The Virus to Come

[Mr Reasonable]

You don't know nothing.

this is a double negative so its like you are saying that he knows everything

[Pedro I Rengel]

You don't know nothing either.

Omg do you also have a thing against Jews? That would really complete the circle.

[Mr Reasonable]

thank you for saying that i know everything i knew you would come around eventually.

i dont have anything against anyone. i love all my fellow human beings. even the ones who consider my their enemy, i just feel sorry for them and hope that they can find peace in their lives. like the urwrong dude lol i really hope he develops some way to cope between not and the inauguration i dont want him to have to go through what it looks like hes going to go through emotionally.

[Pedro I Rengel]

i dont have anything against anyone.

I've heard you go off about numerous people.

[Mr Reasonable]

i dont have anything against anyone.

I've heard you go off about numerous people.

who?

[Pedro I Rengel]

i dont have anything against anyone.

I've heard you go off about numerous people.

who?

Country bumpkins for one. Alabamians in general. That's just off the top of my noggin.

[Mr Reasonable]

i can disagree with a bumpkin without hating them. i feel bad for them because as a result of having poorly funded public education they are largely susceptible to conspiracy theories and routinely vote against their own economic interests.

[Pedro I Rengel]

No, I have literally heard you go off about them.

And Trump and Republicans.

Don't make me dig cuz.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You have a lot of things against a lot of people. I just hope one of them isn't all Jews.

The whole ideology you espouse is radicated around hating groups of people categorically.

[Pedro I Rengel]

i can disagree with a bumpkin without hating them. i feel bad for them because as a result of having poorly funded public education they are largely susceptible to conspiracy theories and routinely vote against their own economic interests.

Dude you think Biden is good for oil.

You are dumber than a bag of rocks what do you know about economic interests.

[Mr Reasonable]

No, I have literally heard you go off about them.

And Trump and Republicans.

Don't make me dig cuz.

make a thread about it

[Pedro I Rengel]

I know consistency and self-honesty mean nothing to you, but just know that I remember.

[Mr Reasonable]

you fail to grasp the nuance of my words. im completely honest

[Zero_Sum]

They won't risk nuclear war, that's why the vaccines, pandemic, and the lock downs exist right now, less messy that way being just as effective. Think of it as our century's version of conquering entire continents without firing a single shot, these people prefer sanitized cloak and dagger strategies to achieve their collective goals when reality permits it. Of course the majority of the population's imbeciles are none the wiser.

I think conservatives and progressives will eventually battle for the fate of America, the western world.
This thing goes way beyond one man.
it's not going away.
Conservatives and progressives once agreed on some core things, like the constitution, more or less.
That's no longer the case.
The right are national libertarian conservatives across the board, the left are global authoritarian progressives across the board, and the center is dying.
The right want to keep the old America, the left want a new one, a new, or no social contract.
And they will slaughter each other by the millions, until one or both are vanquished, for good.
I believe the progressives will ultimately win, not because I prefer them, overall I prefer the contemporary incarnation of conservatives over this incarnation of progressives, but because that's who wall street, the globalists and multinationals are betting on, and they usually get what they want.
And that's where history is heading, the writing's on the wall.
Both individual liberty, and social democracy come and go.
Increasingly modern man trusts authority, the elite, the experts, as wealth and power are being consolidated into fewer hands.
However freedom won't go out with a whimper, but a bang, a series of bombs, some nuclear.

To sum up conservatives and progressives it goes something like this, conservatives want a world that can never be again and they don't realize that world no longer exists, but in their minds it's real only. Progressives on the other hand want a society modelled after communist China but where BLM goes around bashing people in their heads.

I hate conservatives, I hate progressives, I hate republicans, I hate liberals, and really, I just fucking hate everybody in general.

I'm super cool with everybody killing each other so long as I get what I want, and if I don't, I'll find a way to forcibly take it for myself going against anybody that denies me it.

[Gloominary]

There are a lot of intricacies.
Of course both parties in the US are corrupt, just like the duopoly in Canada is corrupt.
They always were corrupt, and they'll always be corrupt.
However, sometimes they're a bit less corrupt than others.
And sometimes, one is quite a bit less corrupt than the other.
Of course the left won't get what I'm about to say, and I'm not going to explain it here, but today's democrats are quite a bit more corrupt than today's republicans.

What it's meant to be a republican and democrat in theory and practice has changed over the generations.
In the 19th century, republicans tended to be fiscally corporatist and socioculturally conservative, democrats fiscally capitalist and socioculturally libertarian.
There were no socialists and progressives at the time.
As time went on, both parties moved to the left, at least rhetorically and/or socioculturally.
In the 20th century. republicans became fiscally capitalist, at least in theory, not openly corporatist like they were, but remained socioculturally conservative, democrats became fiscally socialist, but remained socioculturally libertarian.
In the 21st century, republicans remained fiscally capitalist, but became socioculturally libertarian and democrats remained fiscally socialist, but became socioculturally progressive.
Much, but not all of this is in rhetoric and theory, in practice both parties have been quite fiscally corporatist and socioculturally progressive lately.

By and large, both corporatism and progressivism are anathema to republicanism and democracy.
There should be little-no corporatism and progressivism.
Republicans ought to be capitalist and libertarian, or conservative, individualists, democrats ought to be socialist and conservative, or libertarian, populists.
In a democratic republic, individualism, and populism ought to reign supreme, not corporatism, and progressivism, because both corporatism, and progressivism are minority rule, not individual or majority rule.
Corporatism also has a sociocultural domain or sphere different than conservatism, likewise progressivism has a fiscal domain or sphere different from socialism, but I won't get into that here.
I would say both parties were closer to what they should be in the 20th century.
I'd say until recently, both parties were never more corrupt, fiscally corporatist and socioculturally progressive.

Recently, individualism, nationalism and to a lesser extent populism have made a bit of a comeback in the republican party, whereas the democratic party have grown even more corporatist, globalist and progressive. Wall street has taken note, it's now throwing far more money at democrats than republicans.
If both parties continue to move in this direction, the republican party will became quite a bit better, more pro-democratic republican, the democratic party quite a bit worse, more pro-oligarchic dictatorship.
In a civil war between these parties, ideally the reps ought to win, but I think the way history is going, the dems will, and establish a progressive, and scientific feudalist dictatorship, some time during this century.
The rest of the west will probably follow shortly thereafter.

[Karpel Tunnel]

What it's meant to be a republican in theory and in practice, and a democrat in theory and in practice has changed over the generations.
In the 19th century, republicans tended to be fiscally corporatist and socioculturally conservative, democrats fiscally capitalist and socioculturally libertarian.
There were no socialists and progressives at the time.
As time went on, both parties moved to the left, at least in rhetoric, not always in practice.

I don't think this is true. Reagan shifted the bar to the right. It was Clinton who eliminated huge amounts of the social support system and it was under his reign that the financial institutions were 'liberated.' Both parties moved to the Left on social issues. Gays were more accepted by both parties, for example, as time went on. But it's not like for example Reagan's union busting was adjusted by hid democratic replacements. The liberals got tougher on crime, reduced taxes on capital gains, cut the social system, increased the power of law enforcement, increased the amount of people in prison, increased the war on crime and drugs. Slower than the right would have on some issues, but also, in the cutting of welfare, in ways the Right would have met much more resistance on. I think sometimes they figure they can use the side that usually doesn't do something to get something through. I thought that was the plan with HIlary. The nation is very tired of wars in the Mideast. A right wing president going to war in Syria would have met immediate and massive resistence by democrats and liberals and radicals. Hilary on the other hand would have met some resistance, but the left would have been entranced by her gender and party.

[Gloominary]

What it's meant to be a republican in theory and in practice, and a democrat in theory and in practice has changed over the generations.
In the 19th century, republicans tended to be fiscally corporatist and socioculturally conservative, democrats fiscally capitalist and socioculturally libertarian.
There were no socialists and progressives at the time.
As time went on, both parties moved to the left, at least in rhetoric, not always in practice.

I don't think this is true. Reagan shifted the bar to the right. It was Clinton who eliminated huge amounts of the social support system and it was under his reign that the financial institutions were 'liberated.' Both parties moved to the Left on social issues. Gays were more accepted by both parties, for example, as time went on. But it's not like for example Reagan's union busting was adjusted by hid democratic replacements. The liberals got tougher on crime, reduced taxes on capital gains, cut the social system, increased the power of law enforcement, increased the amount of people in prison, increased the war on crime and drugs. Slower than the right would have on some issues, but also, in the cutting of welfare, in ways the Right would have met much more resistance on. I think sometimes they figure they can use the side that usually doesn't do something to get something through. I thought that was the plan with HIlary. The nation is very tired of wars in the Mideast. A right wing president going to war in Syria would have met immediate and massive resistence by democrats and liberals and radicals. Hilary on the other hand would have met some resistance, but the left would have been entranced by her gender and party.

Good point, I should say both parties moved further to the left socioculturally, fiscally it's been more mixed.

[Gloominary]

By the turn of the 22nd century, much or most of the world will've transitioned into neofeudalism, scientific serfdom or totalitranshumanism, whichever term you prefer.
In North America, Western Europe and Oceania, it may take on more of a global progressive character, in the rest of the world, a more national conservative character.
At the local level, NA, WE and AU may retain some individualism and populism, but not at the federal level.

[d0rkyd00d]

I agree ZS, they want to kill 90% of us or more.
The US, Brazil and the western world as a whole, is at a crossroads.
They would rather see the US destroyed than increasingly turn to populism.
If the US submits to their neofeudalist agenda, it'll be permitted to exist, in time perhaps merged with Canada and Mexico under the North American Union, the NAU under the NWO.
However, if it doesn't submit, they will either try to take it over from within using as much of the military and paramilitary (Antifa and BLM) they can muster, and/or try to take it over from without (China), or nuke it.
Myself I think the geofeudalists will probably ultimately win, but it may take several years, or several decades to either fully subjugate, or destroy the US and any other part of the west that refuses to submit, but we shall see.
If they succeed, those who want to remain free will have to flee underground or well outside.

Not sure if being sarcastic, but if not, why would it be beneficial to have a severe population decrease? Wouldn't that be a lot of consumers down the drain? Doesn't China rely quite a bit on the U.S. consumer buying their product to complete the transfer of wealth from our pocket to theirs?

[Pedro I Rengel]

You nazi.

[Gloominary]

I agree ZS, they want to kill 90% of us or more.
The US, Brazil and the western world as a whole, is at a crossroads.
They would rather see the US destroyed than increasingly turn to populism.
If the US submits to their neofeudalist agenda, it'll be permitted to exist, in time perhaps merged with Canada and Mexico under the North American Union, the NAU under the NWO.
However, if it doesn't submit, they will either try to take it over from within using as much of the military and paramilitary (Antifa and BLM) they can muster, and/or try to take it over from without (China), or nuke it.
Myself I think the geofeudalists will probably ultimately win, but it may take several years, or several decades to either fully subjugate, or destroy the US and any other part of the west that refuses to submit, but we shall see.
If they succeed, those who want to remain free will have to flee underground or well outside.

Not sure if being sarcastic, but if not, why would it be beneficial to have a severe population decrease? Wouldn't that be a lot of consumers down the drain? Doesn't China rely quite a bit on the U.S. consumer buying their product to complete the transfer of wealth from our pocket to theirs?

Quite a bit of what we produce these days is, from the elite's perspective, superfluous.
It's stuff the masses enjoy, but don't 'need', or it's barely appreciated by anyone, neither by the elite nor the masses, or it's wasted, not even consumed, just dumped into the ocean.
Quite a bit of it is jut to keep the masses busy, distracted.
This is because we've gotten more efficient at producing essentials, thanks to the way we structure corporations, and technology, so we have more superfluous time and energy.
This is why China adopted a one child birth policy for a time.
The elite don't need many of us, they themselves don't want to make sacrifices, but they would like to get us down to more manageable levels, for themselves and the environment, so they can enjoy it.
As long as the US remains, relatively (I mean relative to China, of course it still leaves much to be desired) free, and the world's superpower, it's an obstacle for the elite, who prefer the China model, being able to control the people, and their numbers at will.
Sweden is an obstacle for the elite too right now, so is Belarus, they're not fully on board with the new normal.
The elite would much rather see the US subjugated than destroyed, but they're willing to manufacture crisis after crisis in order to submit it.
Of course this strategy could backfire, but it's a chance they're willing to take.
The last thing they want is more countries adopting the American, or Canadian, or British model for that matter.
Not saying the US is the best, there are great things about other western countries too, just that it's a superpower, the elite don't want a relatively free, democratic country at the helm.

[d0rkyd00d]

Quite a bit of what we produce these days is, from the elite's perspective, superfluous.
It's stuff the masses enjoy, but don't 'need', or it's barely appreciated by anyone, neither by the elite nor the masses, or it's wasted, not even consumed, just dumped into the ocean.
Quite a bit of it is jut to keep the masses busy, distracted.
This is because we've gotten more efficient at producing essentials, thanks to the way we structure corporations, and technology, so we have more superfluous time and energy.
This is why China adopted a one child birth policy for a time.
The elite don't need many of us, they themselves don't want to make sacrifices, but they would like to get us down to more manageable levels, for themselves and the environment, so they can enjoy it.
As long as the US remains, relatively (I mean relative to China, of course it still leaves much to be desired) free, and the world's superpower, it's an obstacle for the elite, who prefer the China model, being able to control the people, and their numbers at will.
Sweden is an obstacle for the elite too right now, so is Belarus, they're not fully on board with the new normal.
The elite would much rather see the US subjugated than destroyed, but they're willing to manufacture crisis after crisis in order to submit it.
Of course this strategy could backfire, but it's a chance they're willing to take.
The last thing they want is more countries adopting the American, or Canadian, or British model for that matter.
Not saying the US is the best, there are great things about other western countries too, just that it's a superpower, the elite don't want a relatively free, democratic country at the helm.

Interesting theory, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Terrifying if true.

[obsrvr524]

Not sure if being sarcastic, but if not, why would it be beneficial to have a severe population decrease? Wouldn't that be a lot of consumers down the drain? Doesn't China rely quite a bit on the U.S. consumer buying their product to complete the transfer of wealth from our pocket to theirs?

There is an optimal utilitarian balance - a balance for self and a different balance for others.

• For the enemy - over populate with the naive, useless, and weak.
• For yourself - lean and trim - sculpted by the obedient, useful, and strong.

[Gloominary]

Quite a bit of what we produce these days is, from the elite's perspective, superfluous.
It's stuff the masses enjoy, but don't 'need', or it's barely appreciated by anyone, neither by the elite nor the masses, or it's wasted, not even consumed, just dumped into the ocean.
Quite a bit of it is jut to keep the masses busy, distracted.
This is because we've gotten more efficient at producing essentials, thanks to the way we structure corporations, and technology, so we have more superfluous time and energy.
This is why China adopted a one child birth policy for a time.
The elite don't need many of us, they themselves don't want to make sacrifices, but they would like to get us down to more manageable levels, for themselves and the environment, so they can enjoy it.
As long as the US remains, relatively (I mean relative to China, of course it still leaves much to be desired) free, and the world's superpower, it's an obstacle for the elite, who prefer the China model, being able to control the people, and their numbers at will.
Sweden is an obstacle for the elite too right now, so is Belarus, they're not fully on board with the new normal.
The elite would much rather see the US subjugated than destroyed, but they're willing to manufacture crisis after crisis in order to submit it.
Of course this strategy could backfire, but it's a chance they're willing to take.
The last thing they want is more countries adopting the American, or Canadian, or British model for that matter.
Not saying the US is the best, there are great things about other western countries too, just that it's a superpower, the elite don't want a relatively free, democratic country at the helm.

Interesting theory, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Terrifying if true.

YW