Apparition of Jack

I don’t know if this has been posted elsewhere but Trump’s “spiritual advisor” has just been imprisoned for sexually abusing a 12 year old girl. These people are sick.

- Factory farming - No public healthcare (in the US) - No internet integration with democracy / governing / policy making - Rampant greed and materialism Those are all I’ve got for now.

Whities proving once again they aren’t yet ready for “responsible government” and it falls upon the Black man’s burden to uplift the lesser races. Obama, lead us out of this chaos!

Yeah, 60,000. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 6,000,000 the Nazis ended up exterminating. Yes the Nazis had a few half-assed ideas to deport Jews before WW2 broke out, but ultimately their end goal was always the extermination of the Jews. Otherwise the Final Solution wouldn’t have been implemented. I sometimes I feel like I’m going crazy in my defence of the utter depravity and evil of the Holocaust. You don’t even have to be a huge simp for Judaism to realise such an event shouldn’t befall anybody, let alone millions upon millions of defenceless European peasants. Other cultures have suffered trauma in the past, for sure, but the Holocaust was uniquely evil in its scale, speed and pure dehumanising terror used to enact it. If you, today, knew that within living memory a nation tried to wipe out literally your entire race and everyone in it (and damn nearly succeed too), you’d be pretty fucked up too.

Idk where the conversation is but I’ll add this: Palestine was always Arab land. Arabs had been in Palestine longer than Turks have been in Turkey or Hungarians and Hungary, for instance. The idea that because some vague ethnic polity called “Judea” existed in the region 3000 years ago doesn’t make the modern, 21st century land rightfully Jewish. With that being said, the creation of Israel was a response to the Holocaust and the world’s failures to protect Jews. Is it fair that Arabs had to have their land taken, their culture suppressed and their people killed for the world to atone for this mistake? No. But it’s also not fair to Jews - Israeli, or British, or Canadian, or Mexican - that antisemitism, even violent antisemitism - is still as common as being a sports fan or blaming everything on the government. I can’t think of a single other ethnic group whose targeted hatred is as normalised as Jews. If I went around saying “I hate Mongolians!” or “I hate Swedes!” most people would do a double take and ask why. But if I go around saying “I hate Jews!” it’s possible even a majority of people will agree with me and even try to elect me president. The world really fucking hates Jews. It’s sickening. 🤮 But also fuck Netanyahu.

Once Trump is gone and the evil spell MAGA has over America is gone, changing the electoral system is going to be one of our first priorities (alongside ending Citizen’s United, passing universal healthcare, etc.)

So what do we do to prevent this? You seem to big on pointing out the problems we face, Leo, but not so big on providing solutions…

So I have criticised the government’s response to immigration in the past, and frankly I do still think like ICE raids, detention centres are highly unconstitutional as well as just needlessly cruel, but I’m also prepared to accept that the reality of migration and demographics change can’t just be hand-waived away and that something needs to be done to build a cohesive sense of community. With that being said, would making English (or whatever local language of the country you’re migrating too) a requirement for migration be an acceptable solution? The great post-War multicultural experiment states that someone can become a part of nation regardless of their race, religion, sexuality etc, but this also presents the problem of people feeling disconnected and like there’s no unifying sense of community / belonging. If a Sunni Indonesian and an agnostic Anglo-Saxon are both equally “American”, for instance, then what can being American actually be about? You could argue it’s a shared sense of civic values, which I do see the argument for, but then how can this be upheld if these two people can’t even communicate properly in the same language? Having language and the promotion of said language be the basis of American (or Canadian, or French, or whatever) identity could be a reasonable middle-ground between the two positions. Language isn’t just the superficial tool of communication we use every day, it’s also a deeper expression of a culture’s basic ideas, identity, etc. Like, just take the word “nothingburger.” That’s a specific English word that resonates with a specific English idea based in culture, history etc, that probably wouldn’t translate well into other languages. If language became the default basis for common mixed-heritage communities, could a lot of the tensions and anxieties about changing demographics be abated? Just musing here.

Have you tried turning your government off and on again?

This might not be a popular opinion for Americans but I take the opposite approach - I think the US should expand federal power, possibly even break up the states, and ensure a minimum standard of living / safety / regulations etc that can’t be compromised by whatever regional legislature decides they’re “politically incorrect” or whatever. I feel like if every region in America had access to decent health, infrastructure, education etc a lot of the animosity between regions would disappear. No more red states making fun of blue states for being full of junkies on the streets, or blue states making fun of red states for being full of illiterate hicks. Again, I say this as an outsider, but are the people of say, Arkansas, best served by having a few geriatric arch-conservatives govern them who’s only concern is making sure 14 year old r*pe victims give birth? And not dealing with the crumbling infrastructure, education crisis, etc? I understand how important regional identity is to Americans, it even seems like a way of life, but America’s problems are just too big and need too much coordination for a bunch of perennially-competing legislatures to adequately address, imo. At the very least, moving towards some sort of “megaregions” in the US would far better reflect the actual demographic and political realities of the country today, rather than a bunch of arbitrary borders drawn up by rich settlers in the 1800s.

In my personal opinion, I don’t think it would be. Without getting too much into it, it always seemed absurd as an outsider how little Americans cared for each other. Don’t get me wrong, other countries have their problems too, but America seems unique in its ability to treat its own citizens as either obstacles to be overcome to enemies to be disposed of. Like, we have political divisions here in Australia, but there’s still this underlying sense that if you get sick, if you have an emergency, if you need rescue, etc we’ll look out for you. It doesn’t seem to be that way in the US. Everything feels so much more conditional. I can sorta understand why so many Americans distrust their government, because to them government feels like more of a tool of control / oppression than of genuine public uplift, which it can absolutely be.

Without wanting to defend this man too much, I’ve also read that he had a special needs child whose care was taking a financial toll on the family. I don’t want to say that was the only reason he snapped, but it absolutely contributed. This is why foreign countries look at the American healthcare system with disgust. Enough goes wrong with it and eventually your regular citizen snaps and shoots a bunch of people. Human health isn’t a commodity to be sold.

The fact that this sex-trafficking rapist isn’t permanently behind bars is mind-boggling. If the world is to heal reckless scumbags like him need to be served justice.

Yes, exactly. Had Kamala known she was going to be the nominee even just six months earlier it’s possible she could’ve put together a more winning campaign strategy, rather than rushing to tie up whatever ramshackle campaign with only duct tape and dreams she could’ve in only 107 days. 2024 is all on the Dems IMO. The moment they didnt imprison Trump for leading a deadly coup attempt against the Capitol is the moment they proved they were unserious about stopping Trump’s brand of authoritarianism get back into office. Biden was an effective president but he was getting far too old (and had fucking cancer to boot.) The Dems should’ve KNOWN the risk Trump posed and done everything in their power to prevent it (have Biden commit to only one term, have a solid primary voting process to select his successor AT LEAST one year before the election, more likely two, etc.) but they didn’t. They thought they could win the election through good vibes and Hope™️ alone, completely ignorant of the dangerous political landscape they inhabited. Oh well. Fuck them. The geriatric old guard seem to be on the way out (Schumer, Biden etc) and a new, more virile breed is taking their place (AOC, Mamdani, etc.) I just hope it’s enough in time for 2026/28.

Kamala was in way over her head. She never should’ve been the nominee. I don’t think she’s a bad politician per se, just that she was forced into a position she couldn’t manage because of Biden’s (and the Dem’s as a whole) hubris. I think she was a poor leader but I also feel kinda bad for her.

This situation is getting worse by the minute. Really not sure what to make of all this. We’re watching an uprising occur in real time. I’m trepidatious about how this will all play out. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0m4vjwrdwgo

Marxism / communism is a fascinating subject. You could spend a lifetime studying it and only scratch the surface. I’m sympathetic to Marxism in many ways, at the very least as a political counterweight to the bullshit oligarchic capitalist realism we live in these days. I’m not a huge fan of revolutionary violence or metaphysical materialism but I think Marxism holds a lot of fascinating insights to human nature that capitalist ideology sorely lacks.

Why do you guys even listen to Trump? He never says anything he hasn’t already said a million times before. Unless he’s like, IDK, actively declaring war on Uruguay or something, you’re really better off doing anything else.

You’re delirious, man. The Trump-Russia connection is well established. Trump goes gaga over Putin the same way a little kid goes gaga over Michael Jordan.

Republicans have done the impossible: commodified grief. Before you know it they’ll be selling “widow tears” online just like egirls sell bath water online. These dipshits are impossible of interpreting the world in any other way than just finding ways to make a quick buck. Even something as sacred and intimate as death has just become more content to consume. The sooner America wakes out of its financialist brainrot, the better.

Alright, I’ve changed my thoughts again. Charlie Kirk was a clueless kleptocratic moron whose half-baked dipshit ideas made the word a far worse place. Fuck him.

So obviously we’re all aware of both the collective grief / outrage Charlie Kirk’s assassination has caused. Regardless of your politics, it’s deniable it’s caused some sort of reaction. We have Polish politicians holding a minute of silence for him, after all. Ignoring the politics of it, I think one thing this has highlighted for me is just how damn illusionary everything we see on the internet is. Charlie Kirk is being heralded as some sort of public saint, akin with MLK or Gandhi. Don’t get me wrong, his death was horrible and shouldn’t have happened, but at the same time… why was this one random guy so important? Ive never met him. I have no real idea who he is. He has no real qualifications. Why am I aware of his existence? I doubt he’s even set foot in my country. Why are figures like Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and, to give even the left it’s due, Hasan, Destiny, Sam Seder etc so widely known and influential? I mean, I know the literal reason - they’re YouTube stars - but I mean in a more sociological / cultural sense. Why did we decide, collectively, that a handful of randos who might as well be Seasame Street puppets with how authentic they are on camera can have the power to shape the thoughts and actions of millions, if not billions of people around the world? Charlie Kirk wasnt my friend. He wasn’t even my rival. He was literally some guy whom I have virtually no cultural, familial, national, economic etc ties to whatsoever. He might as well be the Sultan of Timbuktu for all of his relevance to my life. Again, his passing is tragic, but then… so our countless other deaths. In fact, there are probably human rights activists being killed right now in third world countries who are far more humane and impactful than Charlie ever was who’ll end up dying in pure obscurity. I don’t know who Donald Trump is. To me he’s that asshole from “the Apprentice.” Why is he considered so damn important to my life? (Yes I know he’s president and all that, but he runs the country like a reality show.) I don’t know. This whole thing has me thinking. Why have we let what are essentially human avatars dictate our ideas and opinions for so long? Whatever happened to like, reality?

Now that I’ve had a few days to process it, for some reason Charlie Kirk’s death feels like it’s hit me harder than all the other killings we’ve seen since… well, who knows. I mean, why does his death feel more impactful than Melissa Hortman and her husband's? Both deaths are equally tragic, yet Charlie’s hits me harder for some reason. Was it just because we actually saw his death? But then what about all the other shootings I’ve seen online? I remember seeing footage the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, which was disturbing, but again didnt hit me as hard. Was it just because I didn’t know those people, yet was familiar with Kirk? Is it just because he was a media personality? I’ve seen his face in countless YouTube thumbnails. But being an online commentator doesn’t make you any less mortal than anyone else. Is it because he specifically said he was open to debate as a way to avoid political violence? As much as I’ve criticised right-wing politics, I don’t think Kirk was as repulsive as the Stephen Millers and Nick Fuentes of the world. He didn’t strike me as someone as a “true believer” in white supremacy or fascism or anything like that. Don’t get me wrong, I still think his words were useful for worse actors to use, but he himself strikes me as just a typical Trumpist conservative - not an actual neo-Nazi or anything like that. But then again, would that mean killing an even more radical, violent Trumpist be justified? It’s hard not to feel affected by them when their words (and often actions) directly harm people, even to the point of death. What about all the family’s Stephen Miller has ruined? Or, hell, what about the police officers Trump got killed in Jan 6th? Right-wing extremism gets people killed if left unchecked. But then, does that mean even they deserve to die? How can you live in a world where some people want you dead, but then not wish them dead in turn? But then, what happens if they do actually try to harm you, or people you care about? Are you supposed to just roll over and take it? How can you rightfully say you’re against injustice if you’re prepared to fight against it? Man, I don’t bloody know. This is too confusing.

America has basically been on one big trauma treadmill since 9/11. While I think too many conservatives are unhinged cookers, I also can’t help but feel like their insane brainrot is just a natural part of living in such a chaotic society. I do sorta feel bad for them.

I’ve been trying to come up with a psychological profile for Trump and MAGA as a whole and I’ve come across the term of “hierarchical inclusion” as a way to frame their racial dynamics. Essentially, hierarchical inclusion is different from the outright slavery or segregation of old - it is no longer about open, legalised discrimination against certain races / groups, and does - in theory - celebrate the idea that Americans can come from anywhere, whilst in practice maintaining white hegemony over politics/culture/economics and only accepting non-white groups so long as they perform their “roles” correctly or not rock the boat too much. Basically it’s the vision that America is an “open, non-racist” country, but one only populated by a comfortable white ruling class, while (aside from the occasional celebrity or token politician), every other person has to stay within their “acceptable roles” (farm labourers for Mexicans, low-income workers for black people, etc.) It’s the vision of the white suburban dad driving his jeep to a taco truck, attending an NBA game with black players, shooting the shit with his Arab coworker, then coming home and still expecting America to look like it did during his childhood in the 1970s, despite all the economic and cultural changes that have occurred to make his daily routine possible. Idk, I’m just rambling a bit. Does this make sense to anyone else?