Ever listen to the Podcast of the Lotus Leaders? If not, its even more awful than you suspect, and the Tories are just as bad, if not worse. Farage is a sell-out, UKIP is rotting on the vine, and UK energy policy has gone far beyond crippling the British economy to the point of negative real economic growth. Voters are ignored, farmers are forced to sell their property to foreign intetests, the NHS-trained native doctors are fleeing to Australia only to be replaced by medical professionals that have to be taught not to respond to every illness as if its a supernatural curse, half of London subsidized housing is occupied by people born in a foreign country, and everyone is too afraid to complain about it under threat of incarceration over an online post that violates the uber-censorious public decency laws.
Yeah, multicultural liberalism is working just fine, right?
The problem is just that you aren't tolerant enough. You need to learn to tolerate lower standards of living, fewer amenities, and, of course, mass violence against women. You can't have mass immigration without women suffering the most, but they don't care. They don't even know why they want power anymore; they just know they want it and will do whatever it takes to keep it.
If someone is here legally, then the government should not be in the business of speech monitoring, as that's a dangerous precedent (see Matt Taibbi recently). If he's illegal, he can be deported for that alone. If he commits a crime such as incitement to violence or insurrection, he can be arrested for that alone. No reason to be monitoring speech, then. However -- I liked this post a lot and wanted to direct your attention to another one, from which I quote:
"they have been taught to hate themselves, their families, and their communities and to favor everything unlike themselves over anything close to them and this substrate gets bathed in an unreality field of sufficient intensity to generate obviously self-annihilating ideas like “queers for palestine” without hint of irony or self-awareness.
the whole thing has become nothing so much as chickens proclaiming “fox for henhouse supervisor!” and then wondering where all the chicks have gone.
this represents an astonishing outcome and stands testament to just how much damage one can do with stunted, externalized identities whipped into uncomprehending social contagions.
it’s an ideology of anger and desire to tear down anything and everything that looks familiar (or familial) or close in favor of the distant and disparate. this breaks all societal substrate and makes invaders look like liberators."
But the best part of the whole piece is this graph reproduced from a study published in Nature (once considered, for whatever this may or may not still be worth, the best scientific journal in the world):
Couldn't disagree more on the first point. You have two categories you're conflating. Citizen and legal resident. Legal residents don't have the same rights. The Supreme Court may have said something or other, but that's bullshit. If you're a citizen, you get all the rights and privileges. If you're a legal non-citizen, then you will always be under the fear of being sent home. If you are causing riots on campus as a guest, as many are, then see you later. As for Matt Taibbi, he is a U.S. citizen, so not relevant to the discussion. Obviously he has free speech rights.
Taibbi's point is simply that the Supreme Court has been clear that the Constitution refers to persons and not citizens and has ruled explicitly that non citizens here legally still enjoy 1st amendment rights. It seems that you don't view Supreme Court rulings as relevant, so you likely don't care about his post, but this is the one I was referring to. https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/note-on-the-fire-suit
Yes, correct. Under the current system, with the number of illegal immigrants in the US, we cannot give them the same rights and expect to have a functioning judicial system. Get a residence permit like I had to in Germany, and if you want to talk shit, talk shit as I did and do on Substack. Just don't act surprised when you get thrown out. I'm attending a free speech protest in the UK later this year, and I fully expect them to kick me out if they want to. That is the entire point of citizenship: Knowing you can't be thrown out and that you have rights under that country's constitution. I don't invite people to sleep over at my house with the expectation that they have the same rights and privileges that I have in my house, or that they can stay past the deadline; I can just kick them out. Or even if they just piss me off, I can kick them out. Saying a guest has the same legal rights as the owner is literally, to put it scientifically, retarded.
I understand your moral point of view, it is just not how the US legal system works, and I for one would never want to encourage the US government to police speech for anyone. In the UK, of course, even citizens do not have free speech rights. I suspect you are more protected there as a non citizen; citizens get longer sentences for speech violations than for rape in the UK. Thanks in advance for attending the protest, the UK is losing its democracy fast.
Glad to go, I can’t do much but it’s better than nothing. And to be clear, I’m in no way using a moral point of view, it’s a logical point of view.
I simply do not see why you would give a visitor the same rights as an owner. That is simply my argument on logical grounds, namely the right to ownership.
The UK is the perfect example, I recently learned that once you’re on UK soil, legal or illegal, you automatically have a crazy amount of rights. Even if you fly in and you land, when you step off the plane you have rights even if you entered with no right to be there.
I’m not sure how you can keep your country when the world realizes this all at once and comes to benefit from all the rights and benefits you now have to share with them. Logically, the numbers don’t add up. This is especially true with the current welfare system.
I think we agree on a lot, I just don't want to see any government monitoring of speech, of anyone, under any circumstances. I still want to see enforcement of long-defined crimes like incitement to violence, but that is a local police matter and not a federal government one. But yes, the migrant crisis is out of control and that's very much on purpose.
I hope you'll consider my other original point as well -- it helps explain why society has put up with the migrant crisis for so long.
God damn, you're an excellent prose stylist.
Thank you! About halfway through, I felt like it had a nice rhythm. Glad to know I wasn’t imagining it.
Just a note to say that the photo labeled Pocahontas is that of another grifter, Pelosi, the greatly skilled stock picker.
Yes, but you have to admit she really does embody the perfect globalist boomer. Second might be Klaus Schwab, a literal Bond villain brought to life.
All of that. 💪🏻
Ever listen to the Podcast of the Lotus Leaders? If not, its even more awful than you suspect, and the Tories are just as bad, if not worse. Farage is a sell-out, UKIP is rotting on the vine, and UK energy policy has gone far beyond crippling the British economy to the point of negative real economic growth. Voters are ignored, farmers are forced to sell their property to foreign intetests, the NHS-trained native doctors are fleeing to Australia only to be replaced by medical professionals that have to be taught not to respond to every illness as if its a supernatural curse, half of London subsidized housing is occupied by people born in a foreign country, and everyone is too afraid to complain about it under threat of incarceration over an online post that violates the uber-censorious public decency laws.
Yeah, multicultural liberalism is working just fine, right?
The problem is just that you aren't tolerant enough. You need to learn to tolerate lower standards of living, fewer amenities, and, of course, mass violence against women. You can't have mass immigration without women suffering the most, but they don't care. They don't even know why they want power anymore; they just know they want it and will do whatever it takes to keep it.
If someone is here legally, then the government should not be in the business of speech monitoring, as that's a dangerous precedent (see Matt Taibbi recently). If he's illegal, he can be deported for that alone. If he commits a crime such as incitement to violence or insurrection, he can be arrested for that alone. No reason to be monitoring speech, then. However -- I liked this post a lot and wanted to direct your attention to another one, from which I quote:
"they have been taught to hate themselves, their families, and their communities and to favor everything unlike themselves over anything close to them and this substrate gets bathed in an unreality field of sufficient intensity to generate obviously self-annihilating ideas like “queers for palestine” without hint of irony or self-awareness.
the whole thing has become nothing so much as chickens proclaiming “fox for henhouse supervisor!” and then wondering where all the chicks have gone.
this represents an astonishing outcome and stands testament to just how much damage one can do with stunted, externalized identities whipped into uncomprehending social contagions.
it’s an ideology of anger and desire to tear down anything and everything that looks familiar (or familial) or close in favor of the distant and disparate. this breaks all societal substrate and makes invaders look like liberators."
Full piece here: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-most-important-idea-in-current
But the best part of the whole piece is this graph reproduced from a study published in Nature (once considered, for whatever this may or may not still be worth, the best scientific journal in the world):
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-019-12227-0/MediaObjects/41467_2019_12227_Fig5_HTML.png?as=webp
TL;DR: conservatives love what is close to them, progressives devalue what is close to them.
Couldn't disagree more on the first point. You have two categories you're conflating. Citizen and legal resident. Legal residents don't have the same rights. The Supreme Court may have said something or other, but that's bullshit. If you're a citizen, you get all the rights and privileges. If you're a legal non-citizen, then you will always be under the fear of being sent home. If you are causing riots on campus as a guest, as many are, then see you later. As for Matt Taibbi, he is a U.S. citizen, so not relevant to the discussion. Obviously he has free speech rights.
Taibbi's point is simply that the Supreme Court has been clear that the Constitution refers to persons and not citizens and has ruled explicitly that non citizens here legally still enjoy 1st amendment rights. It seems that you don't view Supreme Court rulings as relevant, so you likely don't care about his post, but this is the one I was referring to. https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/note-on-the-fire-suit
Yes, correct. Under the current system, with the number of illegal immigrants in the US, we cannot give them the same rights and expect to have a functioning judicial system. Get a residence permit like I had to in Germany, and if you want to talk shit, talk shit as I did and do on Substack. Just don't act surprised when you get thrown out. I'm attending a free speech protest in the UK later this year, and I fully expect them to kick me out if they want to. That is the entire point of citizenship: Knowing you can't be thrown out and that you have rights under that country's constitution. I don't invite people to sleep over at my house with the expectation that they have the same rights and privileges that I have in my house, or that they can stay past the deadline; I can just kick them out. Or even if they just piss me off, I can kick them out. Saying a guest has the same legal rights as the owner is literally, to put it scientifically, retarded.
I understand your moral point of view, it is just not how the US legal system works, and I for one would never want to encourage the US government to police speech for anyone. In the UK, of course, even citizens do not have free speech rights. I suspect you are more protected there as a non citizen; citizens get longer sentences for speech violations than for rape in the UK. Thanks in advance for attending the protest, the UK is losing its democracy fast.
Glad to go, I can’t do much but it’s better than nothing. And to be clear, I’m in no way using a moral point of view, it’s a logical point of view.
I simply do not see why you would give a visitor the same rights as an owner. That is simply my argument on logical grounds, namely the right to ownership.
The UK is the perfect example, I recently learned that once you’re on UK soil, legal or illegal, you automatically have a crazy amount of rights. Even if you fly in and you land, when you step off the plane you have rights even if you entered with no right to be there.
I’m not sure how you can keep your country when the world realizes this all at once and comes to benefit from all the rights and benefits you now have to share with them. Logically, the numbers don’t add up. This is especially true with the current welfare system.
I think we agree on a lot, I just don't want to see any government monitoring of speech, of anyone, under any circumstances. I still want to see enforcement of long-defined crimes like incitement to violence, but that is a local police matter and not a federal government one. But yes, the migrant crisis is out of control and that's very much on purpose.
I hope you'll consider my other original point as well -- it helps explain why society has put up with the migrant crisis for so long.