@!GPT, I grew up on Dirty Harry. 😉

I've heard the press is corrupt out there, too, @Ayylmao.

Sounds like you're ripe for a revolution.

I'd have to see your sources on that, @Jokerfaic.

No gossip magazines from the grocery store's checkout aisle, please. 😄

From what I've heard of him so far, that would fit his character, @Ayylmao.

Is there a recording of his self-proclamations?

Interesting.

A shift toward federalism will be positive.

That'll decentralize power.

I hear Mao was rather fond of trannies, himself.

I'd blame the Eastern world first.

As for your YT idea, go for it, man.

There's an information gap, as it relates to the Philippines. That may just be your niche.

Bitchute or Minds, oh yeah.

I'd use as many platforms as you can.

Tarl Warwick still uses YT, in tandem with Minds and Bitchute, among many others.

It's a good way to subvert your audience over to the alt-tech platforms.

I still prefer my M-72 LAW. What is that you've got there, @Kaiser Pepsi Man, an AT4?

That reminds me of Operation Infektion.

Nostalgia for the Cold War. <:smugon:512048583806025739>

According to the Soviets, we manufactured an "AIDS VIRUS TO EXTERMINATE ALL THE BLACKS" at Fort Detrick.

Did we manufacture him, too, @!GPT?

😄

I had no idea.

But, it makes sense.

Federalism has been slowly eroded over time, in the U.S., the most prominent a Wilsonian-progressive, 17th Amendment. I've previously written in great length as to why popularly elected Senators was a negative, but to name just a few:
1) The House was meant to remain the only unstable chamber within the Congress, subject to the public tenacity district by district and localizing politics, leaving the Senate stable and apolitical, thereby preserving the sovereignty of various constitutional mechanics the Senate provides for. Take the Judiciary, the politicization of the Kavanaugh appointment, while examining all previous appointments over the past century, since the Amendment was ratified. They're mostly progressive, populist, and willing to stand for the Federal government's violation of property rights and expansion, among other key issues, such as allowing for unions to conduct racketeering, blackmail, and economic terrorism, for example;
2) The 17th Amendment made it easy for wealthy coastal areas, of greatest economic scale, to influence and dictate Senate elections to the rest of the rest of the country. Without a 17th Amendment, any influence must be made at the local, district-level House as that's the constituency they're held to account, while they were the ones to appoint Senators. It's also more difficult for, what has become a Corporate State, to dictate the elections of 435, 2-year term House seats, than it is to dictate the 100, 6-year term Senate seats. Local interests in New York or Florida shouldn't dictate the elections of 25 fly-over States. This is why minimum wage and other labor laws, for example, have been accepted by a Senate, at the cost of economic development for the inner-country majority, while all economic interests are saturated around economies of scale (economic fascism), burdening the rest of the country with market-entry barriers and various other forms of regulation that have regulated out various free-market processes within many

industries, leaving behind the façade, a veneer of Capitalism, as with any planned economy, leading to increased consumer and operational costs at a loss of efficiency. Certainly, alphabet-soup (the innumerable amount of federal agencies planning the economy) never would've came around, and FDR's (what do you know, another Democrat) fascist shenanigans, praised by Mussolini himself as "boldly interventionist in the field of economics," would've never come unfolded;
3) We'll talk about this some more in the future, but for now I've got to get myself a shower and lead a productive day.

At the end of the day, Federalism embraces the core of Democratic values, than does the direct-Democratic system, a zero-sum game of national politick. Self-governance, the core of the American way, tells us the 17th Amendment must go.

That's for you two, @ETBrooD & @Jokerfaic, along with any passerby. Scroll up for my comments on your conversation about "Democracy."

And, this is what people should begin to recognize as the petri dish of America's corporate globalism, the firms with monopolies state-side, due to indirect planning of the economy through regulation, within our very government, who've grown to reach outside our borders and sacrifice our interests, feeding the monstrous regimes (PRC, for example) that inevitably rival us, with impunity, @ETBrooD. There are arguments to be made both for and against this system, as focusing on the interests of economies of scale has a compounding and perpetual effect of growth, but the long-term consequences just may outweigh it.

So, you'd consider yourself an anti-federalist, despite knowing what the consequences would've been long ago? I'm not a nationalist in the sense that self-governance is out the window.

We'd be a full-blown fascist State under an entirely anti-federalist system.

The closest you will come to true freedom is a federalist, decentralized government, of which the liberty lovers are enabled to self-govern, while eliminating the mechanisms by which feed the power of the artful few to impose upon the many. You will find a taste of true freedom in Washington's Farewell Address of 1796.

American federalism is also by design, just as any other, but it retains the greatest freedom for one to govern oneself. We've strayed from federalism, and that is the problem, the interests of few districts infringing upon those of hundreds.

It's not a matter of being allowed, it's a matter of retaining a system that cannot violate your ability to self-govern, one we do not have as we continue to stray away from federalism.

Did you not read what I wrote, regarding the 17th Amendment?

The many cannot infringe upon the few under American federalism, nor can the few upon the many; that's the point.

I'm not a fan of utilitarianism, and if I was, I'd be an anti-federalist and side with Wilsonian-populism.

Correct. If a commune wishes to practice an internalized and isolated iteration of socialism; fine. This is about leaving people to live according to how they see fit, as it was meant to be. As I said, the economic interests of a firm in New York should have no sway upon 25 other Senators from fly-over country, in seeking a regulation that secures a monopoly for them, yet leaves the constituency disadvantaged within those other States and Districts, with their entrepreneurs unable to enter and compete in various industries relating to those regulated on behalf of those interests in New York.

Anyway, I've got to get going.

I've got to take a family member in for surgery, so we'll pick this up in the future.

Because the needs of the many should trump those of the few, if you're a utilitarian.

Federalism is anti to federal state.

I know the words seem to confuse people, as they assume the meaning behind them.

Anyway, taking off!

I'm reading through, while I sit in the lobby, waiting to observe this ophthalmological operation. I'll never understand how people can write on these touch-screen displays, as I haven't the patience.

<:thinkcide2:462282425486147585>

@Arkhan Black, your art is rather disturbing. <:cuckertarlson:462285973724856320>

Is it supposed to be a celestial of some sort?

That's where your abstraction comes from, then. Well, keep me updated, as I'd like to see the work once finished.

So, once I returned home from the surgical operation, my microwave decided to catch fire, and my A/C decided to give out. 👌

@ETBrooD, I see you're still kicking it.

No worries; I repaired both in about an hour.

Alive and well in this channel.

Don't analyze it too much.

How's your day unfolding, my friend?

@Boop / 브파 / C'thUwU, freedom of speech has been around for some time. 😄

I'm just going over some financial spreadsheets, brewing some more coffee and catching up on my lack of cancer in-take for the past 6 hours.

What do you have going on over there, as it relates to your occupation?

The interbred, more of a Marxist cast, @Xaverius. I'd argue for their dropping of "liberal," given they're nothing akin to Locke.

@ETBrooD, would you consider yourself an advocate of individualism?

Of course.

Only to the extent by which entities must be restricted from infringing upon it. I'd consider myself radically anti-collectivist.

I thought you would be, given your past remarks. You seemed to advocate for individualism in our previous discussion, which my reflections are modeled to serve that model. So, I'd consider myself a Classical Liberal, who has adopted Objectivist philosophy along my journey.

I'm sure you're familiar with Ayn Rand.

Indeed, ET. Pragmatism is a necessity to prevent an accidental subversion of your intent.

Thus, that's where you can find yourself in conflict with the isms.

Correct.

Especially true in the fields of economics, when both egalitarian and utilitarian values are best served by leaving the individual to their own devices.

Well, the Milgram Experiment might have a lot to say about that, ETBrooD. But, that is a rather broad question.

It's unscientific, because Williams gave an additional 25 commands in totality, spread across all subjects, to administer additional shocks? That was the purpose of the experiment, after all, to see if these individuals would abandon their ethic at the will of an authoritative figure, and they did so, under far less strain than what the experiment has been cited for as an explanation for the behavior of individuals tried at Nuremberg, of which a family member of mine was subject. His improvising, highly limited in scope to verbal commands which was part of the script, are far less than what you can account for the pressure imposed by authority figures during any notable genocide throughout history. Certainly, the rate would've been 100%, if under the threat of death or a fear of losing loved ones. Don't you believe your logic is flawed, accounting for this? I've listened to the recordings, myself, while expanding upon the experiment with theories of my own, though they'll likely never be tested.

@ETBrooD

Now, I understand your view psychology is often biased by both economic and political gains is true, but I don't believe the popular narrative of citing this study discredits it.

Correct; they were commanded to issue the shocks by Williams.

Peterson might argue it has something to do with levels of serotonin, which might be a more scientifically measurable and replicable experiment. I'd boil it down to fear as a motivator, if the subject possesses value for life and empathy. If I were to attempt poking holes into the experiment or in doing so filling gaps, as it is a social experiment, I'd like to know more about the socialization of each of the subjects, their values, institutions of which they've engaged whether religious and so forth, as well where they sit on an empathy scale.

Oh, yes, there are a lot of considerations to be made, no doubt, but I still view the experiment as a petri dish by which to ask further questions.

Indeed.

That's correct, and the experiment doesn't give you any of this information on the subjects.

One of those subjects could've tested on the autism spectrum for all we know, and perhaps they have a lack of empathy. There are many, many factors to consider far beyond the presence of an authority figure, which as I said, is fertile ground for more experimentation. Attempts to replicate the experiment is shunned among academia, however, as questions of ethics arise.

🎊

Liberalism took a wrong turn toward that which we once despised, Jacovich, turning toward ideological manifestations that're not suitable toward the ends of preserving individual liberty, while Objectivism is consistent with Classical Liberalism in its observations, values, etc. They both have an intrinsic recognition of natural order. So, I do posses the same view as you, as it were a natural progression.

Well, of course it has. Classical Liberalism was radically individualist, and it has taken a turn toward radical collectivism. I would argue the wrong people have been branded as liberals, if anything.

Indeed.

Just as Samuel Adams once remarked, "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

😂

Oh, yes, in modern times.

You'll either see an authoritarian that's proclaiming to be a liberal, or you'll see an authoritarian outside their shell accusing Classically Liberal, non-ideologues of being authoritarians.

Perversion on a scale I've never before seen.

Weez, I believe you possess a misunderstanding of fascism, if you truly mean that.

Why would you wish to regulate out free-market processes and artificially inflate the value of goods and services, while seizing the gears of innovation? That's an odd desire, if you're in a time of need, given it's contrary to serving your needs.

I mean, I understand the expedient desire to wipe out those who wish to superimpose an ideology upon you - I get that. But, that conclusion may lead to a subversion of your intent, as evinced by history. The best way is to simply dissolve the means by which they'd seek to do so and remain armed, organized with your like-minded brethren.

Ah, so you're just a pirate floating on by.

Lol.

@ETBrooD, some of it is by design, others by merely becoming a subject of the designers influence or mere ignorance, going back to the subject of revisionism.

@Weez, you don't believe China has moved far enough, yet?

Cooperation, @jacovich stabs.

Correct, @jacovich stabs, so you have fundamental questions of whether it is the case that government is merely to recognize ones rights, rather than be the grantor of said rights.

Man becomes God.

@Weez, as in you do not believe the PRC has went far enough along the lines of fascism? I find it difficult to recognize them as Communists, as this point, but I'll still declare them as such in my rants. Is the PRC the first instance of observing Fascism arise from Communism, or was it all really the same anyway, ultimately pursuing the elimination of self-organization and spontaneous order by design?

@jacovich stabs, I also see them as an imperative, as they're required to remain free to ensure efficient allocation of scarce resources. Only a free-market can best decide, while remaining what I see as consistent with my moral values.