The Dumpster Defenders and the Pro-Crime Society
#1
A bit over a week ago the trial for the Dumpster Defenders, Johnnie and Michael Miller, was resolved. If you don't remember, they're the fat cocky shirtless guys who got in a standoff with their massive raging neighbour who was trying to dump his trash on them.




"It's so dense, there's so much going on."

If you haven't looked at this video before feel free to talk about it in general here if you want. But what really interests me right now is the resolution four years later and what it says about where America's at. Here's your story link: https://tinyurl.com/yckw2ywz

The quick rundown is that the son Michael Miller ("Fuck you cocksucker") walks while the father Johnnie Miller ("I doubt it") got a 14 year sentence for murder.

What's interesting to me is that nobody even really tries to suggest that Aaron Howard ("I'M GONNA FUCKIN' KILL YOU") was a good person, or even that he wasn't deeply antisocial, confrontational, and hostile to people who hadn't done anything socially wrong. The part that nobody is saying which is plain if you read between the lines is that the Millers failed in their duty as fundamentally decent and socialised people to practice indefinite tolerance of low to moderate-high antisocial behaviour from the chronically antisocial. An average first world court's line of attack in any instance of a more socialised person asserting themselves against antisocial behaviour from below will be "why didn't you just let them? Did you have to do that? You could have ignored them or moved away."

[Image: teach.png]

This joke has been a favourite of mine for a while. I generally believe that accurate observations on social phenomena can be scaled up and down and shifted to other adjacent contexts and still work. The meme is school, but I'm sure I'm not the first person to note that how teachers expect the most socialised people under their authority to deal with antisocial behaviour and aggression is exactly how first world justice systems and police also expect you to.

Now onto some quotes.

Quote:The state acknowledged Aaron Howard was swinging a baseball bat, but contends it was never within striking distance of the pair.

"Someone getting in your face and saying they're going to kill you... it's not enough. Is there other options they could have taken? Michael Miller never had to come outside."

The jury was asked to review the evidence and watch the statements given by both Millers.

"This was an incident of a neighbor they didn't like and they were frustrated and they were done dealing with it."

"They go outside and take that stand. That's not justified and because that's not justified both Michael and Johnnie Miller are guilty of murder."

"You didn't have to do anything? You could theoretically put up with this and worse behaviour forever."

Quote:Dan Joiner presented the State's final closing argument for the sentencing phase.

Joiner said that while murder has an obvious victim, Howard's death also had a ripple effect.

"It affects people like Kara. It affects Tim who no longer has his father," Joiner said. "Murder is theft. Murder means you stole something...stole everything that comes with growing old."

Joiner said Johnnie Miller is going to prison and he brought that on himself.

"We're not asking you to put some kind of value on human life. Human life is priceless. We can value what he stole. We're not asking for five."

The obvious answer to this cruel and absurd suggestion, that the Millers are thieves, is that Howard spent his entire life a thief of things far more valuable. He was allowed to consume and destroy peace and civil order his whole life at the expense of all of the people around himself more devoted to the idea that we live in a society than himself. All bullies, assholes, niggers, and chronically low-antisocial characters are thieves. Dumping your garbage on others and expecting to get away with it is theft. You destroy peace, you destroy trust, you destroy the confidence of good people in both themselves and society. Allowing people like this to exist and more or less do as they please until they inevitably cross some truly gratuitous line is gross theft of the patience and energy better people invest in society on the understand that it will be for the benefit of themselves and their own down the line.

When things like this happen it becomes more plain every time that our societies are simply not on the side of people who believe in them. It pays to have such people around yourself, but it does not pay to be one any longer.
#2
On a related note, one of the most aggravating things about Self-Defense is that you have to pretend to be a whimpering coward afterwards.
You could have video evidence of shooting a moron mere inches away from him stabbing your throat, and if you refuse to grovel and repeat "I was so afraid for my life!" to every question, you WILL be charged.

Such a pointless humiliation ritual. At least it has two funny byproducts:
You always have to kill after drawing a gun, otherwise you 'weren't afraid for your life.'
And you always have to dump your entire mag into them as fast as possible, to prove you're 'afraid.'

This other recent event, the video man who shot a robber with a fake gun then executed him with a bullet to the head, is relevant... it's annoying that the libtards are right. What he did was illegal. Or it'd at least have roulette-wheel odds of getting him charged.
Calmly recognizing and dealing with a threat is not allowed. You MUST showcase a hyperfeminine hysteria at all times, otherwise it wasn't real Self-Defense.

"Also, word of caution as this hasn't been tested before, but it's likely also self defense to destroy the phones of any brainless drools whom may be recording the situation."
"Especially if your attacker is a nigger."
I very much doubt the Millers would have been charged if it wasn't for that lib-empathy hijacking shot of the shirtguy's brains being splattered.
If they visually see the criminal dying a gruesome death it's basically over for you. The gore is your fault, somehow. This is why a 9mm handgun is the only viable Self-Defense weapon.

Rittenhouse was extremely lucky in this regard. It would've been over for him if every Trumpian didn't rally behind him at once, and if the libtard prosecution wasn't trying to norwoodishly roleplay Better Call Saul infront of millions of judging eyes. These advantages are not present for others.
(Prosecution larping as a TV lawyer would've worked if the public wasn't watching btw.)
#3
Good thread idea. Aaron Howard is the perfect example of the guy who gets what's coming to him. Habitual criminal pushes and pushes and pushes and doesn't know when to stop pushing even when looking down the barrel of a gun. Even in the article Anthony posted, Howard's family can't fully pretend like he was a good person:

Quote:"Aaron could be aggressive, but that's not all he was. He was loveable. He was kind and he was funny."

Tim Howard said his father had started taking more medication and was getting more help. He noted Aaron was making amends with people he had hurt in the past. Tim said he spoke Friday because he wanted Aaron to have a voice.

"I wanted people to know he was changing for good."

This story reminds me a lot of the Pennsylvania snow shoveling murder-suicide last winter. A guy is tortured by his neighbors for years until he snaps over them shoveling snow onto his lawn; shoots the couple, then goes back inside to blow his head off. 


(footage starts at 1:07)

Unlike the Dumpster Defenders, the general response to the shooting was sympathetic to the shooter James Spaide. The blind retardation of the couple is on full display; how they follow and berate Spaide even as he runs inside to get his gun, and how the fatwife goads Spaide into firing as he is pointing to gun at her, and how she tells Spaide she's filmed it all even as she's dying.

[Image: Screen-Shot-2023-02-04-at-11-34-24-AM.png]

I think the Millers didn't receive the same sympathy is partially because Spaide wasn't fat and shirtless and doing penis gesticulations on camera. Such is life.

Where does this immortality delusion come from? It can't be from familiarity with weapons like I've heard some non-Americans suggest; even the ghettoest pavement apes will start into a sprint when seeing a gun in any context. Is it just blind, bull-headed retardation? The idea that you can push someone around as long as you like and expect nothing in return? You could argue that, just as the Millers refused to back down from the thuggish Edwards, the Goys (that's the couple's actual last name) refused to concede an inch to Spaide until their dying breath. Why does one inspire in me approval and the other distain? Probably because the Goys were annoying + female
#4
In the shoutbox I mentioned that there's an American assumption that conflict is an abnormality arising from misunderstanding, rather than a normal state arising from genuine conflict of interest. If there is conflict, at least one side doesn't know better and should be taken care of and gently educated until they understand. If you take that false assumption for granted, it makes sense to believe that the Miller boys ought to have repeatedly explained that being anti-social is wrong to the raving lunatic every day. It's really that simple. Don't you understand that what you're doing is wrong?


[Image: LfuXceC.png]



The two anecdotes I've seen really hammer home this trend in American thought are the initial American reactions to communist Russia being life-despising, and the homefront reaction to stalled negotiations with North Vietnam.

Early negotiations with the soviets during world war one mostly consisted of Stalin or Molotov acting icy and distant, making constant demands and giving little in return unless pressed. Britain repeatedly pressed to negotiate strong terms about the settlement while the war was still ongoing. The Americans refused on the basis that they were showing good faith. Americans were strongly devoted to enacting a globalist system that Roosevelt called the four policemen, and wanted to be as nice to the soviets as possible during the war to persuade them to join in.

The Russian response was to shut up about demands and present control of occupied territories as fait accompli. As Stalin put it at the time:

Stalin Wrote:This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise.

The Americans by and large allowed this to happen.

Kissinger Wrote:Stalin, a master practitioner of Realpolitik, must have expected America to resist the new geopolitical balance established by the Red Army’s presence in the center of the European Continent. A man of iron nerves, he was not given to making pre-emptive concessions; he must have reasoned that it was far better to consolidate the bargaining chips he already held while sitting warily in possession of his prizes, and to leave it to the Allies to make the next move. And the only moves Stalin would take seriously were those possessed of consequences which could be analyzed in terms of risk and reward. When the Allies failed to exercise any pressure, Stalin simply stayed put.

They did however send ambassadors weakly complaining after the war concluded without applying any pressure of his own.

kissinger Wrote:Stalin saw Hopkins on six separate occasions in late May and early June. Applying his usual technique of placing his interlocutor on the defensive, Stalin complained about the termination of Lend-Lease and the general cooling off of Soviet-American relations. He warned that the Soviet Union would never yield to pressure—a standard diplomatic ploy that is used when the negotiator is searching for a face-saving means of determining what concessions are wanted without suggesting that he will accept them. Stalin purported not to understand America’s concern about holding free elections in Poland. After all, the Soviet Union had not raised a comparable issue with respect to Italy and Belgium, where elections had also not yet been held. Why should the Western powers concern themselves with Poland and the countries of the Danube basin, which were located so close to the Soviet borders?
[...]
The weaknesses of Hopkins’ negotiating style were magnified by the extraordinary reservoir of goodwill toward Stalin and the Soviet Union that had been left over from the wartime alliance. By June 1945, Stalin had already unilaterally fixed Poland’s eastern as well as western border, brutally promoted Soviet puppets in the government, and flagrantly violated his pledge at Yalta to organize free elections. Even so, Harry Hopkins found it possible to describe Soviet-American disagreements to Stalin as “a train of events, each unimportant in themselves[, that] had grown up around the Polish question.”[/url] Relying on Roosevelt’s tactic from the days of Teheran and Yalta, he asked Stalin to modify his demands in Eastern Europe to help ease domestic pressures on the Truman Administration.

Stalin professed to be open to suggestions about how to make the new Polish government consistent with American principles. He invited Hopkins to recommend four or five individuals from the democratic side who might be added to the Warsaw government, which he claimed had been created by the Soviet Union due to the “compulsion” of military necessity.[url=https://amarna-forum.net/javascript:void(0)]
Of course, token participation in a communist government was not the real issue; free elections were. And the communists had already demonstrated a remarkable skill at destroying coalition governments. In any event, Hopkins could not have impressed Stalin with America’s grasp of the Polish situation when he admitted that he had no specific names to suggest for the new government.

The American response was not that the Soviets were not arguing in good faith, but that they simply didn't know any better because of inexperience, and that these problems the soviets posed could be explained away.

kissinger Wrote:Although he had been put off by Molotov’s intransigent behavior at his first encounter with the Soviet Foreign Minister in April 1945, he ascribed the difficulties to a difference in historical experience. “We have to get tough with Russians,” Truman said. “They don’t know how to behave. They are like bulls in a china shop. They are only twenty-five years old. We are over a hundred and the British are centuries older. We have got to teach them how to behave.”

It was a characteristically American statement. Starting out from an assumption of underlying harmony, Truman ascribed disagreements with the Soviets not to conflicting geopolitical interests but to “misbehavior” and “political immaturity.” In other words, he believed in the possibility of propelling Stalin to “normal” conduct. Coming to grips with the reality, that the tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States had not been caused by some misunderstanding but were in fact generic, was the story of the beginning of the Cold War.

The example of Vietnamese peace negotiations speaks for itself.

Kissinger Wrote:Le Due Tho abandoned his standard demand that America overthrow the Saigon government, and agreed to a cease-fire. From then on, matters moved rapidly to a conclusion. Le Due Tho demonstrated that he was as ingenious at finding solutions as he had been obdurate during his period of stonewalling. He even changed his opening speech, which, though no shorter than before, turned into an exhortation to make progress. He did not, however, permit the onset of serious negotiations to limit his proclivity for making himself obnoxious. A sentence that he delivered unalterably each morning as part of his new litany was: “You make a big effort and we will make a big effort.” One morning, he dropped the adjective, saying that America should make a big effort and that he would reciprocate with an effort. As a way of breaking the monotony, I called his attention to the omission. “I am so glad you noticed it,” said my imperturbable interlocutor. “But yesterday we made a big effort and you only made an effort. So today we reverse the procedure: you have to make a big effort and we shall only make an effort.”

Part of the trouble was that Le Due Tho had only one objective, whereas, as a superpower, America had to have many. Le Due Tho was determined to culminate his revolutionary career in victory; America had to balance domestic against international considerations, the future of Vietnam against maintaining America’s global role. Le Due Tho handled the American psyche as a skilled surgeon might operate on his patient; the Nixon Administration was obliged to fight on so many fronts that it only rarely had the opportunity to conduct an offensive diplomacy.

Indeed, from the outset and throughout the negotiations, the Nixon Administration had to devote an extraordinary amount of energy to fending off attacks upon its good faith. Despite the many unilateral, unreciprocated gestures Nixon had already made to Hanoi, the President incurred almost immediately upon taking office the criticism that he was not sufficiently dedicated to peace. By September 1969, the United States had offered the NLF participation in the political process and mixed electoral commissions, had withdrawn more than 10 percent of its forces, and had agreed to the total withdrawal of the remainder after a settlement—without having anything more to show for these concessions than endless repetitions of the communists’ standard recitation of their demand for unilateral withdrawal and the overthrow of the Saigon government.

Nevertheless, on September 25, 1969, Republican Senator Charles Goodell of New York proclaimed that he would introduce a resolution requiring the withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam by the end of 1970. On October 15, so-called Moratorium demonstrations took place all across the country. A crowd of 20,000 gathered at a noontime rally in New York’s financial district to hear Bill Moyers, who had been President Johnson’s assistant and Press Secretary, condemn the war. Thirty thousand gathered on the New Haven Green. Fifty thousand amassed on the Washington Monument grounds, within sight of the White House. In Boston, 100,000 people converged on the Common to listen to Senator McGovern while a skywriting plane drew a peace symbol in the sky overhead to suggest that the Administration was rejecting the desirability of peace.

The North Vietnamese were similarly unreasonable while the American people assumed they were acting in good faith for the entirety of the last four years of the war, so this was not an isolated incident. Why does Kissinger think Americans do this? He thinks it has its roots in the combination of a deep history of idealism in the american psyche untempered by practical considerations because of its enormous bulk and inherent defensibility.

Kissinger Wrote:The singularities that America has ascribed to itself throughout its history have produced two contradictory attitudes toward foreign policy. The first is that America serves its values best by perfecting democracy at home, thereby acting as a beacon for the rest of mankind; the second, that America’s values impose on it an obligation to crusade for them around the world. Torn between nostalgia for a pristine past and yearning for a perfect future, American thought has oscillated between isolationism and commitment, though, since the end of the Second World War, the realities of interdependence have predominated.

Both schools of thought—of America as beacon and of America as crusader—envision as normal a global international order based on democracy, free commerce, and international law. Since no such system has ever existed, its evocation often appears to other societies as utopian, if not naïve. Still, foreign skepticism never dimmed the idealism of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan, or indeed of all other twentieth-century American presidents. If anything, it has spurred America’s faith that history can be overcome and that if the world truly wants peace, it needs to apply America’s moral prescriptions.

Both schools of thought were products of the American experience. Though other republics have existed, none had been consciously created to vindicate the idea of liberty. No other country’s population had chosen to head for a new continent and tame its wilderness in the name of freedom and prosperity for all. Thus the two approaches, the isolationist and the missionary, so contradictory on the surface, reflected a common underlying faith: that the United States possessed the world’s best system of government, and that the rest of mankind could attain peace and prosperity by abandoning traditional diplomacy and adopting America’s reverence for international law and democracy.

America’s journey through international politics has been a triumph of faith over experience. Since the time America entered the arena of world politics in 1917, it has been so preponderant in strength and so convinced of the rightness of its ideals that this century’s major international agreements have been embodiments of American values—from the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact to the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. The collapse of Soviet communism marked the intellectual vindication of American ideals and, ironically, brought America face to face with the kind of world it had been seeking to escape throughout its history. In the emerging international order, nationalism has gained a new lease on life. Nations have pursued self-interest more frequently than high-minded principle, and have competed more than they have cooperated. There is little evidence to suggest that this age-old mode of behavior has changed, or that it is likely to change in the decades ahead.

This doesn't explain all of it, but I think this is a good portion of why the American Left doesn't acknowledge the existence of unreasonable actors. Giving Tyrone a sixth chance at his communications degree will lower black crime rates! You just have to be understanding!
#5
(02-04-2023, 02:46 PM)kirukuni Wrote: In the shoutbox I mentioned that there's an American assumption that conflict is an abnormality arising from misunderstanding, rather than a normal state arising from genuine conflict of interest. If there is conflict, at least one side doesn't know better and should be taken care of and gently educated until they understand. If you take that false assumption for granted, it makes sense to believe that the Miller boys ought to have repeatedly explained that being anti-social is wrong to the raving lunatic every day. It's really that simple. Don't you understand that what you're doing is wrong?

Pure coal. Yet another post muddying the waters and shilling for leftists. NRX already figured this out (Google anarcho tyranny). Leftists are not people with infinite mercy and tolerance. They are the most cruel, intolerant, hateful people in the world. They are just evil. That’s why blacks are allowed to murder white people and antisocial riff raff are allowed to terrorize everyone. Leftists hate successful and beautiful people and want bad things to happen to them. THATS IT. Enough with the Kermit Judenstein bull crap about “well well you know the trouble with The Left…is they’re too Good and Too Empathetic, so so it horseshoes around and actually becomes pathological”. ENOUGH. They are not empathetic or merciful or patient or benevolent in any which way.

And what the shit does this have to do with Americans? It’s European leftists who say it’s “nothing but a sexual emergency” when a Syrian migrant rapes himself some cunny, as if he is a 4 year old peeing himself.
#6
(02-04-2023, 07:10 PM)BillyONare Wrote: “well well you know the trouble with The Left…is they’re too Good and Too Empathetic, so so it horseshoes around and actually becomes pathological”. ENOUGH. They are not empathetic or merciful or patient or benevolent in any which way.

I always make sure to distinguish 'libtard empathy.' It's an emotion they can only feel towards black trans biomass(or its nearest available proxy. Howard, here.), and there are no illusions of extending it to anything noble.

Trials are made and broken by how much libtard empathy can be conjured for a violent nigger. It's the opposite half of their hatred for the Pure and White.
One can only imagine George Floyd having drowned in libtard empathy, until he could no longer breathe. If he weren't already dead hehe.
#7
(02-04-2023, 07:10 PM)BillyONare Wrote: They are just evil.

I hear once a Orthodox bishop was asked about the reds during the Russian Civil War if they were of the devil or not and he simply replied "Don't give bandits that much credit". I agree with kirukuni Leftists clearly are the most tolerant people in the world in the same sense African dirt farmers who don't notice black flies landing on them are tolerant. Which is why they are pro crime,(I really like the word Anthony used in his great OP as usual pro crime as a phrase in general) Leftist DAs are such when a 50+ offense youth is brought in for murder of a child and there is some outcry they go "People are being bigoted!" that's tolerance you can expect in such heroic amounts from the left. Maybe a different word not tied to the virtue is in order however.
[Image: 3RVIe13.gif]

“Power changes its appearance but not its reality.”― Bertrand De Jouvenel
#8
That has nothing to do with tolerance. They think it's a desirable thing.
#9
(02-04-2023, 08:26 PM)BillyONare Wrote: That has nothing to do with tolerance. They think it's a desirable thing.

They do not see  bad ends as desirable but everything that creates such bad ends as either just life or desirable. That is the difference and allows them to cope when their pro crime policy hurts people or their policy on grain causes starvation. This mental trick is what makes their rule truly dangerous in my view as they can suppress their will to get their system in place everywhere and then trigger it leading to much ruin in the process. As seen in the events see as another example to discuss in this thread the 2020 riots and the many misfortunes defended and heros hounded by the left.
[Image: 3RVIe13.gif]

“Power changes its appearance but not its reality.”― Bertrand De Jouvenel
#10
(02-04-2023, 10:07 PM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: They do not see  bad ends as desirable but everything that creates such bad ends as either just life or desirable. That is the difference and allows them to cope when their pro crime policy hurts people or their policy on grain causes starvation. This mental trick is what makes their rule truly dangerous in my view as they can suppress their will to get their system in place everywhere and then trigger it leading to much ruin in the process. As seen in the events see as another example to discuss in this thread the 2020 riots and the many misfortunes defended and heros hounded by the left.

What are the "bad ends"? The "cope" when their pro-crime policy hurts people is to say its actually good to steal and defending yourself is wrong, and when their grain policy causes starvation they say it's only affecting Kulaks who deserve it. To Billy's point, the word tolerance presupposes that there's some unintended consequence they're having to tolerate; that's not happening. The consequences of their decisions are to privilege browns and harm Whites and that's exactly what they want.
#11
(02-04-2023, 10:32 PM)Datacop Wrote: What are the "bad ends"?

A situation they have to explain away to people with rational minds or minds that might pay attention for once and in general having ever lesser wealth ruling over a land hollowed out and crushing oneself into being a top ant in a ant hill instead of anything admirable. I should explain in my mind Leftists in my mind want the impossible(human equality all barriers dissolved etc) having tricked themselves it is not so. One counters with what about the anti whiteness etc, and in my view the answer is simple there are those clearly motivated for such consequences but in most cases one can clearly see the actors who cause such things do not see a single problem and should not be assigned a moral capacity( or ability to fall from a moral level) they don't and never had having simply taken the reins from people who did and forged those reins on some of man's desires in part like all systems in history. Repeatedly ill effects will be said to be happening even sometimes a reduction via some measures to prevent consequences spiraling but the persons will continue on because is just a hicup of course. I prefer this model as apposed to the Jimian model of Billionaire because it gives a nice rationale as to why instead of collapsing in a black hole of falsehood this system has taken most of the planet. It also avoids Mikkas critique of the Jimian model i.e giving endless evil power and will to people motivated by in reality the false religion of utilitarianism and would just like it if people stopped moving please.
[Image: 3RVIe13.gif]

“Power changes its appearance but not its reality.”― Bertrand De Jouvenel
#12
Ken McElroy's execution was based as fuck, anyone who isn't familiar with the story should check it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Shit would have been filmed by smartphone today. Who knows how the court proceedings would go.
#13
They don't even follow their "Religion" sincerely most of the time, here Muslims eat pork and drink bear at night since they think "Allah is sleeping"
#14
(02-04-2023, 10:32 PM)Datacop Wrote: What are the "bad ends"? The "cope" when their pro-crime policy hurts people is to say its actually good to steal and defending yourself is wrong, and when their grain policy causes starvation they say it's only affecting Kulaks who deserve it. To Billy's point, the word tolerance presupposes that there's some unintended consequence they're having to tolerate; that's not happening. The consequences of their decisions are to privilege browns and harm Whites and that's exactly what they want.

I don't think they even think in terms of end results that they want. They only think in images like a fat latino mindlessly posting frogs when he sees niggershit (based edition). The left does not "want" lower gun crime, decreased cost of living, or lesser carbon emissions. They want to do things that sound like they would help. Whether or not they actually have the putative effect is beside the point. Path > Destination.

For over a decade now, California has been hiking the excise on diesel relative to gasoline, citing environmental concerns as you can see here. The problem with this is that it's not true. Diesel produces more CO2 when burnt than gasoline, but it's also more energy dense, resulting in very modest decreases in CO2 production (Not that climate change is even bad for the US, it's actively increasing rainfall in breadbasket farming regions and only meaningfully hurting hyper-arid hellholes that aren't long-term viable anyways, like Arizona and Nevada.) But it's ASSOCIATED with dirty trucks in their mind, and so taxing it MUST help the environment.

In much of Europe they have the opposite cultural association with diesel, which is why they instead have bizarrely high gasoline taxes when, again, the CO2 differences are marginal.

Quote:In many European countries, taxes on diesel fuel remain
significantly lower than on gasoline. In Germany, for
instance, excise duties are about 30% lower for diesel,
costing the German government almost seven billion
Euros in lost tax revenues per year. Given that modern
diesel cars do not offer a notable CO2 benefit over
their gasoline counterparts, and in particular not when
compared with hybrid-electric or full-electric vehicles, EU
member states should re-assess preferential tax rates for
diesel fuel and should join countries such as France, the
United Kingdom and Switzerland, where diesel subsidies
have already been or currently are being phased out.

I had a similar conversation with a lib recently where he said that rent control was good because systemic changes are difficult and the government "has" to do something. Pointing out that this doesn't actually solve any problem he cares about, led to him explaining why high housing prices are morally bad, and that something is needed as a stopgap. Whether or not it would actually have the effects he wanted was beside the point. Subhuman nonsense.

The point isn't even to NIGGERMAXX. The point is to have as many liberal apparatchiks employed doing vaguely ethnic-appeasing things as possible. If they were poisoning every brownskin they met, this would be used as evidence that more apparatchiks are necessary to dilute the poison. Helping niggers is secondary to being SEEN helping niggers and establishing nigger institutions.

(02-04-2023, 10:07 PM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: They do not see bad ends as desirable but everything that creates such bad ends as either just life or desirable. That is the difference and allows them to cope when their pro crime policy hurts people or their policy on grain causes starvation. This mental trick is what makes their rule truly dangerous in my view as they can suppress their will to get their system in place everywhere and then trigger it leading to much ruin in the process. As seen in the events see as another example to discuss in this thread the 2020 riots and the many misfortunes defended and heros hounded by the left.

I'm not sure about that. There's a pretty strong fetishization of the aesthetics of crime and societal opposition on the left. Be gay do crime etc.
#15
It happened in Texas no less.

People like Howard are parasites upon the current social climate. This extends even to non-deranged specimens. People who are prone to false displays of aggression. These displays are easy to make, often do not leave evidence, and lead to minimal punishment if they do. As far as the bureaucratic state is concerned, they have not committed violence. As far as nature is concerned, aggression is designed for no other reason than to accompany or suggest violent acts. Therefore it causes fear.

So they possess the power to instill fear in others at will, without consequence. This decreases social trust in general, since one cannot always know who is aggressive and who is not. Everyone is potentially an unreasonable time bomb waiting for you to say something they do not like.

In sociology, this is often recorded of non-honor cultures. People are lower trust, usually more introverted. By contrast, in cultures of honor, people are expected to back up aggression with violence. The cost of aggression goes up. In these cultures you are able to amicably talk to anyone about anything, even about something they disagree with. If you do cause someone offence they are more likely to politely ask you not to talk to them anymore. 

There is an extreme archetype that thrives in each system, who can respectively be called "posturers" and "killers". The former is basically a harmless person who is prone to being angrily upset. He often sees himself as a fundamentally "good person" who is "tormented" by abstract forces that he characterizes individual things that make him angry into. The latter is a ruthless person who is also a phlegmatist. He usually has a more realistic and results-oriented view of confrontations. Therefore he does not wish to lash out aimlessly but to achieve a certain result, such as deescalation, physical dominance, or lethal elimination if necessary.

It is worth considering of the Southern United States is a "culture of honor" anymore. I know its supposed to be, but my own dealings with such people suggest otherwise. They are "testy" as hell and easy to make angry. I surmise "honor culture" is just a meme to them now which they do not know how to practice. Perhaps they never really did; the caning of Charles Sumner seems basically gay to me.
#16
(02-05-2023, 09:20 AM)kirukuni Wrote: The point isn't even to NIGGERMAXX. The point is to have as many liberal apparatchiks employed doing vaguely ethnic-appeasing things as possible. If they were poisoning every brownskin they met, this would be used as evidence that more apparatchiks are necessary to dilute the poison. Helping niggers is secondary to being SEEN helping niggers and establishing nigger institutions.
...
I'm not sure about that. There's a pretty strong fetishization of the aesthetics of crime and societal opposition on the left. Be gay do crime etc.

I consider such slogans and the groups around them borderline red herrings to the problem of state apparatchiks and the institutions they control(Which do not broadly for now employ such looks and mottos or at least in a way the anarchist tic is ever satisfied with). You have described well what I was trying to get at and will now further elaborate using this quote by Jünger talking about  clocks which I believe can be seen as a metaphor for the effects of the many revolutions in the past 2 centuries technologically and socially and the system they have built
Ernst Jünger Wrote:These clocks expand their range of power and become more and more fearsome, they are the ones that set, control and detonate the modern weapons. They do not measure time, they manufacture it. They do not allow man to control time, but subject him to its automation.
The clock makers who build these clocks are the real issue criminal justice can be seen as emblematic of their method and system showing how it is no motivation of some evil but creating prisons sustained by the tax slave ruled by the low and guarded by the public servant. This point I want to get across because its all too easy to go some Soros DA must be evil and cruel when its much deeper than that and points to vileness now in every aspect of human endeavors, and we could not be dealing with such  issues if it was just a lot of cruel stupid and evil people in league.
[Image: 3RVIe13.gif]

“Power changes its appearance but not its reality.”― Bertrand De Jouvenel
#17
(02-04-2023, 02:46 PM)kirukuni Wrote: In the shoutbox I mentioned that there's an American assumption that conflict is an abnormality arising from misunderstanding, rather than a normal state arising from genuine conflict of interest. If there is conflict, at least one side doesn't know better and should be taken care of and gently educated until they understand. If you take that false assumption for granted, it makes sense to believe that the Miller boys ought to have repeatedly explained that being anti-social is wrong to the raving lunatic every day. It's really that simple. Don't you understand that what you're doing is wrong?

Kissinger is either being a fool or intentionally obfuscating the truth here. The reason why the American diplomatic apparatus went so retardedly easy on the Soviets and the North Vietnamese is because the US State Department has been run by communists since at least the 1930s. Everyone important or elite in 1930's America believed that socialism/communism was the objectively inevitable and best future for humanity, and that the USSR was a shining beacon of hope (for more on this, read Eugene Lyons' The Red Decade). The Tsar was the ultimate villain of 1910's America, and Woodrow Wilson threatened to withhold aid to the UK and France if they didn't withdraw their military and financial support of the Tsar's anticommunist White Army in the Russian Civil War. I challenge you to find an example of the American State Department being "too nice" with any genuinely ideological opposed (i.e. non-communist) state. With pre-WWII Japan & Germany the US did everything in its power to be as provocative and hostile as possible. We also saw a complete denial of goodwill towards noncommunist actors in the modern age with American actions against Russia, Libya, and Iraq.

وكمان مرحبا والسلامة عليكم يا راجل. إزايك؟ عامل إيه؟ أنا سعيد ليكون شاب مصري تاني هنا. أنا مش مصري ولا عربي بس أنا بحبكم ولهجاتكم الجميلة ماشاءالله. فرصة سعيدة يا صاحبي.

(02-05-2023, 12:33 AM)GraphWalkWithMe Wrote: Ken McElroy's execution was based as fuck, anyone who isn't familiar with the story should check it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Shit would have been filmed by smartphone today. Who knows how the court proceedings would go.

I heard about this incident a couple weeks ago. Truly inspiring, especially upon realizing the racial element from observing his surname and phenotype (and behavior, obviously).
[Image: ZS5qcGc]
Forty-two years ago, the good people of a small Missouri town decided to take the solving of the Irish Problem into their own hands...
#18
(02-05-2023, 09:20 AM)kirukuni Wrote: I don't think they even think in terms of end results that they want. They only think in images like a fat latino mindlessly posting frogs when he sees niggershit (based edition). The left does not "want" lower gun crime, decreased cost of living, or lesser carbon emissions. They want to do things that sound like they would help. Whether or not they actually have the putative effect is beside the point. Path > Destination.
(...)
I had a similar conversation with a lib recently where he said that rent control was good because systemic changes are difficult and the government "has" to do something. Pointing out that this doesn't actually solve any problem he cares about, led to him explaining why high housing prices are morally bad, and that something is needed as a stopgap. Whether or not it would actually have the effects he wanted was beside the point. Subhuman nonsense.

The point isn't even to NIGGERMAXX. The point is to have as many liberal apparatchiks employed doing vaguely ethnic-appeasing things as possible. If they were poisoning every brownskin they met, this would be used as evidence that more apparatchiks are necessary to dilute the poison. Helping niggers is secondary to being SEEN helping niggers and establishing nigger institutions.
(...)
There's a pretty strong fetishization of the aesthetics of crime and societal opposition on the left. Be gay do crime etc.

There's no tangible difference between your goals being the process or the solution. I don't personally care about murdering someone, I just want to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. Even if liberals only wanted to make it look like they <3 nigger (which I don't agree with), if what they do to accomplish this is policies that advantage blax, they've still <3ed nigger. The reason your lib friend doesn't have a real defense of his policy opinions is because he doesn't have any policy goals; he just hates Whites and loves blacks. Furthermore, this sounds like a contradiction of your earlier post. Are liberals empathetic to a fault or cynical strivers who only care about filling seats?
#19
(02-05-2023, 04:55 PM)Datacop Wrote: There's no tangible difference between your goals being the process or the solution. I don't personally care about murdering someone, I just want to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. Even if liberals only wanted to make it look like they <3 nigger (which I don't agree with), if what they do to accomplish this is policies that advantage blax, they've still <3ed nigger. The reason your lib friend doesn't have a real defense of his policy opinions is because he doesn't have any policy goals; he just hates Whites and loves blacks. Furthermore, this sounds like a contradiction of your earlier post. Are liberals empathetic to a fault or cynical strivers who only care about filling seats?

Most actual liberals (or anyone) are NPCs who hold whatever opinions make them feel good. Someone else has decided for them what opinions make them feel good. <3 niggers is one of those opinions. These people can't coherently explain apparent contradictions for the same reason they can't explain anything else: no one's ever told them about it and they can't figure it out on their own.

There is a subtle distinction between "leftists" acting on exogenous programming and base instinct. An example of the latter is someone who has a compulsion to steal or even just constantly engage in petty dominance displays who supports the libtard agenda because it gives them more freedom to act these impulses out. But the result is the same.

Among liberals who hold considered views, cynical strivers are more common. Some of these people aren't even exactly cynical, they just come across that way because they're able and willing to make hard tradeoffs based on values which you disagree with/are evil (more women getting raped is an acceptable tradeoff for fewer blacks "locked in cages" to use a frequent canard). It's obvious, for instance, that left-wing ideologues think that there should be fewer white people around and that white political power is bad. More important, powerful, and activist individuals fall into this category almost without exception.
#20
(02-05-2023, 03:28 PM)JohnnyRomero Wrote: Kissinger is either being a fool or intentionally obfuscating the truth here. The reason why the American diplomatic apparatus went so retardedly easy on the Soviets and the North Vietnamese is because the US State Department has been run by communists since at least the 1930s. Everyone important or elite in 1930's America believed that socialism/communism was the objectively inevitable and best future for humanity, and that the USSR was a shining beacon of hope (for more on this, read Eugene Lyons' The Red Decade). The Tsar was the ultimate villain of 1910's America, and Woodrow Wilson threatened to withhold aid to the UK and France if they didn't withdraw their military and financial support of the Tsar's anticommunist White Army in the Russian Civil War. I challenge you to find an example of the American State Department being "too nice" with any genuinely ideological opposed (i.e. non-communist) state. With pre-WWII Japan & Germany the US did everything in its power to be as provocative and hostile as possible. We also saw a complete denial of goodwill towards noncommunist actors in the modern age with American actions against Russia, Libya, and Iraq.

وكمان مرحبا والسلامة عليكم يا راجل. إزايك؟ عامل إيه؟ أنا سعيد ليكون شاب مصري تاني هنا. أنا مش مصري ولا عربي بس أنا بحبكم ولهجاتكم الجميلة ماشاءالله. فرصة سعيدة يا صاحبي.


I'll have to comment on this later because I need to think about this.

أنا مية مية, أنت عامل إيه؟ فرصة جميلة

Datacop Wrote:There's no tangible difference between your goals being the process or the solution. I don't personally care about murdering someone, I just want to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. Even if liberals only wanted to make it look like they <3 nigger (which I don't agree with), if what they do to accomplish this is policies that advantage blax, they've still <3ed nigger. The reason your lib friend doesn't have a real defense of his policy opinions is because he doesn't have any policy goals; he just hates Whites and loves blacks. Furthermore, this sounds like a contradiction of your earlier post. Are liberals empathetic to a fault or cynical strivers who only care about filling seats?

It's not cynicism, at least usually. I think they literally just can't think coherently about this and only interact with policy through symbols, rather than what the symbols actually represent. The way someone here would think about the cost/benefit of a policy is just not there.

Maybe this doesn't usually matter, but the more effective versions of some of their policies would at least have some minor positive effect, even if it was a strong net negative. At least some nigger would get his gimme. Instead, they're just throwing money into a pit to establish the I <3 Nigger Municipal Council.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)