• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Caecus

  1. Not Trump dick pics. Trump fricking another woman while his wife just squeezed his child out of her vagina and then having the intelligence to then have the woman sign a NDA, but the stupidity not to sign it himself. In the state of Alabama, supporting and defending a pedophile is called being amoral. That's why Alabama is a blue state now. If somehow the collective state of Alabama has a better moral compass than you, you don't have any morals, and each time you shout out "I WANT A PEDOPHILE FOR SENATE!", you are in reality claiming "I DON'T HAVE A fricking MORAL COMPASS!" Furthermore, are you suggesting you have morals? Take your own advise, and don't make ridiculous claims you can't back up.
  2. Scathing. For someone who claims he has no morals, you really seem to have a hypocritical concern for other people's moral compass. If you need a double standard to win an argument, you've lost automatically.
  3. Hi "Them." I honestly don't know if you said anything at all in your short, unhinged paragraph on death, rape, and criminality "since the 40's." If you honestly believe that nationalism wasn't a cause of the first or second world war and that the world war fatality numbers have more zeros than you can count to, you're - and you'll have to pardon my frankness - dumb as shit. It gets on my nerves when people try to make the argument that the post-war era of free trade and economic cooperation is an Orwellian hellscape, all the while they drive dirt-cheap quality foreign cars, buy and consume exclusive products made in foreign nations, and enjoy an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity, and exchange of culture, all because they grew up with this closed-minded notion in their heads that an arbitrarily social belief of people with different colors of skin or amount of foreskin around their penises causes themselves to be unsuccessful when in reality, they are just dumb as shit. Yeah, I'm looking at you, @Lightning and @Rozalia. Stop blaming other people for your own problems. That being said, I don't know where your graph comes from. I frankly don't even care to go look for it, because if you were anywhere near the level of seriousness in an intellectual debate, you would know that a 3rd grader with Microsoft excel could have made that graph (and presumably did) and it wouldn't tell you jack shit. Why are we talking about homicide rates in the first place? Is it because your immediate thought of "death, rape, and anarchy in the 1940's" meant homicide/criminality rates in the world, and not the catastrophic historical event that killed millions and displaced nearly a quarter of the world's population? I thought WWII causes were empirical evidence, it's obviously not for some people. You're driving the point of my argument. Thanks! U too, have a nice day.
  4. Yes, it was sarcasm. I'm surprised you know what sarcasm is, considering your understanding of history and statistics are far below the suggested level of understanding nuance. Not understanding where I'm going with this? No problem. I've got two words for you: Nazis and 60,000,000. Crack a book if you can't connect the dots. Also, while homicide rates are going up, how is it related to globalization? Sure, the homicide rates are going up during the time there is globalization, but so did vaccination rates. Why isn't your conclusion that vaccines cause homicidal tendencies? Look, its a very plausible argument: the vaccine was invented in the 1800s, right when your graph that you pulled out of your ass starts. After that, the rates of vaccines (and the amount of vaccines) go up, correlating to the rate of homicides. Therefore, vaccines are the cause of homicidal tendencies, and the next time when people say you should get a shot for chickenpox (because you sound like you would be at that age who would need one), you should reject the vaccine and die choking on fluid building up in your lungs to avoid becoming a homicidal maniac. The above fallacy is called a causation-correlation fallacy. Basic-fuking statistics. If you don't know basicfricking statistics, you shouldn't use it. That being said, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that homicide rates are going up because of the massive population explosion following the end of World War II.
  5. Nonetheless, Hillary wouldn't be sticking her dick in Stormy Daniels' vagina and being stupid enough to forget signing his own goddamn NDA.
  6. This is history guys. A porn star is requesting permission to give $130,000 to the chief counsel of the President of the United States in order to make (presumably) millions off of the presidential dick pics. Seriously? Nobody wants to mention this? Black Panther, OJ Simpson and South Africa caught your attention, but not Donald Trump's "family values" penis in a porn star's vagina while his wife is pregnant? Or am I the only one who hasn't seen Trump's penis from a kneeling position?
  7. Because today's world is more full of death, rape, and anarchy than it was when nationalism peaked in the 40s.
  8. No, just stating some facts. If you know what those are.
  9. Not that you would know the difference between a strong intellectual argument and trolling. This guy must really have some passionate views on where Northern Ireland should be. And Wales. And Scotland. Ironic that this guy lives in "the United Kingdom."
  10. OH SHIT DAMN SON! Roz types an entire paragraph and gets shut down with a sarcastic one-liner.
  11. You know who wouldn't be sticking their dick in a porn star's vagina if they became president? Hillary Clinton.
  12. You guys are all missing the point: 50 years from now, there is going to be a history book, and it will have a picture of the most powerful man in human history up until that point with a picture of his dick next to it with the caption: "This dumbass gave this picture willingly to a porn star. And a third of the country still voted for him thinking that he would represent traditional American values and be a good president."
  13. I felt morally obligated to remind @Lightning to call his state legislators to protest the lack of proper funding for public education. I know that morals is a hard concept for you to understand, so let me put it in a way you would understand completely: A white guy is on the short end of the stick of anything. You feel a deep, irritating itch to type several paragraphs into a forum where the only people who care about what you have to say are as follows: a socio-psychopathic 5th grader from Topeka Kansas who thinks Kansas City is in Kansas, a man with 130 guns who spends 3 hours a day going to the range to fire a CB shot out of each of his guns only to go back home and meticulously lube his barrels (on his gun and on his fun-fun) while listening to Kenny Loggin's Danger Zone, and a self-described crusader knight who has wet dreams of swinging a giant broadsword into a Middle-easterner's face in a 14th-century setting while screaming "THANKS OBAMA!" at the top of his lungs. Moral obligations are sort of like that. Just, you know, moral.
  14. I fricking GET IT! lol.
  15. Yeah, sorry. I thought that was obvious when I started hammering @Lightning's home state of Kansas for giving tax breaks to corporations instead of funding K-12 education, directly implying that Lightning's incompetence is the fault of neo-liberalist economic policies and austere fiscal measures aimed at public education but with the understanding that since I know nothing about where Lightning is from (and more importantly, I don't care), I am really passively implying that the fault in his stupidity emanates from himself and not from a force above his control, therefore making his lack of intelligence a product of his own free will; a free will that continues to bend towards self-destructive ignorance. He's better than Milton though, if that counts for anything.
  16. See, that's where our views diverge. I drive a Honda Prius (or what people here call an overpriced golf cart) with the bumper sticker that says "This machine kills fascists." Not on the back bumper. On the front bumper, so fascists know that their demise was very much intended. On a side note, turns out that if you hit a (fascist) pedestrian, it's still an at-fault collision claim under Geico. #sadface Wait, you think this is a debate? I simply inferred the (correct) conclusion that all of you would be pretty pissed at affirmative action, and you go on to rant about a genocide of white people happening. I'm not disputing anything you said (more because I honestly don't care why all of you guys get your panties in a bunch), just simply pointing out some inconsistencies in your random fit. Evidence for what claims? That Jews are mostly white? That you have a mutilated moral alarm clock? That you only care for white people with uncircumcised penises? I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to provide evidence for the sun rising in the east every morning. No way! It was just an example. As for why I'm so unfriendly, see my reply to the man in the gas mask.
  17. Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear. Your moral alarm clock going off about white farmers in South Africa getting murdered seems kind of hypocritical when you think people who gas Jews (most of which are white) have the right idea. Unless, of course, you only care for the white farmers with uncircumcised penises. Presumably because you have plenty of skin around the tip of yours. In which case, why stop there? Why not be more specific with the people you feel more kinship towards? Like, only the white farmers with uncircumcised penises who grew up in a sheltered suburban white neighborhood that drains tax dollars for welfare, because instead of working and paying taxes like the rest of society they spend all their time roleplaying and reenacting a 14th-century battle in a steel recycling plant with cardboard cutouts of horses that make them look like geeky Harry Potter quiditch players with congenital socio-psycho developmental defects, making them ironically the first people to get gassed in their beloved 3rd Reich. On the contrary. I just don't think that our current government does that anyway. Chicago had 650 murders in 2017, and 3 quarters of the victims are African American, so that averages out to be around 1.3 people a day. What has the federal government done? I seem to recall HUD burning $5,000 on a chair. But that's besides the point. See above.
  18. I see you edited your statement after you posted it. Was it to correct spelling or grammar errors? Don't answer, that's a rhetorical question. Oh, I forgot: a rhetorical question is a question asked with the intent that both parties know what the assumed reply would be and by virtue of mutual understanding, does not warrant an answer. I can tell I've already lost you. Unfortunately, Kansas doesn't pay your teachers enough to educate you properly so why should I do any better? Again, a rhetorical question. Oh shit. What a catch 22. Oh shit, you probably don't know what that is either. Good god! 1 a day? That might as well be Holocaust numbers! Oh wait, I also forgot: the Holocaust was a historical catastrophic event where a radical ultranationalist xenophobic atheist amoral fascist dictatorship rounded up everyone who didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes with evangelical cultist haircuts (I know, the irony of a nihilistic state promoting haircuts from a fundamentalist pedophile/polygamous evangelical cult isn't lost on me) and systematically gassed them. I know you didn't read that part about the 3rd Reich's short history, so I thought I would leave that bit of knowledge for you to ponder for the next time you think Tiki-torch-bearing-mommy-paid-for-my-plane-ticket-to-go-to-South-fricking-Carolina-so-I-can-feel-safe-in-my-echo-chamber tax-deficit skin heads have a good point to make.
  19. Oh god. You guys must really hate affirmative action then. I imagine that's what you guys blame when you spout uneducated nonsense befitting a Topeka 5th grader. With the exception of @Lightning, who is presumably said Topeka 5th grader. I see the great state of Kansas still fails to fund K-12 education properly, thank you for the update Lightning. I sincerely hope that your situation improves in the near future.
  20. Take Man of Steel (2013) for example. In the climax of the movie, Superman fights alien demigod in downtown metropolis, and in the process, levels buildings with presumably hundreds of people inside. Yet, superman is not charged with the mass murder his fight creates (not that it could be done in the first place, but that's besides the point). Not only is he not charged, but nobody sheds tears about all the people that died because of his fight. Why? Because Superman was saving them from the real great evil that would have destroyed the planet. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that 20th century fascism is different from fascism today? Are you trying to say what I've already said, which is that "fascism" of the Republic is different from 20th century fascism? I don't understand the comment here.
  21. It should be noted that the tradition of fascism comes from the old Roman Republic and starts off as commendable. The term fascism comes from the Latin word fasces, meaning a bundle of sticks that were carried around by the lictores, a form of ceremonial secret service for the Roman consuls. Within the pomerium, or the sacred circle of Rome, the lictores would carry the fasces and beat the shit out of people to whom the consul deemed in need of judgement. When the consul was outside of the pomerium, his lictores would carry an axe within the bundle of sticks (thus, the symbol of fascism), signifying that the consul had the power of life and death over Roman citizens while at war. This is even more pronounced in the dictator, who was elected by the Senate to choose an ex-consul to lead. The most famous story is of the first dictator, Cincinnatus. Most historians debate when Cincinnatus came to power, or indeed if he was a real person in the first place. But most can agree that the his legend is one that inspires the true nature of dictatorship. In a conflict with a neighboring tribe, both elected consuls of Rome led armies into the field, and were surrounded on a mountain top some 40 miles from Rome. In desperation, the senate sought Cincinnatus, a disgraced ex-consul, to become the first Roman dictator. As dictator, Cincinnatus' lictores carried axes in their fasces within the pomerium, meaning that even within the sacred circle of Rome, Cincinnatus could execute citizens should he deem it necessary. This came out of a necessity during times of war, in the recognition that real existential peril does necessitate power and unity. Futhermore, he was given the power to call upon a double consular army to lift the siege of the contemporary consuls. Cincinnatus raised his legion, lifted the siege, and returned to Rome in triumph in a little over a week. He then resigned his dictatorship, and returned to his farm. In his lifetime, Cincinnatus was called upon a second time to serve as dictator, and again resigned his dictatorship immediately after the threat of destruction had passed. Even Sulla, the first man to march an armed legion into the pomerium of Rome for the purpose of killing his political enemies, decided to resign his dictatorship 10 years later when he deemed the threat of the populists had subsided. The true collapse of the Republic came with Julius Caesar, who thought that Sulla (and every dictator before him) was stupid for leaving their office, and later proclaimed himself dictator in perpetuum. The ultimate difference between a Republican-style of dictatorship and 20th century fascism is that the axe in the fasces was a temporary adornment in the Republic and a permanent annex in the Axis powers. Thus, in all democratic states, the axe must be justified by presenting every enemy - real or fabricated - to be an existential threat. Arguably, the difference is also the quality of leadership; Great men wield power to squash enemies and govern a state, but even greater men step away from power to preserve the longevity of the republic. Again, another difference between fascism and American democracy is here: Washington surrendered power to return to his farm, despite the people willing to give him power to "protect the republic." If that sounds familiar, there is a reason why the historical group which preserves Washington's memory is called the Society of Cincinnati. So yes, technically, American democracy does have a tradition of "fascism," but it would hardly look like the 20th century bullshit everyone thinks of when they hear the term.
  22. Literally everything in this thread is proof. Having preconceived ideas and opinions about a person by where they are from in the world, and then acting upon it is called racism. You think that just by virtue of being from Somalia and nothing else, people from that "shithole country" are criminals and can't "assimilate" into your country. It never even occurred to you that some people from Somalia might be scholars, philanthropists, and skilled workers who love eating cheeseburgers and playing American football. Furthermore, you think that people from a socialist, gun-banning Scandinavian country with both a symbolic monarchy from the days where people were either noble or peasant and a state-sponsored baptist church is more suited to immigrate to the United States, presumably because nobody gets more white than Norwegians. Because in no !@#$ing WAY would anyone think that white-ass Norwegians would be more likely to assimilate to American culture unless they were thinking about how white their skin is. You can't see proof of these accusations because you obviously don't know what racism is. Thus, the suggestion to go look it up in the dictionary.
  23. I meant that any group could be substituted here. Any "other." But by your own fundamental belief that conflict is inevitable, there is no pan-ultimate condition where nations may live side-by-side without qualms. This philosophy justifies the violence it takes to create a peaceful coexistence by claiming a peaceful coexistence is impossible. Am I? I am claiming that Fascist and Nazi philosophy is entirely in service of the state. Who designates what is a united mind? Who designates what is a united body or spirit? It is the state. The state sets the definition, and the people must conform with it. If the state exists to serve the "race," why is it that the organic state has control over what is considered part of the volk, and what is the "other" that is cancerous? My point is, the state has overwhelming power over the individual here (and in line with the organic state, the body should have control over the cells). By having this power over the individual, dissent is no longer acceptable, and public debate on policy dies. Only the state decides policy then. But a cell doesn't have free will and consciousness. By comparing human beings to an organism without consciousness, it is inherently degrading. By forcing the needs of the state onto the people and shaping the people and body politic to the needs of the state by removing what the state defines as "others," the state dictates the purpose of man, when man's existence precedes essence. And when man's essence precedes existence, man is disposable. A state which decides the disposability of its citizens is not a state cares and provides for the people. But even you must admit, there are Germans still around today. In fascist philosophy, it is necessary to convince the people that their existence is tied with the state in order for the state to maintain power and support over the people. Again, that is simply not true. When the 3rd Reich collapsed, Germans didn't just disappear from existence. Hell, one would argue that Germans today are better off than any other national group out there. If the people understand that they can exist without the state, then they are free to choose whether or not the state exists, giving power to the people over the state and not the other way around. Generally speaking, I'd avoid debating historical facts with you, since we obviously have a very different view of "ethnic cleansings of Germans" before 1939. So I'll try and stick to empirical evidence that is more difficult to deny. That's the problem. There is no "great evil." By believing the world is black and white, you inherently allow for justification of terrible things. Take any superhero movie: when space aliens invade earth, they take over a hospital. Because aliens are the ultimate evil, it is justified to destroy the hospital and innocent people in there so long as the evil is destroyed. The "great evil" justifies the slaughter of innocents. Furthermore, the definition of "great evil" is controlled by the state, by controlling who is defined as "other." Communists are the great evil, Jews are the great evil. Therefore, we can drag children from their homes and put them in camps because the state demands total unity against the great evil. Therefore, we can exterminate the people who the state defines as "others" because it will save us from the "great evil." Perhaps the greatest difference between fascism and American democracy is that the people in American democracy (in principle, it's a bit grey in practice, unfortunately) chooses its leaders, and therefore chooses whether or not the state exists. At any point, the people can choose (through their choice of leader) to amend laws and alter the very substance of the state to their purpose. Americans can choose whether or not the state provides social welfare. Americans can choose how the state defines citizenship. Americans can choose to what extent the state interferes in their lives. Furthermore, that choice is reinforced constantly through election cycles, to confirm the will of the people repeatedly over time. In fascism, the state shapes the people. It chooses the definition of "others," and demands the rights of man in exchange for security against the state designated "others." I guess the crux of the argument comes in whether or not you think fascism allows the people to shape the state, and not the other way around.
  24. I don't believe 'Jews' are the issue here. Jews are just a random X race, that can be substituted for pretty much anything. Fascist, but perhaps more specifically, National Socialist political philosophy focuses on the need for hyper-nationalist unity among a so-called "volk." Nazi political scientist Carl Schmidt is the preeminent proponent of this theory and directly extends from the "organic state" idea. According to Schmidt, conflict - be it at a personal, community, national, or international level - is inevitable. Thus, Gabranth's quote: The need for homogeneity (be it racial and/or political) is directly correlated to this idea that a unified hyper-nationalist state WILL be in conflict and will ALWAYS be in conflict with someone or something, be it a domestic internal enemy based on race, religion, or political affiliation (Jews) or a nation state. Ironically, the philosophy's roots can be traced to Karl Marx's economic theories. All individuals existing within the organic state are therefore instruments of its will, tools which serve the state. And the individual MUST serve the state, because of the threat of the "other" is superlative and always existential. Thus, this line here: Thus, we need to get rid of Jews, because they will (at the very least) hinder us in our next inevitable conflict against an existential threat. Thus, we need to have a single, homogeneous body politic that obeys the commands of the state. Thus, the individual must lose individuality and become a cell of the organic state. Here is the problems associated with this dangerous political ideology: 1. By being a cell of the organic state, you are assigned a value. Your existence has a purpose within the state, and therefore, individuals are created (think of the child planning in 1930s Germany) to serve the state. By definition, a human being (with its own free will and consciousness) whose purpose is only to serve the state means that should this person stop serving the state (or is designated by the state as being "uncooperative"), it is acceptable and necessary to dispose of them. Thus, this political system inherently degrades human value as numbers on a chart, cogs in a wheel and grants the state (or whoever controls the state) power of life and death over its "cells." 2. This theory assumes inherently that conflict is inevitable. But not only is this conflict inevitable, it is existential. Losing the conflict means that everyone dies, and is therefore the driving force for co-opting the individual into the state. The problem with this theory is that it's not true. The last 80 years are perhaps one of the most peaceful times in world history, next to the Age of Augustus in the west and the Han Dynasty in the east, despite the inception of globalization and multiculturalism during this time. Furthermore, even if there was war, war only destroyed the state, not the actual body politic. Evidence? There are still Germans running around, contrary to what Hitler said would happen if the Soviet Union won the war. This political ideology requires that the state have over-exaggerated enemies (real or fabricated) in order to have the individual cells believe that their existence is tied with the state, and that if the state perished, the entire body politic perished with it. 3. Unadulterated violence. Ironically, the philosophy claims to be peaceful (and thus the Janist symbol for the Nazis). The claim is that the state is self-defensive, and that because conflict is inevitable, the state must always be prepared to defend itself from the dangerous, cruel world out there. The problem is, if there are no enemies of existential proportion, this philosophy dissolves. Thus, the state must create enemies. People who don't conform to our political beliefs? Enemies. People who practice a different religion? Enemies. People who have a different color of skin than the majority of us? Enemies. By fabricating enemies, the state condones violence against enemies. Furthermore, it condones ANY ACTION necessary to destroy the great evil. What does losing a few thousand human lives mean, if the great evil that threatens our existence is destroyed? Why shouldn't we strip some people of their rights if it means our enemies are defeated? Any cruelty, any dehumanization is okay so long as the evil is defeated. History has proven Schmidt wrong. The social constructs that distinguishes one individual from another, or one nation state from another is just that: social constructs. At the end of the day, it's all just lines of sand. The state does not create us, we create the state. Therefore, the state has a predefined purpose to serve us, not the other way around.
  25. For someone who claims such a vast degree of experience in nation sims, you sure suck at keeping an alliance together. How many wars have you lost in just the past 6 months? 2? 3? It's rather humiliating to claim being so experienced while being so bad at what you do. Ur still pretty dumb as a 14-year-old. Write me another paragraph. Cry me another river.