sophistication.  It
is analogous to what we saw with debate on George Zimmerman - the people
arguing that George Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon Martin were not making
arguments that supported their supposed story, they were making
arguments that Trayvon Martin was entitled to attack George Zimmerman,
that black people have aristocratic privilege to use violence on peons
when treated with less respect than they are rightly entitled to by
virtue of their superior status, that a white person is guilty of
assault should he attempt to defend himself.