I apologize, I couldn't help myself. Indeed, I rarely can.
I think this is a fascinating line of inquiry and comment. The portion introducing the operators of the IRA is the most compelling part for me, though I don't say that to take away from the previous analysis and observations.
It appears that every ideology, belief structure, and operationalized rhetorical framework suffers from the sickness of far too many scribes with almost no soldiery. Social media churn seems to be some kind of paralytic, and we can't help ourselves from continuing to uplike, heart, and affirm each new entry to the never-ending journal of Scribe on Scribes.
All that hot air to say: thanks for this, I'll be thinking about it for a long time.
If NETTER actually now means what you outline, it's another victim of the corruption of language. It used to mean (per Haywood) no enemies to YOUR right. IOW, don't countersignal your extremists by concernfagging and tone policing. Let that Overton Window fly and be free!
I've often thought those who created foundational documents should have then written volumes explaining what the intent of those documents were, e.g. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", means:
"OK listen up you peabrained slopebrow chuds, that means anyone who wants a weapon of any kind gets to have it, and anyone who tries (or even SUGGESTS) preventing them from having it, is an OUTLAW that can be killed with extreme prejudice and should be hailed by the people as a hero and statues WILL BE ERECTED in his honor (funded by the estates of people who were killed for even THINKING that the people should be disarmed), so that this sort of behavior ISN'T EVEN DREAMED ABOUT unless someone is suicidal and clearly insane, etc. etc., (go on for another 250 pages just to drive in the point).
Because the problem with democracy is the people are retarded.
That was why I didnt want to cite Haywood as the main perpetrator (who I like) and clarified my feelings on radicalism, it was more how I've seen it utilized.
The conflict in the tweet about the father of seven/the childless man is false.
Learn history: the Worker's Rights Movements were made up out of men who worked six days per week, pulling twelve hour shifts or longer, in conditions that wouldn't be allowed in prisons today.
They educated themselves and each other. They fought at great risk and cost against a fiscally liberal-capitalist and socially conservative-Christian state that happily ordered soldiers and police to act as enforcers for bankers and industrialists, including committing arson and murder against organisers and speakers.
(Globalism isn't new in any way, it existed 200 years ago under the name "cosmopolitanism" and when industry could be moved abroad it was, back then too.)
And these men weren't Marxists at first, remember. Marxism attached itself to them as memetic Cordycept.
They were nationalists, patriots, family fathers and young men, fighting for their families and children and wives, who handled a great workload too, so that the men could fight all the more.
To put educating oneself in order to have a greater arsenal of thought as being in conflict with having children is a lie, and a "cope" - its simp-ly an excuse for not doing both.
It's like going to the gym and not doing shoulder-press because your knee hurt.
This: "But the nature of internet discourse is that what begins ironically ends up earnestly; attitudes are normalized and younger generations are not in on the joke. An important feature of radicalism is the longer it persists the deeper it normalizes."
Based
Beat me to it.
I apologize, I couldn't help myself. Indeed, I rarely can.
I think this is a fascinating line of inquiry and comment. The portion introducing the operators of the IRA is the most compelling part for me, though I don't say that to take away from the previous analysis and observations.
It appears that every ideology, belief structure, and operationalized rhetorical framework suffers from the sickness of far too many scribes with almost no soldiery. Social media churn seems to be some kind of paralytic, and we can't help ourselves from continuing to uplike, heart, and affirm each new entry to the never-ending journal of Scribe on Scribes.
All that hot air to say: thanks for this, I'll be thinking about it for a long time.
Not based. Not cringe. A secret third thing.
If NETTER actually now means what you outline, it's another victim of the corruption of language. It used to mean (per Haywood) no enemies to YOUR right. IOW, don't countersignal your extremists by concernfagging and tone policing. Let that Overton Window fly and be free!
I've often thought those who created foundational documents should have then written volumes explaining what the intent of those documents were, e.g. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", means:
"OK listen up you peabrained slopebrow chuds, that means anyone who wants a weapon of any kind gets to have it, and anyone who tries (or even SUGGESTS) preventing them from having it, is an OUTLAW that can be killed with extreme prejudice and should be hailed by the people as a hero and statues WILL BE ERECTED in his honor (funded by the estates of people who were killed for even THINKING that the people should be disarmed), so that this sort of behavior ISN'T EVEN DREAMED ABOUT unless someone is suicidal and clearly insane, etc. etc., (go on for another 250 pages just to drive in the point).
Because the problem with democracy is the people are retarded.
That was why I didnt want to cite Haywood as the main perpetrator (who I like) and clarified my feelings on radicalism, it was more how I've seen it utilized.
The conflict in the tweet about the father of seven/the childless man is false.
Learn history: the Worker's Rights Movements were made up out of men who worked six days per week, pulling twelve hour shifts or longer, in conditions that wouldn't be allowed in prisons today.
They educated themselves and each other. They fought at great risk and cost against a fiscally liberal-capitalist and socially conservative-Christian state that happily ordered soldiers and police to act as enforcers for bankers and industrialists, including committing arson and murder against organisers and speakers.
(Globalism isn't new in any way, it existed 200 years ago under the name "cosmopolitanism" and when industry could be moved abroad it was, back then too.)
And these men weren't Marxists at first, remember. Marxism attached itself to them as memetic Cordycept.
They were nationalists, patriots, family fathers and young men, fighting for their families and children and wives, who handled a great workload too, so that the men could fight all the more.
To put educating oneself in order to have a greater arsenal of thought as being in conflict with having children is a lie, and a "cope" - its simp-ly an excuse for not doing both.
It's like going to the gym and not doing shoulder-press because your knee hurt.
Strategy is gay, got it.
And yeah we got a lot of "based" people
But they're more like 4chan people
Are you a Serious Guy?
should be the question
This: "But the nature of internet discourse is that what begins ironically ends up earnestly; attitudes are normalized and younger generations are not in on the joke. An important feature of radicalism is the longer it persists the deeper it normalizes."