No, Stefan Molyneux have an talk show where he helps people from all over the world and he never cared about race. He never advocated for any white nationalist "idea", never said to for eg have race based citizenship, never advocated for any type of forced segregation between ethinic groups, etc. The closest thing to a WN that i saw from his mouth is that "is a dumb idea to drop bombs and visas into the same country".
Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist. White supremacist propaganda he's promoted include discredited race and IQ pseudoscience, the myth of white genocide/"The Great Replacement," the completely concocted notion of white farmers being murdered in South Africa so the government can take their land. That was concocted, by the way, by Lauren Southern, whom he's collaborated with. You might remember her from such hits as "joining Identity Evropa in trying to sink ships full of refugees," or rather, attempted murder.
Stefan is also a virulent misogynist and has outright claimed that liberation for women caused the downfall of the Roman Empire.
Stefan is also a cult leader, encourages his followers to leave their families (this is called "defoo" or "disengage from family of origin,"). He's also been known to call out viewers who donate but that he considers them to have donated too little.
Stefan Molyneux is indefensible, especially when trying to defend him from people who only point out the facts about what he has done and continues to do.
All of the following quotes come from the link above, and each quote is cited with a source that leads straight back to Stefan's own words.
“I don’t view humanity as a single species...”
“The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!”
"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane."
“You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.”
“...white people will bend over backwards to accommodate you, but when they finally get that they’re just being taken advantage of...you will see a backlash, and that backlash will be quick, decisive, and brutal.”
“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff.”
“...people have this idea that human groups somehow live in harmony together...but the sum total of human history is endless warfare between competing groups, two subspecies don’t inhabit the same geographical area for long, one will always displace the other, and this idea [diversity], it’s a complete naive reading of history…”
Most of Amazon fire is on Bolivia. What Bolsonaro should do? Is like say that Trump is somehow responsible by the Mexican drug cartels.
I mentioned CNN only because they talk everyday about Brazil's part of Amazon, but completely ignore the Bolivian problem who is far worse. Why? Probably because Evo Morales is communist.
NASA is far more reliable than Clinton News Network. Sorry, but i can't buy the "mainstream media narrative" that the president is somehow responsible for it.
This story only has data as late as August 16, as it says in the text. It's not the slam dunk point you think it is.
NASA is far more reliable than Clinton News Network. Sorry, but i can't buy the "mainstream media narrative" that the president is somehow responsible for it.
This story only has data as late as August 16, as it says in the text. It's not the slam dunk point you think it is.
Never mind what I previously wrote here. Weird that there's a later story on Earth Observatory that says something a bit different from Victor's quote above.
With the fire season in the Amazon approaching its midpoint, scientists using NASA satellites to track fire activity have confirmed an increase in the number and intensity of fires in the Brazilian Amazon in 2019, making it the most active fire year in that region since 2010.
Fire activity in the Amazon varies considerably from year-to-year and month-to-month, driven by changes in economic conditions and climate. August 2019 stands out because it has brought a noticeable increase in large, intense, and persistent fires burning along major roads in the central Brazilian Amazon, explained Douglas Morton, chief of the Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. While drought has played a large role in exacerbating fires in the past, the timing and location of fire detections early in the 2019 dry season are more consistent with land clearing than with regional drought.
Just to add to this, you're linking to essentially a blog post from nasa's earth observatory. One reporting on findings up to August 16, as the post says.
"Cumulative active fire detections from May 1st through August 28th from MODIS (Aqua + Terra) and VIIRS (SNPP) confirm that the 2019 fire season has the highest fire count since 2012 (the start of the VIIRS record) across the Legal Amazon. In addition, fires in 2019 are more intense than previous years, measured in terms of fire radiative power, consistent with the observed increase in deforestation."
I wonder if the same sharpie that wrote the infamous “toothpaste” on a box was used.
And it’s completely sad that this is the story and not the humanitarian aid that is being directed to the Dominican.
It's actually illegal to alter an official National Weather Service report in this way. Rack it up on his list of never-ending crimes:
According to U.S. Code Title 18, “Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.”
People may view this as a small issue. It's not. For one thing, the SOLE reason he said it was going to hit Alabama is because he needed justification in his own head that HIS people (in other words, a state that gave him electoral votes) were being harmed to give a shit about it. And when he was called out on it, he literally DOCTORED a weather report about a hurricane to cover up his comments. This is such a small, pathetic man on every level.
It's actually illegal to alter an official National Weather Service report in this way. Rack it up on his list of never-ending crimes:
According to U.S. Code Title 18, “Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.”
People may view this as a small issue. It's not. For one thing, the SOLE reason he said it was going to hit Alabama is because he needed justification in his own head that HIS people (in other words, a state that gave him electoral votes) were being harmed to give a shit about it. And when he was called out on it, he literally DOCTORED a weather report about a hurricane to cover up his comments. This is such a small, pathetic man on every level.
I don't believe he needed justification in his own head about HIS people in Alabama. I think he wanted to include Alabama to scare them. People ensared by Republican propaganda and fear mongering will vote for the Republican senate candidate in 2020. This is probably Trump's game.
So Trump's breaking more federal laws? So to recap we have a lawless President.
- He's been completely reckless with classified information both from our military (the iran satellite photo) and from foreign nations (giving Russia ultra secret Israeli intel).
-He's totally corrupt with Pence and Barr kicking up money to him through staging events at his hotels unnecessarily. Kicking up is what the mob does. Pence stayed at the Trump resort in Ireland despite all his meetings being on the other side of the island. Why? Corruption.
-He enthusiastically welcomed help from a hostile foreign power prior to the 2016 election. "Russia if you're listening..."
-He has done all he can to NOT secure America's elections for 2020 (with a little help from Moscow Mitch).
The pair have called election security measures "full bore Socialism! (moscow mitch) and refused to appoint or put forward people to the FEC since 2015 rendering it UNABLE TO ENFORCE ELECTION LAW.
Stefan is also a virulent misogynist and has outright claimed that liberation for women caused the downfall of the Roman Empire.
Huh, never heard that one before. And here my dad keeps harping "once the masses get into the treasury, the empire falls". I should tell him apparently its womens' fault. /eyeroll
"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane."
“You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.”
“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff.”
That's some truly fucked up shit.
First, no race is mentally superior to any other. It's all about effort put into raising the kid with a LITTLE input from genetics, but not on the macro scale of entire ethic groups.
Second, wow. I guess this guy missed history lessons of the Jewish pogroms of Communist Russia. We're talking about the destruction of entire Jewish communities BEFORE the Nazis, killing tens of thousands.
"Wild overreaction"? THAT is what he calls concentration camps and the Final Solution?
There's confirmation this morning that the Conservatives are going to allow the Bill designed to avoid a no deal Brexit to pass. I was pretty sure Johnson himself would support that, as part of his strategy to get an early election, and the government had already allowed the Bill to go through the Commons without raising a single amendment. However, I thought there was a possibility that some members of the Lords might have tried to obstruct it there, against Johnson's wishes.
Johnson attempted yesterday to call an election, but couldn't get most opposition MPs to support that call. That was largely because they didn't trust his assurances that he wouldn't change the date of an election to after Brexit once Parliament was dissolved (while I don't think he wanted to do that, it's understandable that opposition MPs are unwilling to take his word for anything).
There are quite a few MPs wary of moving to an early election even if the Bill is passed. However, Corbyn has signed up to the idea and I expect it to go through. If it does, it will be interesting to see if there are any agreements reached between parties prior to the election. If the only issue in the election were Brexit that would be likely. However, as this will be a general election to determine (in theory) who takes power for the next 5 years, it's difficult to see how the existing opposition parties could justify any formal agreements. That's much more possible of course between the Conservatives and the Brexit party (as the latter is a single issue party).
Okay, so this is not a conspiracy theory, it's just the ability to look at facts and see a trend. The Republican party is and has been exploiting US Democracy to push anyone to the left of them out of power and claim it for themselves. Virtually everything they've done since Reagan has been done with this as the goal.
While Republicans and Democrats both gerrymander, there is no doubt that Republicans do it more and more shamelessly. North Carolina Rep. David Lewis, who helped draw one of the maps at issue in Rucho, was admirably honest about his motives in a 2016 statehouse speech.
“I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” he explained. “So I drew this map in a way to help foster what I think is better for the country.”
This principle — that Republicans believe their rule is better and are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure they take and hold power — does not merely lead to gerrymandering. It has produced a whole host of undemocratic actions, at both state and federal levels, that amount to a systematic threat to American democracy. Indeed, some of the best scholarship we have on American democracy suggests that this is even more alarming than it sounds; that it fits historical patterns of democratic backsliding both in the United States and abroad.
Democrats won more votes, regained control of the U.S. House and flipped hundreds of seats in state legislatures during the 2018 elections. It was, by most accounts, a good year for the party.
Yet it wasn’t as bad as it could have been for Republicans.
That’s because they may have benefited from a built-in advantage in some states, based on how political districts were drawn, that prevented deeper losses or helped them hold on to power, according to a mathematical analysis by The Associated Press.
The AP’s analysis indicates that Republicans won about 16 more U.S. House seats than would have been expected based on their average share of the vote in congressional districts across the country. In state House elections, Republicans’ structural advantage might have helped them hold on to as many as seven chambers that otherwise could have flipped to Democrats, according to the analysis.
Since the 2010 elections, 24 states have implemented new restrictions on voting. Alabama now requires a photo ID to cast a ballot. Other states such as Ohio and Georgia have enacted "use it or lose it" laws, which strike voters from registration rolls if they have not participated in an election within a prescribed period of time.
Mother Jones journalist Ari Berman, author of Give Us the Ballot, says that many of the restrictions are part of a broader Republican strategy to tighten access to the ballot — an effort that was bolstered in 2013 by the Supreme Court's Shelby County v. Holder ruling.
"[That] decision," Berman explains, "said that those states with the longest histories of discrimination no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government."
As a result, Berman says, "You're seeing a national effort by the Republican Party to try to restrict voting rights, and it's playing out in states all across the country."
In Tennessee, a new voter registration law backed by GOP legislators will impose potential civil and criminal penalties on organizations that register voters.
Signed by Tennessee’s Republican Governor Bill Lee on May 2, HB1079/SB971 requires groups with more than 100 registrants to complete voter registration training and provide drive organizers’ contact information to county election coordinators. It also requires all voter registration drives to submit all forms within ten days of being collected. And it allows for those who submit incomplete or incorrect data to be fined up to $10,000.
“A fear I have is that, because of the penalty, there will be a reverse incentive for groups to go out and get people registered,” says Marian Ott, president of the Tennessee League of Women Voters.
Before President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in 1965, state and local officials throughout the South used voter suppression tactics to prevent African Americans from voting.
Fifty-four years later, lawmakers in Republican-dominated states continue to use similar tactics to suppress the votes of people of color. Their tactics include restricting early voting, closing polling places, imposing strict ID laws and registration obstacles, and purging voter rolls.
Since 2010, twenty-five states have implemented restrictions that make voting more difficult, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Most of these restrictions have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 ruled that there was no longer any need to prevent states with a history of discrimination from altering their voting rules without federal approval.
Third, Dominionist/Evangelical Nationalist "model legislation" to increasingly merge church and state.
The emboldened religious right has unleashed a wave of legislation across the United States since Donald Trump became president, as part of an organised bid to impose hardline Christian values across American society.
A playbook known as Project Blitz, developed by a collection of Christian groups, has provided state politicians with a set of off-the-shelf pro-Christian “model bills”.
Some legislation uses verbatim language from the “model bills” created by a group called the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation (CPCF), set up by a former Republican congressman which has a stated aim to “protect religious freedom, preserve America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promote prayer”.
At least 75 bills have been brought forward in more than 20 states during 2017 and 2018 which appear to be modelled on or have similar objectives to the playbook, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a campaign group which tracks legislation that undermines the principle of separation of church and state.
Opponents warn that the CPCF (which claims more than 600 politicians as members across state legislatures ) is using the banner of “religious freedom” to impose Christianity on American public, political and cultural life.
Also, the attempts to shift freedom of religion from protecting people's religious practices to religious freedom meaning the right to freely discriminate against LGBT people and anyone with a uterus. That is to say, religious freedom goes from protecting from discrimination to protecting an illegitimate right to discriminate based on prejudice.+
The Trump administration’s widespread reinterpretation of the law
Though the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that religious freedom should not be interpreted to permit harm on others, the Trump administration has redefined the extent of religious liberty protections, establishing a broad license to discriminate.13 Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ guidance on “Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty”—which he claimed would clarify the existing protections regarding religious liberty—serves as the groundwork for writing discriminatory actions into law. The guidance prioritizes religious exemptions over all other rights, and it defines the constitutional and statutory protections of religious liberty broadly so that they can be widely implemented. For example, previous analysis by the Center for American Progress found at least 87 regulations, 16 agency guidance documents, and 55 federal programs and services that the guidance could undermine—most of which the Obama administration created to advance LGBTQ equality and prohibit federally funded programs from discriminating, including on the basis of religion.14 The guidance establishes an overarching license to discriminate for the federal government. Moreover, it puts vulnerable populations at risk of being denied equal treatment under the law.
Since the announcement of the guidance on May 4, 2017—the National Day of Prayer—the Trump administration has continued to use religious liberty to justify discrimination.15 In July 2018, former Attorney General Sessions announced the creation of a Religious Liberty Task Force, which, according to Sessions, will ensure that “all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt, and how we conduct our operations.”16 The purpose of the task force is to enforce the 2017 religious liberty guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice, yet such enforcement could promote a license to discriminate on the basis of religious liberty. These and similar initiatives erode the original intent of religious liberty—ironically, in the name of religious liberty—in order to validate discrimination against the most vulnerable communities.
Coming in at four is dark money, billionaire support for neoreactionary and fascist organizations, manipulating the media to promote their preferred views, and shifting the tax burden to the people least able to afford it.
Unfortunately, this picture is misleading. Our new, systematic study of the 100 wealthiest Americans indicates that Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg et al are not at all typical. Most of the wealthiest US billionaires – who are much less visible and less reported on – more closely resemble Charles Koch. They are extremely conservative on economic issues. Obsessed with cutting taxes, especially estate taxes – which apply only to the wealthiest Americans. Opposed to government regulation of the environment or big banks. Unenthusiastic about government programs to help with jobs, incomes, healthcare, or retirement pensions – programs supported by large majorities of Americans. Tempted to cut deficits and shrink government by cutting or privatizing guaranteed social security benefits.
How can this be so? If it is true, why aren’t voters aware and angry about it?
The answer is simple: billionaires who favor unpopular, ultraconservative economic policies, and work actively to advance them (that is, most politically active billionaires) stay almost entirely silent about those issues in public. This is a deliberate choice. Billionaires have plenty of media access, but most of them choose not to say anything at all about the policy issues of the day. They deliberately pursue a strategy of what we call “stealth politics”.
We have come to this conclusion based on an exhaustive, web-based study of everything that the 100 wealthiest US billionaires have said or done, over a 10-year period, concerning several major issues of public policy. For each billionaire we used several dozen carefully selected keywords to find all publicly available information about their specific talk or actions related to any aspect of social security, any type of taxation, or anything related to abortion, same-sex marriage, or immigration policy.
...
Our findings help illuminate how the political network assembled by the Koch brothers could have become so powerful. The Kochs have had a fertile field of less-well-known conservative billionaires to cultivate for hundreds of millions of dollars in in secret, unreported contributions. The Kochs’ entrepreneurship and organizational skills, together with stealthy contributions by these little-known billionaires, have produced a political juggernaut.
Both as individuals and as contributors to Koch-type consortia, most US billionaires have given large amounts money – and many have engaged in intense activity – to advance unpopular, inequality-exacerbating, highly conservative economic policies. But they have done so very quietly, saying little or nothing in public about what they are doing or why. They have avoided political accountability. We believe that this sort of stealth politics is harmful to democracy.
The billionaire fascists are coming for your Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And they’re openly bragging about it.
Right after Trump’s election, back in December of 2016, Newt Gingrich openly bragged at the Heritage Foundation that the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress were going to “break out of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt model.” That “model,” of course, created what we today refer to as “the middle class.”
This week Mitch McConnell confirmed Gingrich’s prophecy, using the huge deficits created by Trump’s billionaire tax cuts as an excuse to destroy “entitlement” programs.
“I think it would be safe to say that the single biggest disappointment of my time in Congress has been our failure to address the entitlement issue, and it’s a shame, because now the Democrats are promising Medicare for All,” McConnell told Bloomberg. He added, “[W]e’re talking about Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.”
These programs, along with free public education and progressive taxation, are the core drivers and maintainers of the American middle class. History shows that without a strong middle class, democracy itself collapses, and fascism is the next step down a long and terrible road.
Ever since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been working overtime to kneecap institutions that support the American middle class. And, as any working-class family can tell you, the GOP has had some substantial successes, particularly in shifting both income and political power away from voters and toward billionaires and transnational corporations.
Fifth, Trump is appointing ideologically driven judges who vote according to their patron's interests and twist the Constitution into knots to justify it. This is, by the way, exactly why McConnell blocked Merrick Garland.
Donald Trump has nominated an unprecedented number of judges to federal courts since his appointment. These are making steady progress through the Senate confirmation process and yet they have escaped the sort of scrutiny that Trump normally attracts. This is unfortunate, because the impact of Trump’s court picks will be profound, and will help reshape American society for years to come.
Of the nearly 60 judges he has nominated, only one is black, one is Hispanic and three are women. The rest are white men. All of these people are conservatives who will be interpreting and helping (re)write the law for decades.
Trump took office facing a backlog of 114 judicial appointments – the most of any president since Bill Clinton. This was not a coincidence but rather the product of a calculated project by Republicans in the US Congress to deny Barack Obama his authority to appoint judges. In a bold power play, Senate Republicans, who must confirm judicial nominees, simply refused to vote on most of Obama’s selections during the last year of his presidency. They were, in effect, waiting for Trump.
Now Republicans have been rewarded for their abdication of their constitutional responsibilities during the Obama administration. President Trump has nominated 60 judges to fill the vacancies, with 14 already confirmed. If Trump were to resign or be removed from office tomorrow, he could leave proud that his profound impact is already set in stone: a generation of ultra-conservative judges with lifetime appointments who will transform the US into more of a police state than it already is. But again, this is more of a Republican project than a Trumpian one.
In terms of their ideology, Trump’s judicial nominees – including racists, sexists, homophobes and gun nuts – are pretty much the same as any other Republican president would make.
Neil Gorsuch, his first appointment to the US supreme court, joined conservatives like Clarence Thomas, who thinks that states should be able to make gay sex a crime, Samuel Alito, who thinks there should be almost no restrictions on gun ownership, and John Roberts, who thinks affirmative action and substantial portions of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.
The right wing in the US has complained for ages about "activist judges" whenever a decision goes against what they want (despite not even slightly harming them) but now Trump's appointed dozens of activist judges including two SCOTUS justices who are all willing to decide cases along ideological lines as opposed to legal and constitutional lines. Or at least, that's the intention.
I can't seem to find the stuff about the recounts, so I'm not going to push it.
So, defending all of these practices as "strictly legal" doesn't actually mean they can't be abused, or even that legality is irrelevant to what I posted earlier. It's like if I said I opposed hunting and killing of animals and someone said "well hunting is legal!" as if that even addresses my point? My stance would be that hunting shouldn't be legal, so arguing that it is misses the point. I am not, btw, anti-hunting for food, it's just an example.
Laws can be unjust. Laws can be bad. Laws can place an unnecessary burden on people, especially marginalized people. Laws against gay sex were unjust, bad, and placed an unnecessary burden on same-sex couples. The first version of the United States Constitution made it illegal to prevent the importing of slaves, made it illegal for states to free slaves who fled to them from other states, and mandated that the slaves be returned to their, er, owners. Never mind counting enslaved people as "3/5ths of a person" via the eponymous compromise.
Putting an end to these unjust and honestly very bad laws led to a civil war between the northern and southern states of the United States, and the south's attempted secession. I know people will say the war was over states' rights, rather than slavery, but this is half true. The war was over states' rights to keep slavery legal.
Jim Crow laws were unjust, bad, and also placed an undue burden on black people. Leading to segregation and disenfranchisement to prevent black people from gaining any degree of power or self-determination, and when they did get it, they were violently put down.
Also, one cannot simply assume that every judicial decision handed down from the SCOTUS is actually based in an understanding of the US Constitution, and the current SCOTUS is looking to hand the American right everything they want on a silver platter. That is to say, a decision from SCOTUS is not automatically correct or good or necessary, and appealing to their authority as if every decision they make is strictly objective is complete nonsense.
As it turns out, "slow motion coup" is a term popular on both the left and the right, which is not really surprising. However,
When Donald Trump assumes the presidency on January 20, he will have a Supreme Court vacancy and 103 Federal judgeships waiting to be filled, and a Senate receptive to his choices. These judicial gifts were not bestowed by the voters; they are entirely the result of stonewalling by Senate Republicans, who for eight long years steadfastly refused to confirm President Obama’s choices. Their unprecedented blockage of Merrick Garland to fill Antonin Scalia’s vacated seat on the High Court was outrageous, matched by their spurning of any nominee, however qualified, put forward by Obama.
It used to be said that elections have consequences. The winner got to control the agenda and make law. What a quaint notion that was. After the Supreme Court gave the presidency to George W. Bush, Al Gore conceded by saying that, while he disagreed with the Court’s decision, he accepted it. Poor, foolish Al. After Obama’s victory in 2008, in the depths of the worst recession since the Great Depression, how did Republicans respond? By rolling up their sleeves and working with the new president to limit the damage and alleviate the suffering of the American people? Hah! Mitch McConnell, then Senate minority leader, announced that his single goal was to make Obama a one-term president. And for eight excruciating years, Republicans practiced complete and total obstruction on all fronts, culminating in the Garland affront.
One need only look to North Carolina to see where this is all headed. Hours after it became apparent that a Democrat would be sworn in as governor, Republicans who control both houses of the state legislature moved to gut his powers. North Carolina, not so long ago a shining example of the progressive New South, has become our first homegrown banana republic. I doubt it will be the last.
Elections do have consequences, but apparently only if Republicans win.
Anyway, I'm gonna study more conspiracy theory by reading mainstream news sources and the facts they report.
Stefan is also a virulent misogynist and has outright claimed that liberation for women caused the downfall of the Roman Empire.
Huh, never heard that one before. And here my dad keeps harping "once the masses get into the treasury, the empire falls". I should tell him apparently its womens' fault. /eyeroll
Shaun did a fairly good video dissecting the whole thing, although it's nearly an hour long. He also links to the original sources in the doobley doo so people can see whether he's misrepresenting anyone.
First, no race is mentally superior to any other. It's all about effort put into raising the kid with a LITTLE input from genetics, but not on the macro scale of entire ethic groups.
Second, wow. I guess this guy missed history lessons of the Jewish pogroms of Communist Russia. We're talking about the destruction of entire Jewish communities BEFORE the Nazis, killing tens of thousands.
"Wild overreaction"? THAT is what he calls concentration camps and the Final Solution?
Right? That's not the worst I've ever heard from him, but SPLC's quotes seemed plenty awful.
There's confirmation this morning that the Conservatives are going to allow the Bill designed to avoid a no deal Brexit to pass. I was pretty sure Johnson himself would support that, as part of his strategy to get an early election, and the government had already allowed the Bill to go through the Commons without raising a single amendment. However, I thought there was a possibility that some members of the Lords might have tried to obstruct it there, against Johnson's wishes.
Johnson attempted yesterday to call an election, but couldn't get most opposition MPs to support that call. That was largely because they didn't trust his assurances that he wouldn't change the date of an election to after Brexit once Parliament was dissolved (while I don't think he wanted to do that, it's understandable that opposition MPs are unwilling to take his word for anything).
There are quite a few MPs wary of moving to an early election even if the Bill is passed. However, Corbyn has signed up to the idea and I expect it to go through. If it does, it will be interesting to see if there are any agreements reached between parties prior to the election. If the only issue in the election were Brexit that would be likely. However, as this will be a general election to determine (in theory) who takes power for the next 5 years, it's difficult to see how the existing opposition parties could justify any formal agreements. That's much more possible of course between the Conservatives and the Brexit party (as the latter is a single issue party).
Most in the Labour party seem to want to go for a post-Halloween election. That would force Johnson to go get the extension (or break the law, which seems to be a live option these days.) The question then would be whether Farage's Brexit party stands or not, in a situation where they would be likely to siphon votes from the conservatives. Hard to tell really, it depends how short term Farage and his... err sponsors... are thinking.
For the impending election campaign everyone seems to assume it will be all about Brexit but I'm not quite as sure. Brexit isn't the most motivating topic and I suspect that a variety of other issues will seep into the polarised debate. There's no doubt that a willingness to form electoral pacts will be essential for the remain side though.
From what I heard on the late news last night the 'thinking' (i.e. 'unattributed sources' etc.) is that Brussels would agree to extending the deadline (they are not the ones insisting that the UK leave the EU and I think I'm right in saying that they said the UK can revoke Article 50 any time they like before the official departure date).
BallpointMan, he interviewed Noam Chomsky, the fact that he interviewed few WN doesn't means that he is WN. And few words out of context in 2 hours long video doesn't represent what he advocate.
Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist. White supremacist propaganda he's promoted include discredited race and IQ pseudoscience, the myth of white genocide/"The Great Replacement," the completely concocted notion of white farmers being murdered in South Africa so the government can take their land. That was concocted, by the way, by Lauren Southern, whom he's collaborated with. You might remember her from such hits as "joining Identity Evropa in trying to sink ships full of refugees," or rather, attempted murder.
First, the ethnic groups with highest IQ in the world according to the bell curve book are not whites. Are East Asians(logical) and Ashkenazi Jews(Linguistic), so label it an "white supremacy" is wrong. You can say that is racist.
And note that white Afrikaners already suffered a lot in Africa. They got expelled from Zimbabwe. The reality is. Whites suffers discrimination in white minority countries.
Stefan is also a virulent misogynist and has outright claimed that liberation for women caused the downfall of the Roman Empire.
No, i suggest to watch the video. e mentions many things that lead to the downfall of the roman empire, such as >
Promiscuity(both male and female) who lead to the fall of family 'institution"
Centralization of power in Rome, at beginning Romans only took taxes from their territories but allowed then to follow their religion and have his laws. When they decided to push Roman law everywhere, it lead to an serious of problems
Inflation and the government trying to push bad currency into the population
An economy very dependent of slavery
Mass immigration from Teutonic Tribes(mostly blonde/blue eyed guys)
<...> i don't remember all factors, but is a video that i watched many time ago.
The EU are very likely to continue granting extensions, and not just in a 'letting your mate stay on the sofa one more night' kind of way. Brexit isn't good for the EU and it drains attention from issues that the other 27 want to deal with but kicking a country out when it wants to stay is problematic on a fundamental level for the European project. They also want to keep the UK in their orbit as far as possible rather than allowing it to drift toward the US. The crunch comes soon though, as they'll be discussing the budget for future spending.
The UK has a unilateral right to revoke at any time prior to departure, but it must be final and in accordance with the UK's constitutional requirements. In other words the UK can't revoke and then trigger article 50 all over again to gain time.
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
Or the significant increase of right wing billionaires funding right wing candidates and legislation? Funding activist groups to oppose immigration, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive justice, freedom of speech, and literally anything that benefits women, people of color, LGBT people, and disabled people.
What does "reproductive justice" mean?
It means killing babies. Not much "justice" for them.
Do they "dash the infants against the rocks"?
Cool, quoting the Old Testament out of context as if it refutes anything I've said. Good to know you have to resort to fallacy to defend your stance. Regardless of this, you have ZERO moral ground to stand on when it comes to this issue. You already stated in aprevious argument that you don't care if a fetus is a human life or not, you would still support their killing.
@BelleSorciere I went to university for biology. I know hoe fetuses develop.
@SorcererV1ct0r you said "And note that white Afrikaners already suffered a lot in Africa. They got expelled from Zimbabwe."
Please note that: a) All Afrikaaners (one of the two racial groups that make up White South Africans - the other group being those of British descent - "Rooineks") are white (by definition of them being descended from white, Dutch settlers).
And b): Zimbabwe (formerly known as Southern Rhodesia) was settled by the British (hence the name Rhodesia which comes from Cecil Rhodes), not the Dutch. Therefore it was not Afrikaans settlers who were "persuaded" to leave Zimbabwe but British.
Factual errors weaken the impact of a statement.
P.S. The source of my information? I lived in South Africa from 1988 to 2011.
There's confirmation this morning that the Conservatives are going to allow the Bill designed to avoid a no deal Brexit to pass. I was pretty sure Johnson himself would support that, as part of his strategy to get an early election, and the government had already allowed the Bill to go through the Commons without raising a single amendment. However, I thought there was a possibility that some members of the Lords might have tried to obstruct it there, against Johnson's wishes.
Johnson attempted yesterday to call an election, but couldn't get most opposition MPs to support that call. That was largely because they didn't trust his assurances that he wouldn't change the date of an election to after Brexit once Parliament was dissolved (while I don't think he wanted to do that, it's understandable that opposition MPs are unwilling to take his word for anything).
There are quite a few MPs wary of moving to an early election even if the Bill is passed. However, Corbyn has signed up to the idea and I expect it to go through. If it does, it will be interesting to see if there are any agreements reached between parties prior to the election. If the only issue in the election were Brexit that would be likely. However, as this will be a general election to determine (in theory) who takes power for the next 5 years, it's difficult to see how the existing opposition parties could justify any formal agreements. That's much more possible of course between the Conservatives and the Brexit party (as the latter is a single issue party).
Most in the Labour party seem to want to go for a post-Halloween election. That would force Johnson to go get the extension (or break the law, which seems to be a live option these days.) The question then would be whether Farage's Brexit party stands or not, in a situation where they would be likely to siphon votes from the conservatives. Hard to tell really, it depends how short term Farage and his... err sponsors... are thinking.
For the impending election campaign everyone seems to assume it will be all about Brexit but I'm not quite as sure. Brexit isn't the most motivating topic and I suspect that a variety of other issues will seep into the polarised debate. There's no doubt that a willingness to form electoral pacts will be essential for the remain side though.
I agree with the above. It looks increasingly like other Labour MPs have now persuaded Corbyn not to support an election until after Johnson has asked for an extension. Given he's said today he would prefer to be "dead in a ditch", Johnson has not left himself much room to do that. It's possible therefore that he ends up resigning even before his government collapses and/or an election is held.
A couple of other blows for the Conservatives today. I listened to an interview with the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, this morning. He was asked whether the increase in spending he's just announced was a pre-election bribe and unwise at the current time given the potential economic cost if there's a no deal Brexit. His answer on that was unconvincing to say the least ...
Johnson appeared a bit rattled during a speech this afternoon. That may have been the result of his brother Joe just resigning as a minister from the government. Joe did the same to Theresa May (again over Brexit), but the fact that he's unable to support his brother is not likely to inspire confidence in Boris' ability to navigate a good route through Brexit.
First, the ethnic groups with highest IQ in the world according to the bell curve book are not whites. Are East Asians(logical) and Ashkenazi Jews(Linguistic), so label it an "white supremacy" is wrong. You can say that is racist.
The Bell Curve is about white supremacy, and that includes the benevolent racism in the book, such as invoking Asians as a model minority. I can tell the obvious truth when I damned well please.
And note that white Afrikaners already suffered a lot in Africa. They got expelled from Zimbabwe. The reality is. Whites suffers discrimination in white minority countries.
No, i suggest to watch the video. e mentions many things that lead to the downfall of the roman empire, such as >
Promiscuity(both male and female) who lead to the fall of family 'institution"
Centralization of power in Rome, at beginning Romans only took taxes from their territories but allowed then to follow their religion and have his laws. When they decided to push Roman law everywhere, it lead to an serious of problems
Inflation and the government trying to push bad currency into the population
An economy very dependent of slavery
Mass immigration from Teutonic Tribes(mostly blonde/blue eyed guys)
<...> i don't remember all factors, but is a video that i watched many time ago.
I did watch the video, as well as Shaun's takedown of the video that I linked that debunked all of those claims and put them into a proper historical context, as opposed to Molyneux's hysterical context. For example many of the factors Molyneux claims led to the end of the Roman Empire were around for centuries before said fall. Around for longer than the United States has been a nation.
The promiscuity thing is something Roman scholars complained about throughout the kingdom, republic, and imperial eras. If there's one thing Rome was not short of at any point in its history, it's misogyny.
Molyneux claimed that the decentralization of power in Rome - the instating of four emperors - contributed to Rome's fall. That is in the video.
BallpointMan, he interviewed Noam Chomsky, the fact that he interviewed few WN doesn't means that he is WN. And few words out of context in 2 hours long video doesn't represent what he advocate.
"You're taking his words out of context" is, in Stefan Molyneux's words, not an argument. It doesn't mean anything. It definitely doesn't mean that he didn't mean what he said, and it's blatantly obvious that not only is he a white supremacist ("white nationalist is a euphemism like "alt-right" and "white identitarian" intended to soften the perception of an equally pernicious ideology intent on, ultimately, genocide).
I again point out that Shaun links all of his sources for his sources in the video description so anyone can go look at them and see if he's misrepresenting whomever his video is about. And I also point out that SPLC's page on Molyneux has links to the context for his statements. You'd think if people were taking his words out of context that they'd be more concerned with people locating that context.
How about: Not everyone you like is good, and not everyone you hate is bad.
If the Republicans were really in the process of staging a coup, how did they lose the House in 2018? Did they decide to lose one on purpose just to make it look like they aren't taking over?
Or the significant increase of right wing billionaires funding right wing candidates and legislation? Funding activist groups to oppose immigration, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive justice, freedom of speech, and literally anything that benefits women, people of color, LGBT people, and disabled people.
What does "reproductive justice" mean?
It means killing babies. Not much "justice" for them.
Do they "dash the infants against the rocks"?
Cool, quoting the Old Testament out of context as if it refutes anything I've said. Good to know you have to resort to fallacy to defend your stance. Regardless of this, you have ZERO moral ground to stand on when it comes to this issue. You already stated in aprevious argument that you don't care if a fetus is a human life or not, you would still support their killing.
@BelleSorciere I went to university for biology. I know hoe fetuses develop.
Then you know that in the time frame in which abortion is done, they're not yet babies and haven't even yet developed to the point of being a person, such as a baby is.
You should also be aware that when abortion is illegal that the rate at which women seek abortions does not decrease, but rather that abortion becomes increasingly unsafe and more women die from them. Which is to say that opposing abortion and demanding that all fetuses be carried to term kills women. Last year's Repeal the 8th in Ireland, that thankfully passed, in fact pointed to one particular woman who died because she was refused a medically necessary abortion.
Halappanavar, a dentist from Karnataka, was 17 weeks pregnant with her first child when she sought advice at University Hospital Galway for intense back pain on Sunday 21 October 2012.
Within hours, medical staff concluded that a miscarriage was inevitable, although a foetal heartbeat could be heard. The plan was to allow the pregnancy to end naturally.
After being told of the risk of infection following the rupture of the foetal membranes, the Halappanavars asked whether it was possible to medically induce the miscarriage. A consultant later recalled saying: “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied as long there’s a foetal heart[beat].” No intervention took place.
On the morning of Wednesday 24 October, the medical team diagnosed infection and, later, septic shock. A plan was made, but not enacted, to give Halappanavar a drug to induce an abortion. She spontaneously miscarried mid-afternoon and was subsequently admitted to intensive care, where she died in the early hours of Sunday 28 October, almost a week after being admitted to hospital.
In media interviews in the following weeks, Praveen Halappanavar said he and his wife had repeatedly asked for the pregnancy to be terminated after her admission to hospital, but they had been told “this is a Catholic country”.
I want a world with fewer Savita Halappanavars. I don't want women to die needlessly because they're barred from receiving an abortion. That does not save lives.
Anti-choice ideology, even when abortion is legal, has in the US at least led to women being charged with murder because they had miscarriages, despite the fact that miscarriages are extremely common.
And, no, Billy's moral compass is fine. He's not evil just because he disagrees with you. I don't believe it's moral to demand laws that would ultimately kill adult human beings.
It's not pro-life to insist on policy that will kill adult women and teenage girls.
For what it's worth, @ThacoBell has actually opposed strict legal restrictions on abortion--he generally argues that folks shouldn't choose abortion for ethical reasons; not that the government should remove that choice by law.
I thought I posted a reply, but apparently it got eaten. A somewhat less well-crafted response:
Short version is that this is good to know, but to say that reproductive justice is strictly about abortion is inaccurate. It's about people having the freedom to choose or not choose to have children. In the US, a lot of people, especially disabled people and people of color, have been involuntarily or deceptively sterilized to prevent them from having children, often for "eugenics" reasons. And this has happened recently, although I'm not certain if it's happened in the 21st century.
Lets suppose that the guy who believes that whites are not the most intelligent race and helped people from all over world is actually an white supremacist. And that the genocide watch is wrong, that whites never suffered any type of racism in white minority countries and will never, that all videos of politicians "shot the boer"(video below) are frame by frame complex editing. This makes an interview about the environment wrong??
And Belee, you understood wrong what descentralization means. Using your logic, the soviet union where an group of people decided most things was more descentralized than Liechtenstein and it makes no sense. Centralization of the power is not one or an group of rulers. If Brussels being able to put the southern part of Italy and the northern part of Sicily under the same rule for eg. Most modern democratic states are far more centralized than any monarchy. The German Empire was far more decentralized than the Weimar republic, Third Reich or modern Germany...
Lets suppose that the guy who believes that whites are not the most intelligent race and helped people from all over world is actually an white supremacist. And that the genocide watch is wrong, that whites never suffered any type of racism in white minority countries and will never, that all videos of politicians "shot the boer"(video below) are frame by frame complex editing. This makes an interview about the environment wrong??
Or we could point you to *literally dozen or more* of direct comments made by Stefan that are clearly some variation of white supremacist, white nationalist or eugenicist.
Those comments are inarguable in their content. They each link to a video at the moment in which he makes the quote.
When that very racist, white supremacist individual conducts an interview, you must consider his motivations and his diligence to present factual information to the view. The SPLC link speaks at length about his use of propaganda and his strategy of misleading and misinforming his viewers.
He is not a reliable source. - and so we should not take him at his word.
Or we could point you to the *literally dozens* of direct comments made by Stefan that are clearly some variation of white supremacist, white nationalist or eugenicist.
Those comments are inarguable in their content. They each link to a video at the moment in which he makes the quote.
When that very racist, white supremacist individual conducts an interview, you must consider his motivations and his diligence to present factual information to the view. The SPLC link speaks at length about his use of propaganda and his strategy of misleading and misinforming his viewers.
He is not a reliable source. - and so we should not take him at his word.
I see some people here like Youtube type politics videos, and I wanted to share something from historian Timothy Snyder. Someone I think is one of the most incisive observers of politics today. Start the video at the 2 minute mark to skip the introduction. He talks on a wide range of issues that people here seem interested in such as the EU and climate change.
I wanted to quote one part from this speech which I think is quite relevant in the conversation about Molyneux. Since we have a video posted here where Molyneux egregiously misrepresented NASA's data about the Amazon fires.
"Strikingly, the very same people who tells us that global warming is not a problem, or that we can wait, or that the science is not true are the same people who tell us that the refugees are our enemies, and the migrants are our enemies, and that some races are different than others.
"I would not dream of telling you Europeans who to vote for in the coming elections, but I will say this, as an American, do not vote for the party that denies global warming. Because the party that denies global warming is telling you three things about itself. It is telling you that it will lie about everything. It is telling you that it does not care about the fate of your children and grandchildren. And it is telling you that it is the creature of hydrocarbon oligarchs. And if you're in Europe, they're not even your hydrocarbon oligarchs."
For Athena's sake there is no white genocide in South Africa. Genocide Watch doesn't say there is, and the latest story on that site is from six years ago (October 14, 2013). One article linked on the Genocide Watch site states in the strongest possible terms that it's allegedly "politically correct to kill whites" but this comes from a website called Frontpage Magazine, and well
This entire line of discussion is a nothingburger. It's not real, it's not happening, it was concocted to create a myth of white victimization for modern white supremacists to rally behind and motivate themselves to save white people from becoming a minority in countries such as the US, Australia, Germany, England, etc. Since this isn't happening, they have to lie extensively about it to convince all those people being funnelled to fascist content via YouTube's algorithm or whatever that their way of life is genuinely in danger (spoiler: it isn't).
Let’s get one thing out of the way. Despite what many people tweet and post on Facebook, Genocide Watch has not said that there is a genocide (white or otherwise) occurring in South Africa. The organisation’s president, Gregory Stanton, has made this very clear.
“One of the false uses of Genocide Watch’s model for genocide prediction is the claim by some South Africans, racists in the United States, and a few South African expatriates, that South Africa is undergoing a ‘white genocide’,” Stanton told Africa Check. “Genocide Watch has never said ’white genocide’ is underway in South Africa.”
(Okay, two things out the way: the United Nation’s hasn’t placed South Africa on a genocide watch list either. We checked with them.)
Lets suppose that the guy who believes that whites are not the most intelligent race and helped people from all over world is actually an white supremacist. And that the genocide watch is wrong, that whites never suffered any type of racism in white minority countries and will never, that all videos of politicians "shot the boer"(video below) are frame by frame complex editing. This makes an interview about the environment wrong??
And Belee, you understood wrong what descentralization means. Using your logic, the soviet union where an group of people decided most things was more descentralized than Liechtenstein and it makes no sense. Centralization of the power is not one or an group of rulers. If Brussels being able to put the southern part of Italy and the northern part of Sicily under the same rule for eg. Most modern democratic states are far more centralized than any monarchy. The German Empire was far more decentralized than the Weimar republic, Third Reich or modern Germany...
Four separate emperors in four separate geographic locations was decentralization that improved communication efficiency and speed as the lines were significantly shortened.
Nothing you said here is relevant to my point that the events you claim led to the fall of the Roman Empire were things that happened over periods of time longer than the US. It's hard to claim these things caused the fall when they were endemic to that society for centuries. The claim I responded to was that Rome was too centralized, so I pointed out that at one point, there were four emperors in four regions so as to improve speed and efficiency of communications within those regions, so as to make ruling those regions easier.
Also, Stefan lied about and misrepresented everything he claimed in that video, so it's really just dismissable as he's known to be a bad faith actor.
Belle, why Asians commit less crimes and earn mode than whites on US? IMO is cultural. Not genetic like WN advocates. Look to Bermuda, an African majority British territory and richer than US in GDP per capita.
As for centralization, autoritarian people generally love centralization. Why? Look to US cities who approved strict gun control, they are very close to be dominated by gangs like Detroid. People who hate an authoritarian law can "vote with their feet" and leave an city ruined by socialism, but if the same law is enforced federally, they have no choice...
Look to Bermuda, an African majority British territory and richer than US in GDP per capita.
It also has a population of 72,000 and is a prime financial center for many multinationals to avoid income taxes because it has no corporate income tax.
There are at LEAST 15,000 corporations who SAY they are headquartered on a tiny island with an area barely 20 square miles with 72,000 people.
To put it mildly, the GDP of Bermuda is rather distorted.
Comments
Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist. White supremacist propaganda he's promoted include discredited race and IQ pseudoscience, the myth of white genocide/"The Great Replacement," the completely concocted notion of white farmers being murdered in South Africa so the government can take their land. That was concocted, by the way, by Lauren Southern, whom he's collaborated with. You might remember her from such hits as "joining Identity Evropa in trying to sink ships full of refugees," or rather, attempted murder.
Stefan is also a virulent misogynist and has outright claimed that liberation for women caused the downfall of the Roman Empire.
Stefan is also a cult leader, encourages his followers to leave their families (this is called "defoo" or "disengage from family of origin,"). He's also been known to call out viewers who donate but that he considers them to have donated too little.
Stefan Molyneux is indefensible, especially when trying to defend him from people who only point out the facts about what he has done and continues to do.
Here are some things you insist he's never said: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux
All of the following quotes come from the link above, and each quote is cited with a source that leads straight back to Stefan's own words.
CNN reported on the Bolivian Amazon fires nine days ago.
Can you point to CNN's enthusiastic endorsement of communism?
This story only has data as late as August 16, as it says in the text. It's not the slam dunk point you think it is.
Never mind what I previously wrote here. Weird that there's a later story on Earth Observatory that says something a bit different from Victor's quote above.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145498/uptick-in-amazon-fire-activity-in-2019
But the data page linked in that blog post, i.e. if you had went one step further to check your source, is here: http://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html
And it's been updated. What's it say now?
"Cumulative active fire detections from May 1st through August 28th from MODIS (Aqua + Terra) and VIIRS (SNPP) confirm that the 2019 fire season has the highest fire count since 2012 (the start of the VIIRS record) across the Legal Amazon. In addition, fires in 2019 are more intense than previous years, measured in terms of fire radiative power, consistent with the observed increase in deforestation."
It's actually illegal to alter an official National Weather Service report in this way. Rack it up on his list of never-ending crimes:
According to U.S. Code Title 18, “Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.”
People may view this as a small issue. It's not. For one thing, the SOLE reason he said it was going to hit Alabama is because he needed justification in his own head that HIS people (in other words, a state that gave him electoral votes) were being harmed to give a shit about it. And when he was called out on it, he literally DOCTORED a weather report about a hurricane to cover up his comments. This is such a small, pathetic man on every level.
I don't believe he needed justification in his own head about HIS people in Alabama. I think he wanted to include Alabama to scare them. People ensared by Republican propaganda and fear mongering will vote for the Republican senate candidate in 2020. This is probably Trump's game.
But it could just be another "his people" thing.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/donald-trumps-innovation-governing-by-owning-the-libs.html
So Trump's breaking more federal laws? So to recap we have a lawless President.
- He's been completely reckless with classified information both from our military (the iran satellite photo) and from foreign nations (giving Russia ultra secret Israeli intel).
-He's totally corrupt with Pence and Barr kicking up money to him through staging events at his hotels unnecessarily. Kicking up is what the mob does. Pence stayed at the Trump resort in Ireland despite all his meetings being on the other side of the island. Why? Corruption.
-He enthusiastically welcomed help from a hostile foreign power prior to the 2016 election. "Russia if you're listening..."
-He has done all he can to NOT secure America's elections for 2020 (with a little help from Moscow Mitch).
The pair have called election security measures "full bore Socialism! (moscow mitch) and refused to appoint or put forward people to the FEC since 2015 rendering it UNABLE TO ENFORCE ELECTION LAW.
Huh, never heard that one before. And here my dad keeps harping "once the masses get into the treasury, the empire falls". I should tell him apparently its womens' fault. /eyeroll
That's some truly fucked up shit.
First, no race is mentally superior to any other. It's all about effort put into raising the kid with a LITTLE input from genetics, but not on the macro scale of entire ethic groups.
Second, wow. I guess this guy missed history lessons of the Jewish pogroms of Communist Russia. We're talking about the destruction of entire Jewish communities BEFORE the Nazis, killing tens of thousands.
"Wild overreaction"? THAT is what he calls concentration camps and the Final Solution?
Johnson attempted yesterday to call an election, but couldn't get most opposition MPs to support that call. That was largely because they didn't trust his assurances that he wouldn't change the date of an election to after Brexit once Parliament was dissolved (while I don't think he wanted to do that, it's understandable that opposition MPs are unwilling to take his word for anything).
There are quite a few MPs wary of moving to an early election even if the Bill is passed. However, Corbyn has signed up to the idea and I expect it to go through. If it does, it will be interesting to see if there are any agreements reached between parties prior to the election. If the only issue in the election were Brexit that would be likely. However, as this will be a general election to determine (in theory) who takes power for the next 5 years, it's difficult to see how the existing opposition parties could justify any formal agreements. That's much more possible of course between the Conservatives and the Brexit party (as the latter is a single issue party).
First, gerrymandering.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/27/18761166/supreme-court-gerrymandering-republicans-democracy
https://www.apnews.com/9fd72a4c1c5742aead977ee27815d776
Second, voter suppression
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-suppression-efforts-are-targeting-minorities-journalist-says
https://progressive.org/dispatches/tennessee-republicans-voter-suppression-stewart-190611/
Third, Dominionist/Evangelical Nationalist "model legislation" to increasingly merge church and state.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/04/project-blitz-the-legislative-assault-by-christian-nationalists-to-reshape-america
Also, the attempts to shift freedom of religion from protecting people's religious practices to religious freedom meaning the right to freely discriminate against LGBT people and anyone with a uterus. That is to say, religious freedom goes from protecting from discrimination to protecting an illegitimate right to discriminate based on prejudice.+
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/reports/2019/04/11/468041/religious-liberty-no-harm/
Coming in at four is dark money, billionaire support for neoreactionary and fascist organizations, manipulating the media to promote their preferred views, and shifting the tax burden to the people least able to afford it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/30/billionaire-stealth-politics-america-100-richest-what-they-want
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/thom-hartmann-billionaire-funded-fascism-is-rising-in-america/
Fifth, Trump is appointing ideologically driven judges who vote according to their patron's interests and twist the Constitution into knots to justify it. This is, by the way, exactly why McConnell blocked Merrick Garland.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2017/dec/12/donald-trump-right-wing-takeover-court-system
The right wing in the US has complained for ages about "activist judges" whenever a decision goes against what they want (despite not even slightly harming them) but now Trump's appointed dozens of activist judges including two SCOTUS justices who are all willing to decide cases along ideological lines as opposed to legal and constitutional lines. Or at least, that's the intention.
I can't seem to find the stuff about the recounts, so I'm not going to push it.
So, defending all of these practices as "strictly legal" doesn't actually mean they can't be abused, or even that legality is irrelevant to what I posted earlier. It's like if I said I opposed hunting and killing of animals and someone said "well hunting is legal!" as if that even addresses my point? My stance would be that hunting shouldn't be legal, so arguing that it is misses the point. I am not, btw, anti-hunting for food, it's just an example.
Laws can be unjust. Laws can be bad. Laws can place an unnecessary burden on people, especially marginalized people. Laws against gay sex were unjust, bad, and placed an unnecessary burden on same-sex couples. The first version of the United States Constitution made it illegal to prevent the importing of slaves, made it illegal for states to free slaves who fled to them from other states, and mandated that the slaves be returned to their, er, owners. Never mind counting enslaved people as "3/5ths of a person" via the eponymous compromise.
Putting an end to these unjust and honestly very bad laws led to a civil war between the northern and southern states of the United States, and the south's attempted secession. I know people will say the war was over states' rights, rather than slavery, but this is half true. The war was over states' rights to keep slavery legal.
Jim Crow laws were unjust, bad, and also placed an undue burden on black people. Leading to segregation and disenfranchisement to prevent black people from gaining any degree of power or self-determination, and when they did get it, they were violently put down.
Also, one cannot simply assume that every judicial decision handed down from the SCOTUS is actually based in an understanding of the US Constitution, and the current SCOTUS is looking to hand the American right everything they want on a silver platter. That is to say, a decision from SCOTUS is not automatically correct or good or necessary, and appealing to their authority as if every decision they make is strictly objective is complete nonsense.
As it turns out, "slow motion coup" is a term popular on both the left and the right, which is not really surprising. However,
https://edsteinink.com/the-slow-motion-coup-e290dafad7c7
Anyway, I'm gonna study more conspiracy theory by reading mainstream news sources and the facts they report.
Shaun did a fairly good video dissecting the whole thing, although it's nearly an hour long. He also links to the original sources in the doobley doo so people can see whether he's misrepresenting anyone.
Right? That's not the worst I've ever heard from him, but SPLC's quotes seemed plenty awful.
Most in the Labour party seem to want to go for a post-Halloween election. That would force Johnson to go get the extension (or break the law, which seems to be a live option these days.) The question then would be whether Farage's Brexit party stands or not, in a situation where they would be likely to siphon votes from the conservatives. Hard to tell really, it depends how short term Farage and his... err sponsors... are thinking.
For the impending election campaign everyone seems to assume it will be all about Brexit but I'm not quite as sure. Brexit isn't the most motivating topic and I suspect that a variety of other issues will seep into the polarised debate. There's no doubt that a willingness to form electoral pacts will be essential for the remain side though.
First, the ethnic groups with highest IQ in the world according to the bell curve book are not whites. Are East Asians(logical) and Ashkenazi Jews(Linguistic), so label it an "white supremacy" is wrong. You can say that is racist.
As for the genocide of white south africans, Genocide Watch say that whites are in risk of a genocide > http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html
And note that white Afrikaners already suffered a lot in Africa. They got expelled from Zimbabwe. The reality is. Whites suffers discrimination in white minority countries.
No, i suggest to watch the video. e mentions many things that lead to the downfall of the roman empire, such as >
The UK has a unilateral right to revoke at any time prior to departure, but it must be final and in accordance with the UK's constitutional requirements. In other words the UK can't revoke and then trigger article 50 all over again to gain time.
Cool, quoting the Old Testament out of context as if it refutes anything I've said. Good to know you have to resort to fallacy to defend your stance. Regardless of this, you have ZERO moral ground to stand on when it comes to this issue. You already stated in aprevious argument that you don't care if a fetus is a human life or not, you would still support their killing.
@BelleSorciere I went to university for biology. I know hoe fetuses develop.
Please note that: a) All Afrikaaners (one of the two racial groups that make up White South Africans - the other group being those of British descent - "Rooineks") are white (by definition of them being descended from white, Dutch settlers).
And b): Zimbabwe (formerly known as Southern Rhodesia) was settled by the British (hence the name Rhodesia which comes from Cecil Rhodes), not the Dutch. Therefore it was not Afrikaans settlers who were "persuaded" to leave Zimbabwe but British.
Factual errors weaken the impact of a statement.
P.S. The source of my information? I lived in South Africa from 1988 to 2011.
I agree with the above. It looks increasingly like other Labour MPs have now persuaded Corbyn not to support an election until after Johnson has asked for an extension. Given he's said today he would prefer to be "dead in a ditch", Johnson has not left himself much room to do that. It's possible therefore that he ends up resigning even before his government collapses and/or an election is held.
A couple of other blows for the Conservatives today. I listened to an interview with the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, this morning. He was asked whether the increase in spending he's just announced was a pre-election bribe and unwise at the current time given the potential economic cost if there's a no deal Brexit. His answer on that was unconvincing to say the least ...
Johnson appeared a bit rattled during a speech this afternoon. That may have been the result of his brother Joe just resigning as a minister from the government. Joe did the same to Theresa May (again over Brexit), but the fact that he's unable to support his brother is not likely to inspire confidence in Boris' ability to navigate a good route through Brexit.
The Bell Curve is about white supremacy, and that includes the benevolent racism in the book, such as invoking Asians as a model minority. I can tell the obvious truth when I damned well please.
White people in South Africa are not at risk of genocide. People are misusing Genocide Watch to promote a conspiracy theory spread by Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, among others. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/08/23/dangerous-myth-white-genocide-south-africa
I did watch the video, as well as Shaun's takedown of the video that I linked that debunked all of those claims and put them into a proper historical context, as opposed to Molyneux's hysterical context. For example many of the factors Molyneux claims led to the end of the Roman Empire were around for centuries before said fall. Around for longer than the United States has been a nation.
The promiscuity thing is something Roman scholars complained about throughout the kingdom, republic, and imperial eras. If there's one thing Rome was not short of at any point in its history, it's misogyny.
Molyneux claimed that the decentralization of power in Rome - the instating of four emperors - contributed to Rome's fall. That is in the video.
"You're taking his words out of context" is, in Stefan Molyneux's words, not an argument. It doesn't mean anything. It definitely doesn't mean that he didn't mean what he said, and it's blatantly obvious that not only is he a white supremacist ("white nationalist is a euphemism like "alt-right" and "white identitarian" intended to soften the perception of an equally pernicious ideology intent on, ultimately, genocide).
I again point out that Shaun links all of his sources for his sources in the video description so anyone can go look at them and see if he's misrepresenting whomever his video is about. And I also point out that SPLC's page on Molyneux has links to the context for his statements. You'd think if people were taking his words out of context that they'd be more concerned with people locating that context.
How about: Not everyone you like is good, and not everyone you hate is bad.
Then you know that in the time frame in which abortion is done, they're not yet babies and haven't even yet developed to the point of being a person, such as a baby is.
You should also be aware that when abortion is illegal that the rate at which women seek abortions does not decrease, but rather that abortion becomes increasingly unsafe and more women die from them. Which is to say that opposing abortion and demanding that all fetuses be carried to term kills women. Last year's Repeal the 8th in Ireland, that thankfully passed, in fact pointed to one particular woman who died because she was refused a medically necessary abortion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/23/ireland-abortion-referendum-savita-father-galway
I want a world with fewer Savita Halappanavars. I don't want women to die needlessly because they're barred from receiving an abortion. That does not save lives.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preventing-unsafe-abortion
Anti-choice ideology, even when abortion is legal, has in the US at least led to women being charged with murder because they had miscarriages, despite the fact that miscarriages are extremely common.
https://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/pregnancy-miscarriage#1
And, no, Billy's moral compass is fine. He's not evil just because he disagrees with you. I don't believe it's moral to demand laws that would ultimately kill adult human beings.
It's not pro-life to insist on policy that will kill adult women and teenage girls.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Forcing women and girls to carry their rapist's baby to term is exceedingly cruel. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/feb/28/girl-11-gives-birth-to-rapists-child-after-argentina-refuses-abortion
Short version is that this is good to know, but to say that reproductive justice is strictly about abortion is inaccurate. It's about people having the freedom to choose or not choose to have children. In the US, a lot of people, especially disabled people and people of color, have been involuntarily or deceptively sterilized to prevent them from having children, often for "eugenics" reasons. And this has happened recently, although I'm not certain if it's happened in the 21st century.
And Belee, you understood wrong what descentralization means. Using your logic, the soviet union where an group of people decided most things was more descentralized than Liechtenstein and it makes no sense. Centralization of the power is not one or an group of rulers. If Brussels being able to put the southern part of Italy and the northern part of Sicily under the same rule for eg. Most modern democratic states are far more centralized than any monarchy. The German Empire was far more decentralized than the Weimar republic, Third Reich or modern Germany...
The video in question >
Or we could point you to *literally dozen or more* of direct comments made by Stefan that are clearly some variation of white supremacist, white nationalist or eugenicist.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux
Those comments are inarguable in their content. They each link to a video at the moment in which he makes the quote.
When that very racist, white supremacist individual conducts an interview, you must consider his motivations and his diligence to present factual information to the view. The SPLC link speaks at length about his use of propaganda and his strategy of misleading and misinforming his viewers.
He is not a reliable source. - and so we should not take him at his word.
Why change reality? Look at what is rather than suppose what might be or what you want it to be.
I see some people here like Youtube type politics videos, and I wanted to share something from historian Timothy Snyder. Someone I think is one of the most incisive observers of politics today. Start the video at the 2 minute mark to skip the introduction. He talks on a wide range of issues that people here seem interested in such as the EU and climate change.
I wanted to quote one part from this speech which I think is quite relevant in the conversation about Molyneux. Since we have a video posted here where Molyneux egregiously misrepresented NASA's data about the Amazon fires.
"Strikingly, the very same people who tells us that global warming is not a problem, or that we can wait, or that the science is not true are the same people who tell us that the refugees are our enemies, and the migrants are our enemies, and that some races are different than others.
"I would not dream of telling you Europeans who to vote for in the coming elections, but I will say this, as an American, do not vote for the party that denies global warming. Because the party that denies global warming is telling you three things about itself. It is telling you that it will lie about everything. It is telling you that it does not care about the fate of your children and grandchildren. And it is telling you that it is the creature of hydrocarbon oligarchs. And if you're in Europe, they're not even your hydrocarbon oligarchs."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/frontpage-magazine/
But okay, there are multiple articles.
There is no white genocide:
https://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/myth-white-genocide
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-farmers-south-africa/
https://harpers.org/archive/2019/03/the-myth-of-white-genocide-in-south-africa/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/world/africa/trump-south-africa-white-farmers.html
This entire line of discussion is a nothingburger. It's not real, it's not happening, it was concocted to create a myth of white victimization for modern white supremacists to rally behind and motivate themselves to save white people from becoming a minority in countries such as the US, Australia, Germany, England, etc. Since this isn't happening, they have to lie extensively about it to convince all those people being funnelled to fascist content via YouTube's algorithm or whatever that their way of life is genuinely in danger (spoiler: it isn't).
Just read: https://africacheck.org/2016/09/15/analysis-genocide-watch-thin-transparency-methodology/
Benevolent racism is still racism. Positioning Asians (that covers a lot of nationalities and ethnicities) as a model minority is an attempt to drive a wedge between Asian-Americans and African-Americans. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/524571669/model-minority-myth-again-used-as-a-racial-wedge-between-asians-and-blacks
I was using the word correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization
Four separate emperors in four separate geographic locations was decentralization that improved communication efficiency and speed as the lines were significantly shortened.
Nothing you said here is relevant to my point that the events you claim led to the fall of the Roman Empire were things that happened over periods of time longer than the US. It's hard to claim these things caused the fall when they were endemic to that society for centuries. The claim I responded to was that Rome was too centralized, so I pointed out that at one point, there were four emperors in four regions so as to improve speed and efficiency of communications within those regions, so as to make ruling those regions easier.
Also, Stefan lied about and misrepresented everything he claimed in that video, so it's really just dismissable as he's known to be a bad faith actor.
As for centralization, autoritarian people generally love centralization. Why? Look to US cities who approved strict gun control, they are very close to be dominated by gangs like Detroid. People who hate an authoritarian law can "vote with their feet" and leave an city ruined by socialism, but if the same law is enforced federally, they have no choice...
It also has a population of 72,000 and is a prime financial center for many multinationals to avoid income taxes because it has no corporate income tax.
There are at LEAST 15,000 corporations who SAY they are headquartered on a tiny island with an area barely 20 square miles with 72,000 people.
To put it mildly, the GDP of Bermuda is rather distorted.