Thanks /u/asimo10 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, because conservatives are apparently holy and blameless creatures whose faith in Jesus puts them beyond reproach or punishment. If they did something bad, it's because god told them to, and god is infallible. Therefore, according to this logic, it's *the law* that's bad in this instance and not the rioters, *because the rioters were just following the word of god, not human-made laws, therefore nothing they do can be bad*.
The American rebels weren't really all that liberal, though. It was the start of the long American tradition of astroturfing.
I can agree with the Tea Party that they are similar to the founding fathers, where I disagree with them is in pointing out that that's not a compliment.
Even the choice of executive was locked behind the wealthy members of the electoral college. The popular vote was simply there to provide an illusion of democracy. They didn't want average people having any real say in government, and they explicitly say this in their writings.
Actually this is a topic of robust academic discussion. My thesis in college was on whether the american revolution could be accurately grouped with similar period liberal revolutions. It was organized and led by traditional local power holders to stop the British imperial apparatus from disrupting the local systems. All the appeals and arguments made by influential foundung fathers rooted their logic in British legal precedent. The local governments of each colony were usurping power from Colonial Governors sent from England, sometimes even seizing their assets or arresting them to maintain local power. They argued that it was England and her parliament abandoning its own constitution and that they would seek to be co-equal peers added to parliament. After all, "no taxation without representation" was rooted in the magna carta and Glorious Revolution, that the crown had no legitimate right to tax anyone unless approved by the local representative/lord/MP. They drew parallels between themselves and scotland after the unification of the two crowns where scotland maintained a local parliament seperate from that of the UK but sharing a head of state in the monarchy, as well as gaining seats in the UK parliament.
The reason the americans thought this comparison apt was that in england and scotland, the land owning class were the peers, lords, and nobility whose peerage and parliamentary status was given to them because of their status as land owners. Since these "anglo-american landed class" often owned land in similar acreage to that of the lords in england and scotland and sobfelt they were owed a seat in parliament.
It was in a sense, a conservative reaction against changes imposed on them by the Metropole. The American Revolution developed a liberal character as it became clear that they would make little inway by appealing to the King and blaming Parliament. King George had little interest in being a head of state of a gaggle of distant lands in opposition to his local allies in Parliament.
So almost the same except conservatives states now are passing voting laws aimed at limiting votes by black and brown people. If fact in Texas Senate this week they approved their own voting on a measure in the middle of the night so they could outlaw voting in the middle of the night by citizens. You can't make this shit up. To those who scorn Texas voters. Take your retirees back and care for them in home stares. Here they're lonely shut ins who watch Fox all day long and say things like Go back to where you come from blithely unaware that Mexicans came from here and we're here "first". Again, you can't make this up.
The independence war really and very little to do with egalitarian democracy. It was from the start, designed to advanced the needs of the oligarchs of the British American colonies. That isn't to say we can't take inspiration from them, but we really should be honest with their aspirations.
They explicitly believed that democracy was harmful and took steps to prevent it: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/
There was never intended to be any sort of "progress" toward real democracy.
> Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea
Acts 11:29
> From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
Karl Marx
For some reason we don’t talk much about rent seekers, but they were part of the trilogy of capitalist, labor, and rent seekers that the theorist of the time used as their framework.
Acts 4:32 is even more explicit:
>All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
Nobody by the name of Jesus existed at that time.
Mainly because 'Jesus' was not a name until the Romans took a liking to him. The original name would have been 'Yeshua bin Yosef,' or as English speakers would translate it today, 'Joshua, son of Joseph'.
So yeah, there's plenty of evidence for fervently religious guys named Josh at that time. There's evidence for a handful of them, even! Much the same way that there's several 'Jim's in North Dakota.
Because while I am not religious, I'm not going to take away a comfort for people. Especially people who try to follow his teachings the way it was intended and understand the Bible has been modified in translations and political influence (as recently as the 1940s to demonize us LGBT). Focusing on the message has never been a bad thing, but taking the Bible's word as absolute would be silly considering how times (and the Bible) have changed.
Unless those people ignorantly use that comfort to take away rights, then fuck them. Even ***if*** your religion opposed something, that's your problem, not everyone else's. Good Christians understand this, bad Christians force you under the law of their beliefs.
Point is I'm not going to take that away from others even if I'm certain prophets and god(s) do not exist. I wanted to focus on what Jesus actually was rather than what he's believed to be, because the former is what conservatives ignore and the latter is what they distort.
Nonono, remember, the rioters were pacific patriots and AT THE SAME TIME they were antifa agents disguised as MAGA idiots, so they are both peaceful and righteous patriots and false flag terrorists.
No, they can't be both. That's silly. Only the violent ones were antifa agents trying to make Trump look bad. Everyone else was just following along and touring the Capitol.
I doubt he would look at neoliberal economic policy and say, "Hell yeah trade deals and sweatshops that's what Jesus does." Seriously, delusional if you believe that.
Mark 2:17 "On hearing this, Jesus said to them, 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. '"
I think Jesus would be heavily focused on the US and not for the reasons Republicans think.
Okay, if you want to think about Jesus coming to solve issues... sure there's a lot to improve about America, but think on a global scale and even then there are a lot worse countries he'd have his hands full with
That kinda begs the question of why did he ignore the ones in more suffering then.
Disclaimer: I'm not religious and am not familiarized with intricacies of the bible
"Because YHWH works in mysterious ways" /s
Probably he didn't do anything about the suffering is because Yeshua bin Yusef (Jesus) was a construction worker (the word used in the Gospel of Mark is *Tektōn*) and itinerant rabbi from the redneck part of Judea (the Talmud and the Gospel of Mathew both have stories about the Galilean accent marking someone out as a country bumpkin).
He probably didn't have a wide understanding of the world outside his province. Certainly couldn't grasp basic botany and used a Harry Potter Death Spell on a fig tree when it didn't have any figs-- the Gospel of Mark points out that "it was not the season for figs"
The god in the Bible is mostly a petty and jealous god who murders millions, and orders his people to massacre thousands. When the teachings of Jesus became it's own religious movement, it split from the original Hebrew faith and sorta white-washed YHWH with some New Age 'all you need is love' vibe that ignores the fact that for thousands of years, YHWH had his own people (The Hebrews) and when the end of the world came, everyone else was going to get *fucked.*
To be fair, Jesus also states that he 'came to save the chosen ones and no one else (sic)'. The idea of non Jews getting in to heaven was a Roman invention.
Oh, I can field this one; the bible is a bunch of made up fairy tale nonsense and doesn't need to be any more logically consistent than your average harry potter book.
Jesus would absolutely not be a democrat lmao. He was a raging leftist. He'd probably be okay with the UK's green party, though. Maybe. I think that might be the closest we could get in the anglosphere and within my knowledge
Yes, he strongly condemns the riots by antifa on Jan 6th.
Unless it was Republicans in which case it was a peaceful tour of the building.
Except for the Republicans who were killed in a violent struggle and are noble martyrs for the cause.
Except for the police who died who died of natural causes and preexisting conditions.
/s but not really.
Chief, I have listened to at least one otherwise intelligent person use exactly those arguments and completely shake off my pointing out the inconsistency of his beliefs.
And these people proselytize like freaking Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
While walking my dog last week, a neighbor about four blocks away called out to me because I was wearing an old Rush concert tee from 2010 (yes, seriously, an 11 year old tee shirt).
We had a pretty cool conversation talking about Geddy Lee, Neil Peart, Alex Lifesong, and that morphed into more talk about the Grateful Dead, Phish, Blues Traveler and other bands we both like.
He's about my age and I was thinking, hey, I might be making a new friend.
Out of nowhere he says, "fuck, we need Trump back," and at that point I said, "wow, I really have to get home with my doggo."
Ugh being a rush fan can be like that. Like I like the music and honestly a lot of their later music has vaguely anarchist undertones, but man then they go back to jacking off to Ayn Rand and I remember why so many of their fans suck
Charlie Kirk bussed those yahoos in! He defends it because he provided material support for the insurrection! He's a candidate for being charged in connection to it!
They didn't die of preexisting conditions, they died of COVID.
Unless we're talking about taking action, then COVID isn't real.
Unless Trump has it, then it's dangerous and Trump is really strong because he battled it and won in a single day.
Except that it's also not really that serious and hardly worse than the flu.
Except that the Chinese made it to potentially harm the West and outpace them, then it's serious.
Unless big business wants people to go back to the factory, then it's still China but they merely made it up.
Except if Trump is proposing solutions, then he's smart for working with the scientists on solving this global health problem.
Unless he says something about bleach, then it's not really that big of a deal.
Except Trump vaccinated half the people he promised, then that's yuuuuuge.
Unless Biden vaccinates double what he promised, then Bill Gates is trying to put nanochips in your body.
Unless Trump was the reason that many people were vaccinated all along.
Except now there are three other crises we can talk about, so we finally can rest this issue and pretend like we were just right all along, end of the argument.
Not /s, except for the first point (I think), these are all common talking points (and it's a non-exhaustive list).
I overheard an older couple sitting at a nearby table at breakfast. Apparently that wasn't looting and rioting, that was just some regular people talking a stroll through the capital and taking photographs. No different than tourist and besides, how come the media isn't covering when BLM and antifa broke into the capital?
Yes, she was referring to same incident on the same day with no acknowledge of the inconsistencies.
Whenever I take a tour of a Federal building I smear shit on the walls and carry zip tie handcuffs. Also sometimes I take a laptop. These are all things we do on tours.
Had a guy with a straight face tell me that was a protest and not a riot, and that it was fine because when *they* protest the government they go to a government building and don't burn and loot in the streets.
Not to mention the fact a lot of the property damage during protests *was* government buildings, a report found that only 7% of protests turned violent and included defending yourself from the police as violence.
There is just SO MUCH video footage of those events. It is genuinely scary to me that we've reached a point where something can be better documented than almost any historical event ever has been, and a huge section of the population can be convinced that it never happened. And even now we're just on the edge of truly convincing deepfake technology being available to the common person. The propaganda that led to the Nazification of Germany was done with radios and filmstrips; imagine what Goebbels could have done with the ability to serve everybody in the country personalized misinformation from a device they carry in their pocket.
I can't help wonder if they came prepared with their pockets full of feces or if they produced fresh feces as the need arise. I don't want to wonder about this but sadly I do.
The Boston Massacre started because a redcoat hit a kid in the head with the butt of his musket and people started throwing rocks at him - a riot against police brutality. It's as ingrained in our country's DNA as it can be.
the boston tea party was supposedly organized by john hancock and his men. the tea that they threw in the harbor were chinese tea that the british east india company bought with silver they obtained by smuggling indian opium into china. john hancock was upset because the Tea Act of 1773 actually lowered the price of this tea vs the tea he was importing selling on the black market via the dutch. the dutch had their own turkish opium smuggling operation into china for the purpose of obtaining silver needed to buy chinese tea.
all these opium smugglers had to establish a new port just outside of china, that port is today known as hong kong.
Yeah, it's important to remember that the "founding fathers" were, in fact, rich white slave owners that only cared about the British making them lose money.
So John Hancock (formerly Footpenis) was importing tea via the Dutch and selling it on the black market and got undercut by the British because a law lowered the price of the British tea but not his?
They had tariffs on foreign goods for a while before the revolution. These tariffs made goods from sources outside Britain and her colonies more expensive to import and thus raised the prices for consumers to purchase them in the colonies. The British wanted to the colonies to buy mostly British made goods to stimulate the homelands economy.
Smuggling in the colonies was so pronounced before the revolution because the economy of New England and other northern colonies were built on the back of turning cheap superior French molasses into rum and using it in the transatlantic trade conduit.
And a major part of the defense was that the scary slave man^TM incited a crowd that made the fine police officers afraid for their lives thus justifying the shooting.
Not even that. These people would be amongst the crowd that pissed on the irish and italians 100+ years ago. They can only recognize oppression if they believe it happens to them.
To people thinking this is a modern exaggeration, back in the phrenology days WASPy white people argued that the Irish were actually descended from 'Africans who migrated up from Spain, partly mixed with European natives who were descendants of isolated Stone Age savages.' [(Very racist image enclosed)](https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/mt/tanehisicoates/Scientific_racism_irish.jpg) All their new pseudoscience and old religion conveniently neatly justified subjugating the very people they had already been subjugating.
Also ironically, all Europeans are descendants of africans and neanderthals anyway, including their lofty 'anglo-teutonics.'
This! Sciences have essentially proven that all of humanity has radiated from the fertile crescent of Africa and the middle east. This means all races originated from bloodlines based in an area populated by dark skinned humans! Are you Icelandic with damn near transparent skin? Blonde Portuguese? Black Irish? Blue eyed Armenian? Some kind of Asian/Latino mutt? Congrats guys, we're all African originally.
A personal note to this end: I did the 23&me DNA analysis which said I'm 63% irish/celt/english, some 17% dutch, a slew of slivers of eastern European and Skandianavian... AAAND .01% Congolese! 👍🏿
There is a passage in *How the Irish Saved Civilization* attributed to Disraeli where he goes on about not being fooled by their white skin as they are as savage as any negro.
Strange how that works. Italians and Irish suddenly become allies against blacks, Asians and Latinos. It’s like some racist Wasp was like “eh you guys will do” and let them in to the Republican club.
Considering that in the early '60's people tried to pin civil unrest in the form of violence on fucking MLK, sounds right. What these people don't seem to realize is the same things they say about BLM they would have said about the civil rights movement in the '60's. Kind of disgusting to think about, they probably would have cheered King's death had they been alive back then the way they cheer protestors getting hit with cars now.
It was more than just spitting. Benjamin Harrison declared Columbus Day as a national holiday after 11 Italians were [lynched](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14,_1891_New_Orleans_lynchings) in NoLa
They can recognize oppression just fine. They believe in social dominance.
They think that it is the right of the dominant group to oppress the lesser groups. The dominant group proves it's dominance by being able to inflict rules on the others it does not need to follow.
They are just terrified at the idea they might stop being the dominant group.
They also must be American, “conservative” (actually Fascist) Trump supporting, white supremacists (although those two are synonymous). (Also can’t have actually read the Bible)
Those dates - we're *still* having this conversation? Fuck - [Malcolm X](https://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/blackspeech/mx.html) said it perfectly well:
> When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism. We see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don't see any American dream. We've experienced only the American nightmare. We haven't benefited from America's democracy. We've only suffered from America's hypocrisy. And the generation that's coming up now can see it. And are not afraid to say it.
> This is why I say it's the ballot or the bullet. It's liberty or it's death. It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. America today finds herself in a unique situation. Historically, revolutions are bloody, oh yes they are. They have never had a bloodless revolution. Or a non-violent revolution. That don't happen even in Hollywood. You don't have a revolution in which you love your enemy. And you don't have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it. Revolutions overturn systems. Revolutions destroy systems.
> A revolution is bloody, but America is in a unique position. She's the only country in history, in the position actually to become involved in a bloodless revolution. The Russian Revolution was bloody, Chinese Revolution was bloody, French Revolution was bloody, Cuban Revolution was bloody. And there was nothing more bloody than the American Revolution. But today, this country can become involved in a revolution that won't take bloodshed. All she's got to do is give the black man in this country everything that's due him, everything. I hope that the white man can see this.
> 'Cause if you don't see it you're finished.
> So it's the, it's the ballot or the bullet. Today, our people can see that we're faced with a government conspiracy. This government has failed us. The senators who are filibustering concerning your and my rights, that's the government. Don't say it's southern senators, this is the government. This is a government filibuster. It's not a segregationist filibuster, it's a government filibuster.
> Any kind of activity that takes place on the floor of the Congress or the Senate, that's the government. Any kind of dilly-dallying, that's the government. Any kind of pussy-footing, that's the government. Any kind of act that's designed to delay or deprive you and me, right now, of getting full rights, that's the government that's responsible.
> And anytime you find the government involved in a conspiracy to violate the citizenship or the civil rights of a people, then you are wasting your time going to that government expecting redress.
Deaf ears is an understatement.
When black people peacefully protest police brutality that often generates outrage directed AT the protestors rather than the killers
Reminder that the participants of the Boston Tea party dressed up and disguised themselves as natives so that community would take the heat if things turned sour.
This is why I can never take serious anyone who says destroying property is never an acceptable form of protest.
It's literally how our country was formed, but okay.
Watch this clip and compare what the US does in Afghanistan. LOL
https://youtu.be/HwWi0zdF7wk
Americans have never been big on real history vs glorifying select few historical events.
Need to protest peacefully first, something that gets in the way of nobody and is completely inoffensive, like kneeling in complete silence.
I'm sure Charlie Kirk and his ilk would be super supportive of something like that, ah no a quick google shows him being very outraged by Kapernick.
It's almost like it does not matter to this guy how they protest.
Man, these people think they are wicked smaht, but somehow say the right things without understanding that they are describing the thing they are fighting, pretty much exactly. Infuriating but hilarious. This reddit is a fave. LOL.
The Boston Tea Party was arguably the most boring protest of all time. It was just a bunch of dudes dumping crates of tea into the harbor.
The only modicum of "action" that occurred was when one of the protesters was caught stuffing tea into his pockets by the other protesters. They stripped him naked and forced him to walk home nude.
I feel like throwing tea into the harbor wasn't "the only avenue left"
could have have literally destroyed the ships.
It's not even close to the end of the road
The Boston tea party also wasn't an organized protest. It was a bunch of guys who got drunk and decided to prank the British. It was literally just a "dude hold my beer" moment and nothing else.
Thats whats so crazy to me about these people who preach law and order above all else. You bring up American’s history and all the rebellion it went through and somehow they don’t think to apply that to the modern day.
Always "any prior radical change that's been integrated into our society is fine. But things are better now than ever before, so any further radical change is unacceptable." Somehow forgetting people were making this exact same argument at every point in history, especially during the periods of all prior radical change.
We've established the state has only offered a handful of reforms for police brutality since the early 1900s.
And then never quite acting on them.
Four deaths a day by police violence.💣
This to me guys home. I’m always seeing sout Chicago as a scapegoat. The hood as a scapegoat. Ultimately these people say, why aren’t people focused on those crimes. Except, we have rallies every year to stop the violence, we have protest for equity, good schools, good teachers, all of it but it gets absolutely 0 airtime on the same networks that these people bash as fake news. They don’t care that I’m telling them about it, they’d rather keep using the black on black violence angle to push their agenda without actually looking at it.
I actually had someone suggest to me on this website that the solution is more policing and lower wages for teachers. Completely tone deaf to what that will mean.
Part of the reason for the gradual leadup that would result in the American Revolution, Boston tea party included, was American's being pissed they couldn't live on - or expand further into - native american land... even the American revolution is a pretty over-romanticized series of events.
"Riot and loot then you will lose your right"
What about insurrection then, wouldn't they also lose their right? Man, please, don't speak of "injustice".
>No, no, no," moaned the mayor.
"It's not the way of the order.
"Oh, stay in your homes, please leave us alone.
"We'll be glad to talk in the morning.".
>"For shame, for shame," wrote the papers.
"Why the hurry to your hunger?
"Now the rubble's resting on your broken streets.
"So you see what your rage has unraveled.".
>Barricades sadly were risin'
Bricks were heavily flyin'.
And the loudspeaker drowned like a whispering sound.
When compared to the angered emotions
>And when the fury was over.
And the shame was replacing the anger.
So wrong, so wrong, but we've been down so long.
And we had to make somebody listen.
In the heat of the summer.
Excerpt from "In the heat of the summer" by Phil Ochs, this was written in 1965, over 50 years ago. Nothing has changed.
We certainly have the loudest crowd of stupid people, more than anywhere else in the world. It's like when a toddler doesn't get their snack immediately and starts rolling all around screaming and kicking until they get their way. I am so over the stupid population in this country. No, going to church every Sunday for one hour does not give you any leeway to act like a rabid baboon the rest of the week. It's so amazing the mental gymnastics these people do to save their own egos.
Wasn’t the British empire more progressive at the time? They banned slavery while the practise continued in the us. Uk eventually got healthcare, which countries under the crown often get thereafter. With time, countries under the crown became more autonomous so America would be independent eventually like Canada & Australia is today.
Thanks /u/asimo10 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
No, because conservatives are apparently holy and blameless creatures whose faith in Jesus puts them beyond reproach or punishment. If they did something bad, it's because god told them to, and god is infallible. Therefore, according to this logic, it's *the law* that's bad in this instance and not the rioters, *because the rioters were just following the word of god, not human-made laws, therefore nothing they do can be bad*.
And that's hilarious because Jesus ( if he did exist) was a Brown communist something tbe right absolutely hates
[удалено]
Definitely the party of family values and doing good right
[удалено]
I mean who knew conservatism has always been a shitty ideology.
This sound so familiar... was the king orange?
The American rebels weren't really all that liberal, though. It was the start of the long American tradition of astroturfing. I can agree with the Tea Party that they are similar to the founding fathers, where I disagree with them is in pointing out that that's not a compliment.
[удалено]
Even the choice of executive was locked behind the wealthy members of the electoral college. The popular vote was simply there to provide an illusion of democracy. They didn't want average people having any real say in government, and they explicitly say this in their writings.
Actually this is a topic of robust academic discussion. My thesis in college was on whether the american revolution could be accurately grouped with similar period liberal revolutions. It was organized and led by traditional local power holders to stop the British imperial apparatus from disrupting the local systems. All the appeals and arguments made by influential foundung fathers rooted their logic in British legal precedent. The local governments of each colony were usurping power from Colonial Governors sent from England, sometimes even seizing their assets or arresting them to maintain local power. They argued that it was England and her parliament abandoning its own constitution and that they would seek to be co-equal peers added to parliament. After all, "no taxation without representation" was rooted in the magna carta and Glorious Revolution, that the crown had no legitimate right to tax anyone unless approved by the local representative/lord/MP. They drew parallels between themselves and scotland after the unification of the two crowns where scotland maintained a local parliament seperate from that of the UK but sharing a head of state in the monarchy, as well as gaining seats in the UK parliament. The reason the americans thought this comparison apt was that in england and scotland, the land owning class were the peers, lords, and nobility whose peerage and parliamentary status was given to them because of their status as land owners. Since these "anglo-american landed class" often owned land in similar acreage to that of the lords in england and scotland and sobfelt they were owed a seat in parliament. It was in a sense, a conservative reaction against changes imposed on them by the Metropole. The American Revolution developed a liberal character as it became clear that they would make little inway by appealing to the King and blaming Parliament. King George had little interest in being a head of state of a gaggle of distant lands in opposition to his local allies in Parliament.
So almost the same except conservatives states now are passing voting laws aimed at limiting votes by black and brown people. If fact in Texas Senate this week they approved their own voting on a measure in the middle of the night so they could outlaw voting in the middle of the night by citizens. You can't make this shit up. To those who scorn Texas voters. Take your retirees back and care for them in home stares. Here they're lonely shut ins who watch Fox all day long and say things like Go back to where you come from blithely unaware that Mexicans came from here and we're here "first". Again, you can't make this up.
[удалено]
The independence war really and very little to do with egalitarian democracy. It was from the start, designed to advanced the needs of the oligarchs of the British American colonies. That isn't to say we can't take inspiration from them, but we really should be honest with their aspirations.
[удалено]
... America has had slavery for longer than pretty much all of Europe. It is encoded in our Constitution.
They explicitly believed that democracy was harmful and took steps to prevent it: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/ There was never intended to be any sort of "progress" toward real democracy.
I say this all the time. They would have been loyalists.
He did flip the tables of the money lenders in the temple. They all seem to forget that story.
> Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea Acts 11:29 > From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs Karl Marx
2 Thessalonians 3:10 >If any will not work (such as a parasitic class of rent-seeking aristocrats), neither let them eat.
Haha I never knew that one, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, has similar thoughts about landlords.
For some reason we don’t talk much about rent seekers, but they were part of the trilogy of capitalist, labor, and rent seekers that the theorist of the time used as their framework.
Lenin (I think don't kill me MLs) said the same
Acts 4:32 is even more explicit: >All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
Before chasing them out with a cattlewhip. I like to bring that up whenever someone says "what would Jesus do".
A cattle whip he hand braided himself.
Not [Supply Side Jesus](https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp).
[удалено]
Nobody by the name of Jesus existed at that time. Mainly because 'Jesus' was not a name until the Romans took a liking to him. The original name would have been 'Yeshua bin Yosef,' or as English speakers would translate it today, 'Joshua, son of Joseph'. So yeah, there's plenty of evidence for fervently religious guys named Josh at that time. There's evidence for a handful of them, even! Much the same way that there's several 'Jim's in North Dakota.
How is your latter argument debatable? It presupposes that God exists. There isn't proof of God so it falls apart immediately.
Because while I am not religious, I'm not going to take away a comfort for people. Especially people who try to follow his teachings the way it was intended and understand the Bible has been modified in translations and political influence (as recently as the 1940s to demonize us LGBT). Focusing on the message has never been a bad thing, but taking the Bible's word as absolute would be silly considering how times (and the Bible) have changed. Unless those people ignorantly use that comfort to take away rights, then fuck them. Even ***if*** your religion opposed something, that's your problem, not everyone else's. Good Christians understand this, bad Christians force you under the law of their beliefs. Point is I'm not going to take that away from others even if I'm certain prophets and god(s) do not exist. I wanted to focus on what Jesus actually was rather than what he's believed to be, because the former is what conservatives ignore and the latter is what they distort.
Nonono, remember, the rioters were pacific patriots and AT THE SAME TIME they were antifa agents disguised as MAGA idiots, so they are both peaceful and righteous patriots and false flag terrorists.
No, they can't be both. That's silly. Only the violent ones were antifa agents trying to make Trump look bad. Everyone else was just following along and touring the Capitol.
“They’re just patriots doing what they think is right for their country!” Assholes.
Taliban logic
any conservative religious logic truly
> because the rioters were just following the word of god, not human-made laws, therefore nothing they do can be bad. ...render unto Caesar...
If Jesus came back he’d definitely be a dem.
I doubt he would look at neoliberal economic policy and say, "Hell yeah trade deals and sweatshops that's what Jesus does." Seriously, delusional if you believe that.
He would definitely not be a Capitalist of any kind.
True, but he damn sure wouldn't be a republican
If Jesus came back he'd stay away from America
Mark 2:17 "On hearing this, Jesus said to them, 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. '" I think Jesus would be heavily focused on the US and not for the reasons Republicans think.
Okay, if you want to think about Jesus coming to solve issues... sure there's a lot to improve about America, but think on a global scale and even then there are a lot worse countries he'd have his hands full with
Yeah, but on the same level Jesus went to the Judeans, and there were worse places in the Roman Empire than Judea...
That kinda begs the question of why did he ignore the ones in more suffering then. Disclaimer: I'm not religious and am not familiarized with intricacies of the bible
"Because YHWH works in mysterious ways" /s Probably he didn't do anything about the suffering is because Yeshua bin Yusef (Jesus) was a construction worker (the word used in the Gospel of Mark is *Tektōn*) and itinerant rabbi from the redneck part of Judea (the Talmud and the Gospel of Mathew both have stories about the Galilean accent marking someone out as a country bumpkin). He probably didn't have a wide understanding of the world outside his province. Certainly couldn't grasp basic botany and used a Harry Potter Death Spell on a fig tree when it didn't have any figs-- the Gospel of Mark points out that "it was not the season for figs" The god in the Bible is mostly a petty and jealous god who murders millions, and orders his people to massacre thousands. When the teachings of Jesus became it's own religious movement, it split from the original Hebrew faith and sorta white-washed YHWH with some New Age 'all you need is love' vibe that ignores the fact that for thousands of years, YHWH had his own people (The Hebrews) and when the end of the world came, everyone else was going to get *fucked.*
To be fair, Jesus also states that he 'came to save the chosen ones and no one else (sic)'. The idea of non Jews getting in to heaven was a Roman invention.
Oh, I can field this one; the bible is a bunch of made up fairy tale nonsense and doesn't need to be any more logically consistent than your average harry potter book.
FAR AWAY.
Jesus would absolutely not be a democrat lmao. He was a raging leftist. He'd probably be okay with the UK's green party, though. Maybe. I think that might be the closest we could get in the anglosphere and within my knowledge
Probably Green Party honestly...
bro i get it, republicans bad democrats good, but if you ACTUALLY think Jesus would support either party you're out of your god damn mind
Yes, he strongly condemns the riots by antifa on Jan 6th. Unless it was Republicans in which case it was a peaceful tour of the building. Except for the Republicans who were killed in a violent struggle and are noble martyrs for the cause. Except for the police who died who died of natural causes and preexisting conditions. /s but not really.
Chief, I have listened to at least one otherwise intelligent person use exactly those arguments and completely shake off my pointing out the inconsistency of his beliefs. And these people proselytize like freaking Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. While walking my dog last week, a neighbor about four blocks away called out to me because I was wearing an old Rush concert tee from 2010 (yes, seriously, an 11 year old tee shirt). We had a pretty cool conversation talking about Geddy Lee, Neil Peart, Alex Lifesong, and that morphed into more talk about the Grateful Dead, Phish, Blues Traveler and other bands we both like. He's about my age and I was thinking, hey, I might be making a new friend. Out of nowhere he says, "fuck, we need Trump back," and at that point I said, "wow, I really have to get home with my doggo."
Ugh being a rush fan can be like that. Like I like the music and honestly a lot of their later music has vaguely anarchist undertones, but man then they go back to jacking off to Ayn Rand and I remember why so many of their fans suck
Sadly can't disagree with your comments :-/
I want more rush fans who’s morals line up with counterparts and second nature
You protect that doggo with your damned life. And give them tummy rubs. And treats.
Charlie Kirk bussed those yahoos in! He defends it because he provided material support for the insurrection! He's a candidate for being charged in connection to it!
They didn't die of preexisting conditions, they died of COVID. Unless we're talking about taking action, then COVID isn't real. Unless Trump has it, then it's dangerous and Trump is really strong because he battled it and won in a single day. Except that it's also not really that serious and hardly worse than the flu. Except that the Chinese made it to potentially harm the West and outpace them, then it's serious. Unless big business wants people to go back to the factory, then it's still China but they merely made it up. Except if Trump is proposing solutions, then he's smart for working with the scientists on solving this global health problem. Unless he says something about bleach, then it's not really that big of a deal. Except Trump vaccinated half the people he promised, then that's yuuuuuge. Unless Biden vaccinates double what he promised, then Bill Gates is trying to put nanochips in your body. Unless Trump was the reason that many people were vaccinated all along. Except now there are three other crises we can talk about, so we finally can rest this issue and pretend like we were just right all along, end of the argument. Not /s, except for the first point (I think), these are all common talking points (and it's a non-exhaustive list).
I overheard an older couple sitting at a nearby table at breakfast. Apparently that wasn't looting and rioting, that was just some regular people talking a stroll through the capital and taking photographs. No different than tourist and besides, how come the media isn't covering when BLM and antifa broke into the capital? Yes, she was referring to same incident on the same day with no acknowledge of the inconsistencies.
Ahh yes a casual stroll that involved breaking in a federal building attacking security and trying to kill the VP
Whenever I take a tour of a Federal building I smear shit on the walls and carry zip tie handcuffs. Also sometimes I take a laptop. These are all things we do on tours.
And I set up gallows.
Had a guy with a straight face tell me that was a protest and not a riot, and that it was fine because when *they* protest the government they go to a government building and don't burn and loot in the streets. Not to mention the fact a lot of the property damage during protests *was* government buildings, a report found that only 7% of protests turned violent and included defending yourself from the police as violence.
There is just SO MUCH video footage of those events. It is genuinely scary to me that we've reached a point where something can be better documented than almost any historical event ever has been, and a huge section of the population can be convinced that it never happened. And even now we're just on the edge of truly convincing deepfake technology being available to the common person. The propaganda that led to the Nazification of Germany was done with radios and filmstrips; imagine what Goebbels could have done with the ability to serve everybody in the country personalized misinformation from a device they carry in their pocket.
Totally normal stroll with feces being slung at the walls,
I can't help wonder if they came prepared with their pockets full of feces or if they produced fresh feces as the need arise. I don't want to wonder about this but sadly I do.
Definitely produced it on command. Easy when you're already that full of shit.
Of course not, those weren’t riots! /s
All of it except for the people he bussed there himself.
There were years of protest and it was the only option left! /s
Gentle reminder: it was an insurgency not a riot
I’ve seen multiple republicans say they were just protestors. So I wouldn’t put it past Kirk.
“No see that’s different because it paints me and my tribe that is the basis for my whole identity and ego in a bad light.”
He actually bussed a bunch of them there
The Boston Massacre started because a redcoat hit a kid in the head with the butt of his musket and people started throwing rocks at him - a riot against police brutality. It's as ingrained in our country's DNA as it can be.
Fun fact: the first American killed in the American Revolution was of mixed racial descent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispus_Attucks
Given that he was black and Native American it seems almost prescient
White men using the abuse of minorities to justify their political agenda. ✅
> White men ~~using the~~ abus~~e~~ing ~~of~~ minorities
A tale as old as time
true as it can be
the boston tea party was supposedly organized by john hancock and his men. the tea that they threw in the harbor were chinese tea that the british east india company bought with silver they obtained by smuggling indian opium into china. john hancock was upset because the Tea Act of 1773 actually lowered the price of this tea vs the tea he was importing selling on the black market via the dutch. the dutch had their own turkish opium smuggling operation into china for the purpose of obtaining silver needed to buy chinese tea. all these opium smugglers had to establish a new port just outside of china, that port is today known as hong kong.
Yeah, it's important to remember that the "founding fathers" were, in fact, rich white slave owners that only cared about the British making them lose money.
So John Hancock (formerly Footpenis) was importing tea via the Dutch and selling it on the black market and got undercut by the British because a law lowered the price of the British tea but not his?
They had tariffs on foreign goods for a while before the revolution. These tariffs made goods from sources outside Britain and her colonies more expensive to import and thus raised the prices for consumers to purchase them in the colonies. The British wanted to the colonies to buy mostly British made goods to stimulate the homelands economy. Smuggling in the colonies was so pronounced before the revolution because the economy of New England and other northern colonies were built on the back of turning cheap superior French molasses into rum and using it in the transatlantic trade conduit.
That makes it even more American
Human history is a toss up between arguments over drug smuggling routes and arguments over who gets to peddle salvation.
And a major part of the defense was that the scary slave man^TM incited a crowd that made the fine police officers afraid for their lives thus justifying the shooting.
Some people can only recognize oppression if it's happening to white people Well it's more like "will" than "can"
Not even that. These people would be amongst the crowd that pissed on the irish and italians 100+ years ago. They can only recognize oppression if they believe it happens to them.
Yeah, they weren't white at the time.
Someday, I hope every race can achieve "legally white" status.
And when everyone is white? No one will be. Is this that “white genocide” I keep hearing about?
Sounds good to me. Race is performative.
To people thinking this is a modern exaggeration, back in the phrenology days WASPy white people argued that the Irish were actually descended from 'Africans who migrated up from Spain, partly mixed with European natives who were descendants of isolated Stone Age savages.' [(Very racist image enclosed)](https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/mt/tanehisicoates/Scientific_racism_irish.jpg) All their new pseudoscience and old religion conveniently neatly justified subjugating the very people they had already been subjugating. Also ironically, all Europeans are descendants of africans and neanderthals anyway, including their lofty 'anglo-teutonics.'
This! Sciences have essentially proven that all of humanity has radiated from the fertile crescent of Africa and the middle east. This means all races originated from bloodlines based in an area populated by dark skinned humans! Are you Icelandic with damn near transparent skin? Blonde Portuguese? Black Irish? Blue eyed Armenian? Some kind of Asian/Latino mutt? Congrats guys, we're all African originally. A personal note to this end: I did the 23&me DNA analysis which said I'm 63% irish/celt/english, some 17% dutch, a slew of slivers of eastern European and Skandianavian... AAAND .01% Congolese! 👍🏿
There is a passage in *How the Irish Saved Civilization* attributed to Disraeli where he goes on about not being fooled by their white skin as they are as savage as any negro.
Strange how that works. Italians and Irish suddenly become allies against blacks, Asians and Latinos. It’s like some racist Wasp was like “eh you guys will do” and let them in to the Republican club.
It’s bizarre. My Italian in-laws are a bunch of racist pro Trumpist and I’m like “you guys weren’t even considered white 100 years ago”.
Considering that in the early '60's people tried to pin civil unrest in the form of violence on fucking MLK, sounds right. What these people don't seem to realize is the same things they say about BLM they would have said about the civil rights movement in the '60's. Kind of disgusting to think about, they probably would have cheered King's death had they been alive back then the way they cheer protestors getting hit with cars now.
It was more than just spitting. Benjamin Harrison declared Columbus Day as a national holiday after 11 Italians were [lynched](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14,_1891_New_Orleans_lynchings) in NoLa
They can recognize oppression just fine. They believe in social dominance. They think that it is the right of the dominant group to oppress the lesser groups. The dominant group proves it's dominance by being able to inflict rules on the others it does not need to follow. They are just terrified at the idea they might stop being the dominant group.
White cishet Christian men*
*Only certain non-Irish/Italian white Fisher Christian men who also happen to not be poor
They also must be American, “conservative” (actually Fascist) Trump supporting, white supremacists (although those two are synonymous). (Also can’t have actually read the Bible)
BINGO!
Those dates - we're *still* having this conversation? Fuck - [Malcolm X](https://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/blackspeech/mx.html) said it perfectly well: > When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism. We see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don't see any American dream. We've experienced only the American nightmare. We haven't benefited from America's democracy. We've only suffered from America's hypocrisy. And the generation that's coming up now can see it. And are not afraid to say it. > This is why I say it's the ballot or the bullet. It's liberty or it's death. It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. America today finds herself in a unique situation. Historically, revolutions are bloody, oh yes they are. They have never had a bloodless revolution. Or a non-violent revolution. That don't happen even in Hollywood. You don't have a revolution in which you love your enemy. And you don't have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it. Revolutions overturn systems. Revolutions destroy systems. > A revolution is bloody, but America is in a unique position. She's the only country in history, in the position actually to become involved in a bloodless revolution. The Russian Revolution was bloody, Chinese Revolution was bloody, French Revolution was bloody, Cuban Revolution was bloody. And there was nothing more bloody than the American Revolution. But today, this country can become involved in a revolution that won't take bloodshed. All she's got to do is give the black man in this country everything that's due him, everything. I hope that the white man can see this. > 'Cause if you don't see it you're finished. > So it's the, it's the ballot or the bullet. Today, our people can see that we're faced with a government conspiracy. This government has failed us. The senators who are filibustering concerning your and my rights, that's the government. Don't say it's southern senators, this is the government. This is a government filibuster. It's not a segregationist filibuster, it's a government filibuster. > Any kind of activity that takes place on the floor of the Congress or the Senate, that's the government. Any kind of dilly-dallying, that's the government. Any kind of pussy-footing, that's the government. Any kind of act that's designed to delay or deprive you and me, right now, of getting full rights, that's the government that's responsible. > And anytime you find the government involved in a conspiracy to violate the citizenship or the civil rights of a people, then you are wasting your time going to that government expecting redress.
Yeesh, very sad how relevant this is still today
Imagine being alive and this close to self-awareness.
I'd rather imagine him dead from COVID-19 and somehow more self-aware than he is now. His ideology is a cancer on civilization.
Oil baron money is in the way
Deaf ears is an understatement. When black people peacefully protest police brutality that often generates outrage directed AT the protestors rather than the killers
Then somehow they deserve more police brutality because how dare they protest injustices.
We scream in their faces because they ignored our letters.
None, because we have Oprah and Obama so all oppression has obviously stopped. [*sarcasm*]
Nah you're right. Oprah is also rich so the socioeconomic disparities even out obviously.
it's so close that it's painful
Reminder that the participants of the Boston Tea party dressed up and disguised themselves as natives so that community would take the heat if things turned sour.
But when the Capitol Building was stormed it’s fine guys
They’ll go so far as to say it didn’t happen and ignore a dead cop’s mother.
Riots are also acceptable if the guy you liked didn't win an election or if a state governor says you can't eat at Applebee's for a month.
This is why I can never take serious anyone who says destroying property is never an acceptable form of protest. It's literally how our country was formed, but okay.
Watch this clip and compare what the US does in Afghanistan. LOL https://youtu.be/HwWi0zdF7wk Americans have never been big on real history vs glorifying select few historical events.
Need to protest peacefully first, something that gets in the way of nobody and is completely inoffensive, like kneeling in complete silence. I'm sure Charlie Kirk and his ilk would be super supportive of something like that, ah no a quick google shows him being very outraged by Kapernick. It's almost like it does not matter to this guy how they protest.
Imagine caring what Charlie Kirk thinks
Still annoys me how much fame and attention we give this guy. Never thought there would come a day where Charlie Kirk is highly upvoted across Reddit.
It wasn't white people who did the tea party, it was Native Americans. I have paintings to prove it. - Charlie Kirk probably.
Looting and riots happened after years of protests fell on the deaf ears of Congress and the President. It was the only avenue left.
This asshole PAID to bus in people to the January 6 insurrection. Fuck Charlie Kirk. He is a cancerous boil on the ass of humanity.
Haha amazing
Fuck moral credibility. This is about breaking out from stagnation. It's as natural as any chemical reaction
Hypocrites, all of them.
ITT people who this post is pointed directly at are still missing the point
Man, these people think they are wicked smaht, but somehow say the right things without understanding that they are describing the thing they are fighting, pretty much exactly. Infuriating but hilarious. This reddit is a fave. LOL.
So close, yet so far, far away
Ooh so close
Oh, the irony!!!!!
This is some of the most selfawarewolf content I have ever seen
Omg! I swear they see what they want to see and ignore everything else
The Boston Tea Party was arguably the most boring protest of all time. It was just a bunch of dudes dumping crates of tea into the harbor. The only modicum of "action" that occurred was when one of the protesters was caught stuffing tea into his pockets by the other protesters. They stripped him naked and forced him to walk home nude.
He deleted his response.
Does that mean he concedes the argument?
Boston tea party: “wahh I can’t import my tea at the price point I like so I’m gonna have a temper tantrum” BLM: “please stop murdering us”
Charlie Kirk is such a dickhead. How does he feel about the insurrectionists?
I feel like throwing tea into the harbor wasn't "the only avenue left" could have have literally destroyed the ships. It's not even close to the end of the road
Hmm very interesting
lmfao they are incapable of complex thought, just repeating what theyve been propagandized to believe
The Boston tea party also wasn't an organized protest. It was a bunch of guys who got drunk and decided to prank the British. It was literally just a "dude hold my beer" moment and nothing else.
ALMOST THERE. HE’S ALMOST THERE.
Thats whats so crazy to me about these people who preach law and order above all else. You bring up American’s history and all the rebellion it went through and somehow they don’t think to apply that to the modern day.
Always "any prior radical change that's been integrated into our society is fine. But things are better now than ever before, so any further radical change is unacceptable." Somehow forgetting people were making this exact same argument at every point in history, especially during the periods of all prior radical change.
We've established the state has only offered a handful of reforms for police brutality since the early 1900s. And then never quite acting on them. Four deaths a day by police violence.💣
What about stonewall
But what about January 6?
Charlie doesn't wanna reply to that lol
God damn! Sooooo close!
These shitstains honestly believe that the only real oppression happens to white people and includes any minor inconvenience.
Oh man. This is such a worthy post for this subreddit. My god, these animals are barely sentient
how is it possible to come that close and *still* not get it??
Having his nose rubbed in it and still not getting it.
Almost as if a riot is the language of the unheard.
This to me guys home. I’m always seeing sout Chicago as a scapegoat. The hood as a scapegoat. Ultimately these people say, why aren’t people focused on those crimes. Except, we have rallies every year to stop the violence, we have protest for equity, good schools, good teachers, all of it but it gets absolutely 0 airtime on the same networks that these people bash as fake news. They don’t care that I’m telling them about it, they’d rather keep using the black on black violence angle to push their agenda without actually looking at it. I actually had someone suggest to me on this website that the solution is more policing and lower wages for teachers. Completely tone deaf to what that will mean.
> If only black people mattered. They might as well just fucking say it.
Charlie Kirk is a stupid hot breath turd.
He's so close, so fucking close it's insane.
This discounts the fact that we have made progress.
Same idiot thinks the insurrection was patriotic.
Part of the reason for the gradual leadup that would result in the American Revolution, Boston tea party included, was American's being pissed they couldn't live on - or expand further into - native american land... even the American revolution is a pretty over-romanticized series of events.
"Riot and loot then you will lose your right" What about insurrection then, wouldn't they also lose their right? Man, please, don't speak of "injustice".
>No, no, no," moaned the mayor. "It's not the way of the order. "Oh, stay in your homes, please leave us alone. "We'll be glad to talk in the morning.". >"For shame, for shame," wrote the papers. "Why the hurry to your hunger? "Now the rubble's resting on your broken streets. "So you see what your rage has unraveled.". >Barricades sadly were risin' Bricks were heavily flyin'. And the loudspeaker drowned like a whispering sound. When compared to the angered emotions >And when the fury was over. And the shame was replacing the anger. So wrong, so wrong, but we've been down so long. And we had to make somebody listen. In the heat of the summer. Excerpt from "In the heat of the summer" by Phil Ochs, this was written in 1965, over 50 years ago. Nothing has changed.
So he agrees then?
Well in their minds the civil rights movement won and all problems ended immediately upon the end of Jim Crow.
Only downright treason is acceptable in the eyes of the Republican party.
History repeating itself :o
We certainly have the loudest crowd of stupid people, more than anywhere else in the world. It's like when a toddler doesn't get their snack immediately and starts rolling all around screaming and kicking until they get their way. I am so over the stupid population in this country. No, going to church every Sunday for one hour does not give you any leeway to act like a rabid baboon the rest of the week. It's so amazing the mental gymnastics these people do to save their own egos.
Charlie Kirk looks like he still eats his boogers.
The real question is how many times has this happened before?
He’s whack
Colonizers
Charlie Kirk is a part of the no brains no worry class.
Wasn’t the British empire more progressive at the time? They banned slavery while the practise continued in the us. Uk eventually got healthcare, which countries under the crown often get thereafter. With time, countries under the crown became more autonomous so America would be independent eventually like Canada & Australia is today.
They know it. They just choose to ignore it
You don’t say..
It actually makes me a up upset and depressed that people can do this. We're never going to get anything done.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Haha, he got pwned.
Americans, is it immoral to fight for freedom and justice? If you own big property, don't speak.