at least it wasn't apparent

Everyone has an agenda.

If you're running a company, you've got an agenda.

Tim has an agenda.

My company has an agenda

i lost my agenda 😦

well too make money of course

but yo know what I mean

Not always.

yeah

I mean, yes.

sometimes it's as simple as, "This happeened, these people were invovled, and this is what's going to happen next"

You want to make money.

most times it's not

But the question is: how? what are you doing, why are you different

im totally not arguing the premise

I'm just saying

that people are waking up to agendas

I'm building a company to promote matters within the state of Texas

and I have a motivation for it: Cultural independence.

you think that's possible>

not "Remembering the Alamo"?

we have too many damn transplants

and I'm one of them, although 12 years ago

It doesn't matter how many transplants we get within the state

but the more recent ones, don't necessarily all hold Texas values

Teal North

Austin is gone

That's why you draw them in.

You should have kept to Ryecast

lol

${Handle}Cast

I feel gross when I'm Austin, I can't explain it

You happy?

That's just the collective aura of congregating politicians.

You get it in DC all the time.

😄

thats cuz Austin forgot abuot the Alamo!

Austin is where JBP/Rubin are having their event

I'm goign

I hope all goes well if you know what I mean

Wait, what? when?

on the 31st

AUGH!

I'm going to be stuck elsewhere. 😦

good ol' alt-right rally on the 31st? 😛

oh wait, wrong narrative

well it's been sold out for months

Of course it has.

tickets still available in houston though

on the 29th

https://jordanbpeterson.com/events/

kinda surprised actually

Ticketmaster.

I'm good!

I'll pass!

I'd still go

even if it was TM

it wasn't for Austin

but still damn expensive

he should get himself a Nickname: "Doc Lobster"

shulda bought VIP

daddy issues peterson

He should go on some IBS so that we get some peterson blood

I dunno who would debate him though

maybe some sperg would yell at him

holy shit I watch tim's videos every day when did I become such a serious fan of *anything*

I'd seen him before this, I think, but the first time I actually knew the name Tim Pool was when he was in the kettle on 12th and L in DC.

but yeah, i started watching him daily since the Sweden coverage. Before that I was going with the full 'Last Night in Sweden' conservative side of things

Tim's coverage showed me that Sweden's biggest problem is that they can't talk about their problems.

that and they are headed down a path of destruction

Absolutely. Still convinced of that.

They are destroying Viking artifacts.

See, that's the thing.

I couldn't care less about the 'White Race'.

I'm far more concerned with Swedish history, English history, Danish history, German history, Italian history...

yeah

history

Those can't be summed up with 'White Race'

The cultures, the histories, the languages

They're the fabric of Europe

And with mass immigration, people who aren't interested or even opposed to those elements are let in without a second thought.

Hey @Timcast this isn't important in the slightest but just out of curioustiy:
I see you replying to comments in the past week, but in the year+ i've been subscribed i've almost never seen you do that. What caused the shift to now engage with the comments? Or am I wrong and have you always done that (per occasion)?

What's the best way to contact Tim for a potential story regarding censorship, I could find an email contact

He replied to me here once before, so when your lucky stars are right he may take a glance at discord. eventually.

His email is [email protected].

pinning comments is new, just seemed like something I was neglecting but Ive always responded to comments

Out of curiosity, knowing that you don't vote. Are there any conditions you can think of where you would feel that you'd want to vote, and potentially any separate conditions where you'd feel the need to do so?

@possumsquat93 thanks I didn't realize that was an email Addy lol

Id only for if we eliminate first past the post and adopt a ranked voting system

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/opinion/hamas-israel-media-protests.html

I kinda like the system France has

The top two candidates move onto a secondary election where it’s just the two of them

But that only occurs if the top candidate doesn’t get above 50% of the votes

I can understand, though.

With the current system, a vote for anyone other than an elephant or a jackass is essentially a wasted vote.

The primaries only help so much.

I'd say that's the truth of most elections.

I've rarely been proud of my votes for Republicans. I've just been afraid of letting up.

Any voter you convince to not vote is a vote for your side

Any Democrat you convince to vote republican is worth two votes.

Such is the nature of a zero sum game in a two party system.

To quote Styx (the band, not the Vermont candidate for governor), 'If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice'

that quote is far older, and I haven't traced it back to its origin

maybe it's too old for written history

but something not taught in school or by parents, and that makes it hard to figure out on your own. because it's something so obvious that it's not obvious. because if you deny that truth, you can tell yourself to not have had responsibility in the outcome

had to learn that shit the hard way when i had positions of responsibility, and that's just not a fun place for that. because you have to decide between pest and cholera or shit and lesser shit, but the lesser shit is worse in the long run every fucking time something lands on your desk

what i despise really are people in such positions of responsibility, of their own volition, and then refuse to make decisions, because they don't want to be responsible for the outcomes. but all that happens is the worst possible one, and you accepted by not even guiding it

You know alot of us in msia were like that. Except most of us were either too stupid or lazy to see it.

3 parties that claimed to fight for x race rights.

But they are all in a coalition with one another.

Personally it was more of convincing people to vote in the first place since they were all convinced that any vote not for the coalition was a wasted vote since they had a stranglehold on the rural areas and the more paranoid members of society.

We do have a 2 partyish system but all the major parties are all coalitions of several more all with somewhat different focuses.

Its not perfect, but at least it keeps the smaller parties wary, since everyone you piss off is less support for you and more for fhe opposition.

true, but the issue with coalitions, like we have here in the netherlands for example,
Is that no decissions are made because the ruling coalition can't even agree with itself

and they then start blocking the other members of the coalition

over ridiculous matters, stuff like, "Because you won't agree with our demands for Euthenasia, we won't support your desire for better infrastructure"

on the other hand, all of them could find solice in voting to remove the citizens rights to a public referendum...

Which is strange, since I dont recall parties here bickering over issues like that. For example, I am only aware of 2 positions as of now, finance is now under the mayor of penang, our version of san fran. And defence is under former leader of PAS.

They work in accordance to their own choices. People can disagree but they can still do it. And if you are unhappy, you can state it, and if its bad enough, you join another coalition instead.

Funny thing, those two I mentioned were opponents before. Some progressive chinese guy and a really relligious malay guy. Both were arrested under some anti sedition law.

well i guess the difference here is that theres no big country-wide issues to tackle (aside from the mass immigration, but they're pro-that and anti-referendum to oppose it)

So they start bickering, because they know the people won't hang them for wasting time and lives

Or that the country is not big enough. US has many states, each if their own dinstinct culture and beliefs. They then have more freedom on the policies they can enact. Not the case here.

We also have monarches as well, though they are pretty much just figureheads.

Though I am getting the feeling that this system is deliberately designed to be inefficient.

you misunderstand,

Its like how democrats are blocking everything in America because Trump doesn't want illegal immigration to run rampant
like how they didn't vote on a budget earlier this year.

Basically, "You don't want to help our niché issue, so we'll just stop everything, and hurt everyone"

Hence why even a minority can block something.

The American system was designed to be conservative in nature, meaning resistant to rapid, radical change. As opposed to parliamentary systems in which a majority government effectively has total and unassailable power.

There are benefits and drawbacks to such a system.

The benefit is that it's less amenable to the whims of the mob. The drawback is that it's less adaptive to rapidly changing conditions.

Huh, I. Didnt hear that before, but it does make sense.

The original form of the American system was even more conservative. Senators were appointed and recalled by state legislature, and state legislatures don't tend to change in make-up very often.

Well my explanation was how would you like it if you as a farmer was yold what not to do by some city dweller.

Federalism was supposed to alleviate that. Unfortunately Federalism has lost most of its strength post-Reconstruction.

The original idea was that individual states would handle most of their own affairs, and only the common defense, borders, etc and the trade between states would be subject to federal law.

Well basically the civil war was about a disagreement regarding that.

Well, there was a lot of preemptive action taken by the South. They perceived eventual legal loss of their ability to own slaves, and so acted extra-legally before such legal action could be taken.

Slavery wasn't banned until after the war was well underway.

And under the system of federal government that existed at the time, it's quite possible that had the South stayed in the union that they would've held onto their slaves for decades more.

Thing is, it was about how much overreach a singular govt would have.

Confederates wanted less govt. But to establish a rule of law, you have to be prepared to shoot anyone who adamantly refuses.

a lot of changes in recent time have made it more adaptive to rapidly changing conditions at the cost of consolidating power.

which is slightly ironic because smaller, independent units with autonomy are much quicker to adapt to things that are causing a direct problem to them, which may not end up being problems elsewhere

isn't that like 50% of the gun debate issue?
city slickers wanting all guns away (NYC, LA and D.C.)
country people needing it to defend property and hunt pests? (anywhere outside cities)

cuz those that want it removed want it everywhere in every state

not exactly, but is a noticeable trend.

there are people in the inner cities who want guns to protect themselves from others with guns, and there are people who live in the country who are animal loving hippies who will probably get eaten by a bear

I get what you mean though,

Arizona doesn't need a federal supply for snow-tires

Change at the federal level should be hard for that reason. Because a change at the federal level should be resistant to rapid change to prevent mod rule, and prevent tyranny. Give the states more power, they can adapt quickly. if each state can adapt quickly, the country can adapt quickly. But it will not happen at the same time.

that is the downside

at least, in some people's eyes

yeah

i still don't get why anti-gun people go right to the feds first. like hello, you need a hell of a lot less people to flip a state than to flip the feds.

but then again, the upside is, that some places don't need to adapt a lot, so they don't have to waste federal funds, which can then be shifted to states that DO

like no shit nothing "gets done" to you, you are trying to take on texas when you don't even need to.

i dont think most of those people know any better, I don't even think they can tell the difference between State and Federal government

To them its just "the government" so "the government" should control guns etc

and who's at the top of "the government?" Congress and the president

states should not get federal funds tbh. The states should have to pay for their own shit, and the feds take what is needed to for their role. That being common defense and keeping states cooperating

maybe disaster aid but even then, i think private charities might be better off as the government will give out the smallest amount possible.

In a way, thats right

But i think with that you get the point where people are gonna flee poor performing states and move to big states, which then causes big states to have to provide more services etc, whilst the poorer states become dry husks, like the rust-belt

like FEMA? they literally have a budget given to them before the storm damage is even calculated. Which means you are not gonna get nearly what you need to help you. You might as well start a gofundme

well you see it with cities all the time: Place gets rich, poor people follow the rich because they are the ones doing all the jobs that needs to be done that no one wants to do. then all these poor people show up so the rich people leave. eventually the rich people come back because hey! cheap land only filled with poor people! lets buy them out and send them over to where ever we just came from! so the poor people leave, then they come back because the rich people don't pay well, and the cycle continues

look at cali and how many people they are exporting and where it is going

yeah

its a slow cycle
LA is where hollywood and industry is
lots of slackers move to LA, LA becomes more expensive, due to higher job demand, wages go down
due to higher costs, taxes go up
Rich-people bail, and all tahts left is poorness

there is no good way to stop this cycle without either creating leeches that don't work but take money from the government, or banning movement between areas

a good way (albeit expensive and very revolutionary) would be to digitalise work environments, where you can work from home across country

that doesn't really change it

well, more accurately, it just changes where people move to, but not why.

i think you misunderstand,

I mean like, you sit the heart of rural Kentucky or something, and you log into a computer over in Silicon valley

you buy a plot of land for cheap, you build a nice house on it. Other people follow the same idea, so the cost of buying a house in that area starts to go up. Eventually it gets to a point where even rich people think it costs to much, so they move.

like i said, it changes WHERE they can buy that cheap land. but doesn't fix the problem of buying cheap, then making it expensive, so you need to go somewhere else to buy cheap again.

how so? with that, you have no demand to be somewhere specific to work/live

You can just go to any state where its "cheapest" and settle

yes, but unless you build your house and keep your house at the level of cheapness as the surrounding area, you making your house any nicer raises the value of that area.

copy and paste enough times and you are no longer a "cheap" area. so people look elsewhere.

your point? You're there already, and other people can look elsewhere, cuz they too can just work from any spot

you don't have to settle in any expensive areas anymore because you can work from anywhere

my point is these movements, as you said, are slow. they don't happen over night.

i never said that it would, in fact i said it would be very expensive and you'd have to overthrow the current way of working

i said it in reference to you saying that there simply is no good way

you miss my point. Digitizing only changes WHERE people move to, not WHY.

my point is there is no good way to stop the why

but why would they move?

most people move these days for work reasons, or if wealthy enough, to enjoy life

people, not individuals.

people, as a whole, the masses, trends

yes but why do they?

idk, maybe because kids don't like to live with their parents?

people don't move to LA for the steel-industry

People move to other cities mainly for work reasons

and to start a living in the area you just built up and made nice is too expensive? So they move away from home. Then you get old, can't afford where you live, so you move. or you downgrade

oh, wait, i see the disconnect.

i was using cities as an example of a small scale version of the poor state problem you mentioned before

aaah

and i was talking about population movements

then yes, it wouldn't affect much if we go by your background

this is why i said it changes the where, not the why. Digitizing would make movements into poorer (which usually means cheaper) states easier, because they are not tied down as much by work. But it wouldn't stop there being that cycle of the rich move to the poor areas and kick out the poor, and they poor follow the rich, because the rich don't pay those below them as much as they get themselves

and there is no good way to stop that cycle of movement

exactly

that may help even out the states, now that i think about it. if the cycle moves quick enough it might as well be equilibrium.

well it would make it a bit softer i think, because right now, for job reasons, people flock to cities, which are expensive, and they can only spread out so far due to traveling distance to/from work etc

When that is no longer needed, people will spread out more over cheap areas, as long as those are cheap people settle there, and if not they move
Eventually you'll reach the point where for a large part its similar spread population

due to the prices settling down a similar average

but you'll always have poorer/richer areas/states obviously

thats simply free market effect,

Not everyone can make it big

kill me https://io9.gizmodo.com/lando-calrissian-is-pansexual-1826116231?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

what is pansexual btw?

Texas school active shooter. No reports of injuries. School on lock down.

so annoying they have to have a story nailing down a characters sexuality explicitly telling everyone... makes no sense... they should keep it to themselves and let the viewer make up their own minds... if they wanted, the whole cast of predator could be gay.. I mean what makes a character gay? without using stereotypes or explicitly telling everyone like a nutter

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/santa-fe-school-shooting-latest-today-texas-active-victims-police-gun-a8357846.html?amp

is that normal.. to lock all the students in a building with a suspected shooter?

Wonder how long it will take for the radical left to celebrate this because it’s Texas.

seriously... what happened to newscientist? https://twitter.com/newscientist/status/997360381046738944?s=20

What does what Lando chooses to do with his cock have to do with STAR WARS

apparently its really important

Is it important to the Star part or the Wars part?

seriously tho... "Americans arent having babies, therefore immigration" .. why would that be the first go to ? .. surely there are like.. at least 100 things to try before that

Most of the 100 other things are counter-productive to left-wingers.

you mean authoritarians

"Too many humans of the planet, especially in 1st world, who consume the most per head; we need to reduce reproduction!"

was the narrative before

There's not much difference between the two these days.

and now this?

theyve really wrecked the value of immigration... it should be a good thing.. but theyve muddled it with unskilled labour and illegal border crossing

there're good and bad elements to immigration. governments as of late chose the latter and painted it as the former. people pick up on that lie and get antsy

its quite condescending when "left" media talk about immigrants like all they are good for is cleaning toilets and having babies.... they should highlight highly skilled immigrants especially specialists.. and should be promoting selective immigration

Being completely against immigration of any sort is an extremist position. The vast majority of the electorate supports regulated immigration, because it's easily supported by logic and data as being a net benefit to society. The regulation typically meaning some sort of numerical cap and also a requirement of being able to economically contribute to a modern economy.

The people who are against any sort of immigration are very small in number.

yeah and whats annoying is when media says "immigration is of net benefit" but dont include why that is, and when its not

@wacka the idea is not to lock the students in but to lock the shooter out. At least that is the theory. At least when i was in school, you would lock the door, be quiet, and hide out of view of the door. The idea being that if they started shooting the door, you'd be out of the line of fire. If they couldn't quickly get in the room, they would move on, and if you are quiet enough, they might walk by following any other noises.

Also means that you don't have students running out into the hallway for a waiting shooter, like in parkland

Uncontrolled immigration is conflated with regulated immigration in almost every instance where the topic is broached however. Other than on Fox news perhaps (and often even then) every television personality or columnist speaking about immigration refuses to distinguish between people actually going through the legal process (which the overwhelming majority of voters support), and people just wandering across the border.

lies by ommission

are still lies

its not even a lie of omission, its just a straight up lie. They basically say all immigration is the same.

Same problem with war refugees and economic migrants.

There's a pretty big difference between "if I stay in my country ISIS will kill me" and "my job is shit so I'm going to Germany for free stuff"

people are literally killing themselves to get through the channel tunnel from France to the UK .. several people die constantly... like... Ive been to France.. its not THAT bad

it is a lie by ommission, further information is ommitted, just a single, narrow grain of truth is revealed and elevated as "all the truth"

if they think france is that bad, they get little compassion from me

the country is pretty ruined compared to the 90ies already

thanks to them

I understand that there will always be a segment of the population that is blinded to reality by their open, compassionate nature. Some people have personalities dominated by and driven by empathy and that's not necessarily a bad thing. So I'm not concerned so much about the pathological altruists. I'm more concerned about those who are try to profit from uncontrolled immigration, both in terms of money and in terms of power.

In the US illegals are basically the new slaves.

it's not empathy

but to risk life and limb to get to the UK.. just to be shipped back to germany (at quite an expensive to the UK)

it is willful blindness to not accept the dark evils of the world to be true in the people you see. evil people are elsewhere, and you would never fall for them, right?

For some it is empathy, coupled with stupidity.

it is not compassion, it is pity, the dark cousin. the vice, not the virtue

it is not empathy, for then they would take into account the dark truths surrounding these people and their victims, but they don't. emphathy is a product of logos, not emotion

I'd say for the majority of people who support uncontrolled immigration it's simply due to the emotions they experience (regardless of what label you use for those emotions).