the problem they were trying to solve is valid - we had 4 different work income related benefits alone

just read something i didnt know about it - it penalises large families. good.

Does it penalize large families, or does it jsut cut off after a certain point?

cut off at max 2 children

you know those stereotype poor estate roads with loads of unemployed families smoking in the doorwy shouting at their 5-6 kids?

those exist, i lived near some

@Comando Just got to the point where he's criticizing the lie by omission standard. This is both something which is a valid criticism or obstacle to enforcement, as well as something Kurt has actually acknowledged. A lot of this is specifically why I don't actually have any great faith in a particular system. In reality, however a system functions will be the product of the aggregate actions of those who operate within and against it. The priorities, values, and abilities of your folk are more important than anything specifically written on paper as law.

@Comando Reaching the part where he's providing a argument against the feasibility of a red american victory in civil war, so far it seems like he doesn't actually *understand* the arguments provided. The reason they bring up that red america has more guns isn't just a point of material logistics, but of temperament and preparedness. They have guns because they *chose* to obtain them, which speaks for a variable of self-selection. If a group of people are more willing to arm themselves with a politically contentious weapon, what *other* things might they have done, or been willing to do? And for those who choose *not* to arm themselves, what does this say about what they're mentally preparing for? He also fails to acknowledge a very important point that Justicar brought up regarding asymmetric warfare against a native insurgency. And that is, that the establishment army and the masses share the same infrastructure. As well as that sabotage of industrial scale is actually shockingly inexpensive, with a little creativity. And that the cities are so dependent on the rest of the country is less a point of, "oh, just blockade them" and more a revelation of how much a *liability* cities can be in a crisis. Sure they have lots of people, but those people have lots of mouths, and many liberal cities are now occupied by tremendous populations of the largely unemployable, mentally ill, and opportunistic criminals. The establishment would be compelled to defend points of major infrastructure to maintain control of them, but wouldn't necessarily be able to strategically deprive insurgents of resources, without risk of collateral events turning the population at large against them.

@Comando
And likely, the uncertain priorities of native soldiers and law enforcement would lead to the establishment needing to make a difficult choice. Either accept that their men might choose either the insurgence, or the security of their own families, ahead of the goals of the elites, or replace them with a foreign force, who the native masses will trust far less, and who they will regard more antagonistically.

By no means is victory certain or red america. Even assuming things play out logistically in their favor, certain strategies may be employed which are ineffective. But arguing that these acknowledged variables don't generally favor red america is naive.

@Comando I do agree strongly with his point on "ghost dance" type strategies likely being failures. And that there probably are significant parallels in the effective "barbarian" rulers post Rome, and what will likely prevail from the collapse of the current paradigm. Kurt Saxon actually provides a pretty fascinating examination of this historical trend. Those who prevail will almost certainly be "barbaric" relative to currently acceptable methods and philosophy.

Propertarianism is not something which can, or will succeed as rallying point against the current elites. Its success rests on the assumption that material victory has already been achieved. It's not a strategy of war, it's a legal/moral philosophy. Those who cling too zealously to legal and moral philosophy in war, are usually the ones who lose wars, providing they do not enjoy the luxury of overwhelming material superiority.

**Its success rests on the assumption that material victory has already been achieved.** <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

This isn't even a specific argument against propertarianism alone. Any system relies on material victories to manifest meaningfully. Too often people ignore this.

Or, more often, it's a lie perpetuated by those who don't want to compete with as many people who understand the true nature of power. Who make up excuses for why they rule, related to some kind of moral, cultural, or spiritual superiority, when in reality, it's all down to leverage.

What can you do, what can you keep others from doing, and what can you persuade others into thinking you can do or stop them from doing.

@Comando Also, specifically on the subject of civil war, I don't regard it as inherently desirable. Rather, due to how invested and entrenched the interests are which oppose a proper reform and anti-corruption initiatives, I have come to regard it as the most likely *outcome* of any meaningful attempt to dislodge them.

Civil Wars normally are the result of a group that's recently become powerful, not gaining institutional power and striking out to get it, or a formerly powerful group attempting to prevent the ascension of a new group which is otherwise gaining institutional power.

He is correct that the *international* resources and networks of the elites is probably one of the most significant *obstacles* to a red america victory in the event of a civil war.

As they were the chief cause of the failure of other anti-globalist uprisings.

Comando is correct. The causes of the American Civil War can largely be laid at the feet of abolitionism, and the institution of slavery.

States' rights was a smokescreen. It was about states' rights—to own slaves.

Also, debts, but yes. Slavery was a large political component.

But it was an institution. The South broke away, then went to war, to protect this powerful institution.

And another reason why slavery was a political component is because of prior compromises between slave states and the free states.

And the compromises baked into the Constitution, such as the 3/5ths clause.

Exactly

You'd be surprised how much revisionism there is in the South.

It's not as bad as it used to be, but still...

Honestly, I don't care whether you want to call it a civil war or a revolutionary war. War is likely in the event that the established elites are meaningfully challenged. And the most likely alternative to that war is that the elites simply crush dissent, and continue on until their system implodes under its own weight, or control is seized by another faction from within. I don't see them surrendering power willingly unless they expect to face such overwhelming opposition that flight is more appealing. And I don't think that's likely the way things currently appear, but might change down the road.

A civil war is only a revolutionary war when it's fought by seperatists, and only then if they win.

kek

There's no need to be pedantic.

Oh, but there is. The two terms are not interchangable.

How are they meaningful to the discussion?

The Galactic CIvil War in old canon wasn't a Galactic Revolution, because the Rebels didn't want to break away from the Imperial throne. They wanted to topple it and restore the Republic.

That's just a fictional example.

My observations rest on the event of war, not whether it's "civil" or "revolutionary"

War is not inevitable when it comes to a clash of institutions.

I didn't argue it was certainly inevitable, just likely.

I'd say that these days, civil war is far less likely due to a number of factors. First, the profligate expansion of lethal technology; second, a much broader awareness of history and conflict; and third, the reluctance of a reasonably secure, well-fed population to start hacking at each other over ideological differences.

There's not really an effective point of compromise. The interests of the establishment run diametrically opposed to the vast majority of interests of a significant sub-population.

And on a very fundamental level.

Yeah, it's certainly not going to happen until people are far less comfortable and secure. That's for sure.

People are still too comfortable, distracted, and feel they have too much to lose.

Basically, the point at which it will likely occur, is when a critical mass of people are in such a desperate situation, that death is a preferable alternative to inaction.

True, but that doesn't make war more likely. In this day and age, when Western governments have to at least pretend to care under more powerful spotlights, it makes war less likely. Look at the Civil Rights and Indian independence movements as an example of this; the non-violent protesters carried the day because whenever the government or establishment got violent, usually for no justifiable reason, they were the ones who lost.

Obviously this doesn't work in tyrannical regimes, but we're not talking about those kinds of societies.

The Civil-Rights didn't achieve a non-violent victory. It achieved a victory through violent, financial, political, and academic subversion.

wat

It leveraged both political violence in the streets, as well as leveraging the threat of force from the institutions it subverted.

I was referring specifically to the non-violent protests.

Rules for Radicals is a book on how to gain political victory *without* violence.

It only worked because they were leveraging the violence of others who were working towards the same end, and counting on the good faith of others who might otherwise have stopped them.

There were political assassinations, attacks, and tremendous amounts of money involved.

What are you even talking about? The violent actors wanted nothing to do with the peaceniks.

It's a scam. The peaceniks utilized the fear the masses had of the radicals to appear more reasonable by comparison.

I'm not saying the violent extremists weren't there. I'm saying the non-violent actors were the ones who brought victory.

Of course a peacenik group is going to say something to the effect of "We don't believe in violence, unlike Group X." That's part of the whole idea of being peaceful.

Granted, it probably wouldn't have been so effective, if they hadn't already had so many allies in media, academia, and law.

And finance.

Are you saying it was all a comspiracy amongst the various groups, violent and non-violent?

As well as the media, finance, etc.?

It was heavily compartmentalized, but no doubt their were networkers between both who knew what the grand strategy concerned.

*[citation needed]*

<:Doubt:588038713938804760>

Look into communist and socialist connections in media, academia and law, it's a big component of it. As well as those associations where they overlapped in social justice advocacy, and anti-racism.

Compare it to modern antifa, and the left academics. They're still doing it today.

I've no doubt there's strains of socialism in the various groups—especially given Soviet tendancies and the ongoing Cold War—but that's quite the leap. And I'm certain MLK and other peace advocates weren't perfect. But that doesn't mean it was all one huge plot. Sometimes revolutions are organic, and come about through natural forces—death being preferrable to inaction, et cetera.

Antifa may be more centralized than they let on, but they still have their various cells. They're a more modern beast anyway, and certainly like their violence.

@Goodwood of Dank™ This is far from an exhaustive analysis, but it does explore the connection between MLKJ and the communist/socialist elements in finance, and law.
https://youtu.be/OGUNHsh4Ax8

Antifa has always liked their violence.

They're most effective when operating in tandem with compatriots who have infiltrated a nation's institutions, however.

"saints of the 20th Century." Oh boy, I can see where this is going...

"white people usually run away from ethnic diversity, and rightly so." Woof!

Feel free to prove him wrong by moving to an area with maximum diversity.

You can't disprove a non-argument.

Translation: "I'm too afraid of living around black people to put my life where my mouth is."

Aidspiggery.

I don't think you know what that means.

"bolsheviks"

I do. You're arguing the signifier rather than the signified. Also, turning a joke into an argument.

If diversity is an immaterial concern, then what's wrong with moving there?

Not gonna watch any more. Got to 4:15 and haven't seen anything but assertion after assertion.

Not even gonna bother looking any of this up? Okay.

Because I can't simply pull up stakes at a whim, retard.

What a racist.

Wow. What an original retort.

Not willing to inconvenience yourself a bit to prove how great diversity is.

I'm appalled.

Did you just assume my ideology?

Because I'm starting to think you're assuming my ideology.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I happen to identify as an attack helicpoter, thank you very much.

What do you think I'm assuming, and how is it wrong?

You assume I brought up that line as a rebuttal, when I simply pointed it out as poor rhetoric. TBH it was a big clue as to this guy's mindset; mixed with the rest of his framing, it really gets the old noggin joggin.

I've delt with southerners of his ilk before, you see.

So, you're put off by something you assumed *about* his argument, rather than the factual correctness of what he's stating?

>of his ilk

<:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

I'm saying that his framing and narrative spinning makes his agenda obvious. If you can get four minutes in before you start to actually go into facts, you're doing it wrong.