US conservatism is corporatism that uses bigotry to harness votes.
Last edited:
Ontopic The Shooting Thread
- Thread starter Mr. Argumentor
- Start date
The shooter's ideology appears all over the place because he has discarded the doctrine and dogma that exist to cover the true intent, purpose, and results of US movement conservatism.
He says the quiet parts loud, and that causes discomfort among people who support the ideology but wish to see themselves as "good".
He says the quiet parts loud, and that causes discomfort among people who support the ideology but wish to see themselves as "good".
yeah Trump explicitly said in response to what happened in Christchurch that white supremacists aren't a big deal & that he's not sure it had anything to do with this.
Immediately before vetoing Congress's repudiation of his white supremacist National Emergency.
You agree with those views? Because they are the views of a terrorist.
So maybe let's not do what this guy wants and further divide.
This kind of stuff is why I read these rantings of a madman for myself instead of listen to "journalists" and Twitter posters cherrypick little sections of it and tell me what I'm supposed to think.
It's all over the map. You could pick little sections that seemingly align with anyone's views if you ignore the other 73.9 pages.
Read it for ourselves and we can all come to the conclusion the dude is a delusional supremicist madman without further dividing and hating each other in the process.
The way some people react to and report on this amounts to doing exactly what the guy hoped to accomplish.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26840336/president-trump-invasion-new-zealand-manifesto/
"Less than 24 hours after a mass murderer killed 49 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand—and posted a manifesto citing the 'invasion of France' and the West 'by nonwhites,' and which referred to Donald Trump, American president, as 'a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose'—the President of the United States said this.
'Congress' vote to deny the crisis on the southern border is a vote against reality...People hate the word 'invasion,' but that's what it is. It's an invasion of drugs, criminals, & people...in some cases, they are killers.' "
I think I see what you were going for there, but those come across fairly ancap, which hoggz is not, and which is still right wing (it's just bottom right instead of top right)
He's not far off on those points.
Conservatism in the US is the politics of division.
In school when I was taught about other countries' propaganda it seemed obvious that we were likely being propagandized as well. We have a deep well of myths to draw from to explain away all the objectively obvious discrepancies between what we purport to value and what we actually value.
The US was founded by rich white guys for rich white guys and is functionally an oligarchy to this day. This is maintained by giving certain groups the ability to be "above" others, even if they themselves are oppressed. These are the lines of division:
People demanding that such divisions be removed are the people you label divisive.
The US was founded on white supremacy and we have not yet extricated ourselves. Baldwin refers to the "psychological wage of whiteness" and this is one of the main forces allowing the oligarchal nature of the US to continue. This is the primary source of division.
When people are given the option, within a scientific study, of earning $X for a job with other people earning the same amount or earning <$X with others earning <<$X more people choose to earn less money (but more than others) than choose to earn more money. This is darkly revelatory.
Last edited:
Bordering on a purely political discussion here but again, you're playing into exactly the kind of stuff the guy said he hoped to achieve.
Somewhere there is a level of lunacy where you are no longer left/right/up/down, you're just nuts. This guy attained that level.
Picking molehills of his "ideas" and turning them into mountains was the goal. You (and he) are "winning".
so what is the specific molehill you're seeing made into a mountain here? not just "his views" but like, what specific claim that Hoggz made regarding the guy's views or ideology is something you think is being blown out of proportion?
like what do you actually disagree with
he probably doesn't talk about going back to Europe because he sees the lands Europeans have colonized as "ours" now, too. so America and Australia and New Zealand are all lands for whites to "reclaim" despite the obvious logical inconsistency.
the balkanization bit specifically refers to his being upset that "white" countries intervened in places like Kosovo to defend Muslims against Republika Srpksa (who were Christian) etc.
his issue with the right folk he said shit about is that they're not right enough,not white supremacist enough.
Read the guys writings as an entire work, without the media/social media filter, and you'll see how ridiculous it is to hold up a tiny piece of it and turn it into some arguement.
Yes, those are a couple of what must be 100 self-contradictions.
With all that, it's pretty hard for a (reasonable) person to hold up a tiny piece that just happens to agree with their views (isolated from all the rest) and say, "well he does have a point there".
I've read it.
I'm not arguing it's 100% consistent across every sentence with any one specific ideology.
I am arguing that it is consistent with white supremacy, and that the parts that don't reference whee supremacy specifically also do nothing to refute those that do, and that the political folks who have sought to downplay the white/western supremacy explicitly stated within have, to nobody's surprise, been the same politicians who've been caught up time and again in accusations of their own racism.
dude reread what I read, the point of my post is that they aren't contradictions
Valve1138
I like the AB in the GB
Yes, the overarching theme IS white supremacy. The overarching goal is to cause division and strife and violence and end up at some pie in the sky vision of a racially segregated Earth.
All this bickering over what politician reacted how and who said what is already accelerating the first and possibly second steps of that goal.
I'm saying take a bigger picture overview of the whole instead of arguing over little bits.
the bigger picture overview is the white supremacy, YOU'RE arguing over the little bits
and it's not really bickering to point out that politicians with a history of supporting the cause of white supremacy have responded exactly as expected to it, or that a politician's (or anyone's) refusal to recognize (or admit they recognize) it for white supremacy is a good indicator they agree with it