NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 2

[Kurve]

Here is US Politics - Pt 1

 

[Malifice]

On a side note, George Soros, the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs, Blackrock, Mark Zuckerberg, Ron Cohen, Jeffry Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, etc are all evil people/corporations.

Epstein and Weinstein are (or in the formers case, were). The others are not.

If you didnt have access to a computer, you likely wouldn't know who most of the people on that list are, and you'd be a lot saner and happier.

It's sad to see what happens to you blokes.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

No dickhead, I'm a liberal. I believe in private ownership of property, a free private market (both regulated by the State via the Courts, like all human conduct is) a strong Separation of the Powers, adherence of to the Rule of Law, and a Liberal democratic State.

Or in other words the works of John Stuart Mills 'On Liberty' and Adam Smith and 'the Wealth of Nations'. Instead of 'doing your own research' online in conspiracy forums littered with Qanon crazies, Conspiracists, Neo Nazis and Russian bots, and getting cooked by the algorithm, I suggest reading (or at least researching) those two works.

I wholly oppose Communism in all its forms. It's third on my 'steaming pile of shit-isms' list after Fascism and Fundamentalism.

See how I address your points even while you refuse to address mine?

You are so far from John Stuart Mill it's not funny. The modern left that you so vehemently support goes against everything John Stuart Mill espoused.

 

[bourbons]

He just can't stop backing the truck over it



Actual footage of Donnie's campaign manager watching that;

 

[Bostonian]

Epstein and Weinstein are (or in the formers case, were). The others are not.

If you didnt have access to a computer, you likely wouldn't know who most of the people on that list are, and you'd be a lot saner and happier.

It's sad to see what happens to you blokes.

Hedge Funds are most definitely not good guys.

 

[Malifice]

You are so far from John Stuart Mill it's not funny.

Says the Neo Nazi who's literally never read anything he wrote, let alone studied it, and who believes in this:

The white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory is a white nationalist conspiracy theory that claims there is a deliberate plot (often blamed on Jews]) to cause the extinction of white people through forced assimilation, mass immigration, and/or violent genocide...

The theory was popularized by white separatist neo-Nazi David Lane around 1995, and has been leveraged as propaganda in Europe, North America, South Africa, and Australia. Similar conspiracy theories were prevalent in Nazi Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory

That's who you are. That's what you believe. And you claim to believe in 'liberalism'?

The modern left that you so vehemently support goes against everything John Stuart Mill espoused.

Explain to me what Mill was saying here (with respect to Social liberty, or oppression of minorities at the hands of the majority):

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

I look forward to your answer with regards to LGBTI+ people, women, minorities, immigrants and so forth.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Says the Neo Nazi who's literally never read anything he wrote, let alone studied it, and who believes in this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory

That's who you are. That's what you believe. And you claim to believe in 'liberalism'?



Explain to me what Mill was saying here (with respect to Social liberty, or oppression of minorities at the hands of the majority):



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

I look forward to your answer with regards to LGBTI+ people, women, minorities, immigrants and so forth.

Hahaha, it's so funny to see your world view crumble before your eyes: I have in fact read On Liberty, cover to cover, in the course of my study of it, for my degree in political science, which I likely obtained from the same university you attended, and likely - with better grades

I don't normally like to resort to the who is better than who argument, but your claims that I don't know what i'm talking about drove me here. I don't really want to continue this with you, so let's leave it here.

 

[EasternTiger]

Melting Mal.

I think he just wants reassurance the NAZIS! aren’t coming for him.

 

[Malifice]

I have in fact read On Liberty, cover to cover, in the course of my study of it, for my degree in political science

Great. My favorite topic. I look forward to discussing this with an academic peer. We can move on to Dworkins, Hobbes, Locke and Smith next, but lets start with Mill.

As you are no doubt aware, Mills major contribution to liberal thought was his writings on the 'Tyranny of the Majority' found in 'On Liberty'.

Mill describes (and warns) in some detail the potential for social oppression of minorities (by the majority) in democratic liberal societies.

Lets start with LGBTIQ+ people.

Explain to me at least one way how LGBTIQ+ people have been (and still are) subject to the 'Tyranny of the Majority' in an Australian context?

I look forward to your considered answer.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Great. My favorite topic. I look forward to discussing this with an academic peer. We can move on to Dworkins, Hobbes, Locke and Smith next, but lets start with Mill.

As you are no doubt aware, Mills major contribution to liberal thought was his writings on the 'Tyranny of the Majority' found in 'On Liberty'.

Mill describes (and warns) in some detail the potential for social oppression of minorities (by the majority) in democratic liberal societies.

Lets start with LGBTIQ+ people.

Explain to me at least one way how LGBTIQ+ people have been (and still are) subject to the 'Tyranny of the Majority' in an Australian context?

I look forward to your considered answer.

If you are actually serious about wanting to discuss this in detail, then let me re-read it and revert to you. But if you just want to engage in gotchas then I'd rather not.

 

[Malifice]

Melting Mal.

I think he just wants reassurance the NAZIS! aren’t coming for him.

FlowersByIrene admitted (by omission) to believing in a White nationalist antisemitic Nazi conspiracy (white genocide).

Even you don't go that far. You're mostly here to troll. He genuinely thinks there is a Jewish plot to wipe out the White race.

 

[Malifice]

If you are actually serious about wanting to discuss this in detail, then let me re-read it and revert to you. But if you just want to engage in gotchas then I'd rather not.

If you have a degree in Political Science (and have read and studied all of On Liberty) you should be able to explain to me what the 'Tyranny of the Majority' without needing to re-read On Liberty. Along with the 'Harm principle' and 'Utilitarianism' of his earlier works its pretty central to Mills contribution to liberal thought.

Like Adam Smith and 'the Invisible hand' or Hobbes and Locke and the 'Social contract'.

Ill explain it for you to save us some time.

The 'Tyranny of the Majority' is the social pressures placed on minorities in society (LGBTIQ+, ethnic and religious minorities etc) by the majority. Ether indirectly (ridicule, scorn and ganging up on, exclusionary practices) or directly (via using their voting power as a majority to enforce actual legal discrimination by the State against that minority).

An example of indirect tyranny of the majority would be a mostly white society refusing to employ a Black or an Asian person, or refusing to marry a Gay person. An example of direct tyranny of the majority would be pre Civil rights race laws in the USA, or the detention of Japanese Americans in interment camps during WW2, and Criminalizing homosexuality.

Question: In which of those two scenarios (direct or indirect, or both, or neither) should a Liberal State act to protect the liberty of the minority in question from the effects of the 'Tyranny of the Majority'?

Specifically, should the Liberal democratic State sit back and let racists and homophobes oppress LGBTI people and ethnic minorities, or is there an obligation to act to protect the liberty of those minorities? (allow indirect tyranny to occur).

And should the Liberal democratic State pass racist or discriminatory laws against the minorities at the behest of the majority? (allow direct tyranny to occur).

 

[FlowersByIrene]

If you have a degree in Political Science (and have read and studied all of On Liberty) you should be able to explain to me what the 'Tyranny of the Majority' without needing to re-read On Liberty. Along with the 'Harm principle' and 'Utilitarianism' of his earlier works its pretty central to Mills contribution to liberal thought.

Like Adam Smith and 'the Invisible hand' or Hobbes and Locke and the 'Social contract'.

Ill explain it for you to save us some time.

The 'Tyranny of the Majority' is the social pressures placed on minorities in society (LGBTIQ+, ethnic and religious minorities etc) by the majority. Ether indirectly (ridicule, scorn and ganging up on, exclusionary practices) or directly (via using their voting power as a majority to enforce actual legal discrimination by the State against that minority).

An example of indirect tyranny of the majority would be a mostly white society refusing to employ a Black or an Asian person, or refusing to marry a Gay person. An example of direct tyranny of the majority would be pre Civil rights race laws in the USA, or the detention of Japanese Americans in interment camps during WW2, and Criminalizing homosexuality.

Question: In which of those two scenarios (direct or indirect, or both, or neither) should a Liberal State act to protect the liberty of the minority in question from the effects of the 'Tyranny of the Majority'?

Specifically, should the Liberal democratic State sit back and let racists and homophobes oppress LGBTI people and ethnic minorities, or is there an obligation to act to protect the liberty of those minorities? (allow indirect tyranny to occur).

And should the Liberal democratic State pass racist or discriminatory laws against the minorities at the behest of the majority? (allow direct tyranny to occur).

In an ideal world with a State which has access to accurate information and power to implement and enforce laws accurately and comprehensively, I would argue both. In both circumstances the State should protect the minority from tyranny, whether direct or indirect.

The issue is, that the modern State is ineffective and oversized. It cannot, in practice, create laws that accurately and comprehensively address tyranny, nor can it enforce it. Nor can it determine what to legislate for, because information is corrupted and confused by corporate interests and the delusions of the academic class who make up post-reason principles like intersectionality.

So, while in an ideal world I would agree the State should legislate to protect the minority. I do not trust it do so, and instead would rather the State reduce itself to its smallest possible manner and allow individuals greater freedom, in line with the harm principle, to maintain themselves.

 

[EasternTiger]

FlowersByIrene admitted (by omission) to believing in a White nationalist antisemitic Nazi conspiracy (white genocide).

Even you don't go that far. You're mostly here to troll. He genuinely thinks there is a Jewish plot to wipe out the White race.

Are you basing this on your previous melt where you demanded the poster prove they are not a nazi?

You repeat the same deranged melt with everyone you engage with here, almost word for word.

What is your goal with your nazi accusations?

Most of us here are regular sports loving flogs having a laugh and a bit of banter.

Help us understand where you are at.

 

[Malifice]

In an ideal world with a State which has access to accurate information and power to implement and enforce laws accurately and comprehensively, I would argue both. In both circumstances the State should protect the minority from tyranny, whether direct or indirect.

So you agree that a Liberal State has an obligation to act to protect minorities (LGBTIQ+, ethnic and religious minorities etc) from oppression (both direct oppression via legal oppression, and indirectly via social exclusion).

So by your logic, Transwomen (a LGBTIQ+ minority) should be allowed to use female toilets (notwithstanding the majority indirect and in some cases direct opposition to it), and the State should legislate to make sure this happens to protect the liberty of this minority from oppression by the majority, and should not legislate to prohibit them either (direct oppression).

Those transwomen should have the freedom (liberty) to use the bathroom of their gender identity as long as no-one else is being harmed.

So, while in an ideal world I would agree the State should legislate to protect the minority. I do not trust it do so, and instead would rather the State reduce itself to its smallest possible manner and allow individuals greater freedom, in line with the harm principle, to maintain themselves.

Firstly, you're misrepresenting the Harm principle.

Secondly, if you acknowledge the Tyranny of the Majority exists (and you do) and that the majority will always seek to harm the minorities via this tyranny (oppress them), how can your 'smallest possible Liberal State' protect anyone from 'Harm' by inaction?

To give an extreme example, assume we gutted our Criminal Code to be only a handful of laws. Murder, theft and rape are still prohibited. Age of consent laws are removed. The Department of Child protection is also disbanded (small government and all that). Regulatory agencies are disbanded. The Children's Court is abolished.

Are children protected from harm in this 'smaller government' example, or are they exposed to more harm?

Surely the smaller the State is (and the fewer laws it has) the more potential there is for Harm to occur, with a 'zero law' State (an Anarchy) being a literal free for all?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

So you agree that a Liberal State has an obligation to act to protect minorities (LGBTIQ+, ethnic and religious minorities etc) from oppression (both direct oppression via legal oppression, and indirectly via social exclusion).

So by your logic, Transwomen (a LGBTIQ+ minority) should be allowed to use female toilets (notwithstanding the majority indirect and in some cases direct opposition to it), and the State should legislate to make sure this happens to protect the liberty of this minority from oppression by the majority, and should not legislate to prohibit them either (direct oppression).

Those transwomen should have the freedom (liberty) to use the bathroom of their gender identity as long as no-one else is being harmed.



Firstly, you're misrepresenting the Harm principle.

Secondly, if you acknowledge the Tyranny of the Majority exists (and you do) and that the majority will always seek to harm the minorities via this tyranny (oppress them), how can your 'smallest possible Liberal State' protect anyone from 'Harm' by inaction?

To give an extreme example, assume we gutted our Criminal Code to be only a handful of laws. Murder, theft and rape are still prohibited. Age of consent laws are removed. The Department of Child protection is also disbanded (small government and all that). Regulatory agencies are disbanded. The Children's Court is abolished.

Are children protected from harm in this 'smaller government' example, or are they exposed to more harm?

Yes they should be protected from harm, I don't consider Transwomen to be harmed by not using the bathroom of their biological sex however and do consider doing so would cause more harm to the young biological women who should have the peace to use said bathrooms in safety, hence we revert to my point - if the State was logical and not corrupted by intersectional theories of social science and other post-reason academic concepts. I also think that other minorities should be protected, such as the wealthy from inequitable taxation, such as the health conscious from dangerous vaccines, such as children from State sanctioned groomers etc etc. I note you don't agree with these protections however.

The modern State is creating more harm than it is causing, as such from a utilitarian perspective the reduction in the State would be better than the State's current failure to protect its citizens from the harms of: a corrupt welfare state, the evaporation of national wealth through foreign aid and domestic inflation; islamic and other religious extremism; the destruction of social values and the social contract through the importation of non-citizens with no genuine possibility of assimilation at other such failures of the modern State.

 

[bourbons]

She should be disqualified because the creation of a fake image is ELECTION INTERFERENCE. Anyone who does that will cheat at ANYTHING!

Nek minnit

Trump uses AI photos to falsely imply Taylor Swift endorsed him

Taylor Swift has yet to weigh in on the 2024 election, but endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket in 2020.

www.bbc.com

Usually there's more of a lag for "there's always a tweet", Donnie stepping it up

 

[Malifice]

Yes they should be protected from harm, I don't consider Transwomen to be harmed by not using the bathroom of their biological sex however and do consider doing so would cause more harm to the young biological women who should have the peace to use said bathrooms in safety, hence we revert to my point

Hang on.

Should transwomen have the freedom (LIBERTY) to use the bathroom of their gender identity, free from State control?

Yes, or No?

Remember, we're all free to do what we want, as long as no-one is getting harmed.

Literally the only reason they're not allowed to at the moment is because of the Tyranny of the Majority. Non LGBTIQ+ people (the majority) ostracize Trans people and pressure them into using the bathroom that matches their birth sex (indirect discrimination). In many cases the Majority convince the legislature to legislate to prohibit them from entering those spaces (direct discrimination).

If there was some actual demonstrable harm, your argument might have merit. But there isn't. There is no data to support any conclusion that ciswomen are more likely to be r*ped or sexually assaulted by transwomen than they are by cismen.

And even if you can demonstrate an increased risk of 'harm' to ciswomen from transwomen (and you cant) we already have laws criminalizing rape as it is.

See, I don't think you really 'get' JS Mill's 'Tyranny of the Majority', despite me being able to show you countless examples of it in practice (the current pushback towards trans people - including laws to discriminate against them - being one of them).

Before them it was Gay people. Migrants. Muslims. Mexicans. Jews. Black people.

In parts of Africa at present, its now happening to white people (Zimbabwe and to a growing extent South Africa).

The majority seek to oppress the minority. Firstly socially, and then via lawmaking.

I also think that other minorities should be protected, such as the wealthy from inequitable taxation,

So you think Bill Gates, George Soros and other Billionaires should pay the same Taxes as you do?

The modern State is creating more harm than it is causing,

No, its not.

The modern State tries to protect the interests of minorities from people like you who would happily cheer on actual legal restrictions on the liberty of trans women, LGBTI people, ethnic minorities and immigrants and other minorities to protect your own interests.

I guess you (presumably a white, hetero, cisgender, male) probably feel a bit left out, seeing as it wasn't that long ago you could literally own a Black person, send a Gay person to prison, keep Australia white, vote while women and Aboriginal people could not, and do a whole lot more.

Do you get it yet? What you perceive as 'harm' is the modern State removing those harms.

You're just aggrieved because you're the one losing that power.

as such from a utilitarian perspective the reduction in the State would be better than the State's current failure to protect its citizens from the harms of: a corrupt welfare state, the evaporation of national wealth through foreign aid and domestic inflation; islamic and other religious extremism; the destruction of social values and the social contract through the importation of non-citizens with no genuine possibility of assimilation at other such failures of the modern State.

So you're arguing that a nominal token minimalist State with few laws, better protects people from Harm than a State with actual laws that actually prohibit harm and actual mechanisms to actually stop those harms?

Can you not see the absurdity of that position? You're arguing for the now defunct 'libertarianism/ Small State' which all Liberals have long since discarded as being a fallacy.

Smaller State = more harm. Not less.

Yeah, in a perfect world we would have no State and people could just be trusted not to be racists, sexists, thieves, murderess, child abusers, dodgy businessmen and so forth. But if you're arguing for such a thing, you're no better than the Communists who also argue for some 'utopian perfect world' where Communism actually works, and everyone is happy getting the same thing as everyone else, and the Marxist State doesn't turn to a dictatorship (which it always does).

The State only exists to protect people from harm, and in a proportionate manner to that harm. It's as big as it needs to be to achieve that goal. The size of the State doesnt matter. Its function is what matters.

 

[zill]

Has anyone seen 'good will hunting'? I'm getting strong 'arseh*le at the bar' vibes from Mals latest string of rants.


The guy with the ponytail is who i am thinking of.

 

[MrKK]

Has anyone seen 'good will hunting'? I'm getting strong 'arseh*le at the bar' vibes from Mals latest string of rants.


The guy with the ponytail is who i am thinking of.

One of my all-time favourite movies.
"It's not your fault, Mal".

 

[Malifice]

Has anyone seen 'good will hunting'? I'm getting strong 'arseh*le at the bar' vibes from Mals latest string of rants.

If you bothered reading (I know that's hard for you) FlowersByIrene genuinely attempted (above) to claim 'Billionaires' are a 'minority' and they get persecuted by 'the Tyranny of the majority' into paying more tax.

FlowersByIrene the wealthy are not the minority. They're the ruling class. Short of a Communist revolution rounding them up and sending them to the gulags, they're the ones running the show.

Lets look at an example of Billionaires and their tax burden:

The report reveals that Trump on his federal tax returns declared negative income in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020, and that he paid a total of $1,500 in income taxes for the years 2016 and 2017.

On their 2020 income tax returns, Trump and his wife Melania paid no federal income taxes and claimed a refund of $5.47 million, according to the report by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/21/trump-income-tax-returns-detailed-in-new-report-.html

I paid more in federal tax to the Commonwealth of Australia in a single month this year than 'billionaire' Donald Trump paid to the US Federal government in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020 combined.

Not only did I pay more income tax, but I also didn't claim a refund of 5.47 million.

Billionaires don't need protecting FlowersByIrene. They're doing just fine without you simping for them.

 

[EasternTiger]

One of my all-time favourite movies.
"It's not your fault, Mal".

Oh lawd. Just when you thought he peaked, he ups the ante and starts ranting about gender neutral toilets.

Hang on.

Should transwomen have the freedom (LIBERTY) to use the bathroom of their gender identity, free from State control?

Yes, or No?

Yes or no!

This is just sad now.

I hope he gets the help he so desperately needs.

 

[Malifice]

Yes or no!

If you weren't so damn stupid you might actually understand why the question was relevant in the context of a discussion of JS Mills theory of liberty we were discussing.

But you're just here to troll.

Sad.

 

[Malifice]

EasternTiger here is something more on your intellectual level.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Oh lawd. Just when you thought he peaked, he ups the ante and starts ranting about gender neutral toilets.

If a female ever visits your house ET, do you have a gender specific toilet for her to use?

If not, then you have a gender neutral toilet.

 

[zill]

You are all over the place Mal. One moment you are claiming a need for big government to protect everybody and the next you are bemoaning said government for their tax laws. Which is it?