Current Year Civil War Is Not Rep. vs. Dem.

[Fife]

The civil war we are currently engaged in is between the federal city and its clients against everyone else in the country.

The roots go back to John Marshall and Hamilton of course.

Today's incantations in Pittsburgh about the death penalty for federal hate crimes, and the posturing of Beauregard Sessions and Herr Drumpf on behalf of their CIA handlers have their more direct roots in the thoroughly marxist and feminist 17th amendment. Current year prohibition and the elevation of the federal police state is a continuation of the feminist and marxist prohibition movement.

Washington D.C. is your mortal enemy.

Oct 30, 2018; Brion McClanahan: Podcast Episode 182: Federal Police Power?

Does the general government have the authority to get involved in the horrible mass murder in PA? Short answer: No. Had the founding generation thought otherwise, the Constitution would not have been ratified. There are countless examples from the early federal period that point to opposition to federal overreach, but Americans today have become accustomed to it, so we accept it without asking any questions. This should stop. Here is a think locally, act locally moment.

The news over the next few days regarding the federal police state flexing for the electorate should be instructive.

[Martin Hash]

“If you don’t know your enemy, they will defeat you.” - me

p.s. It’s the Marxists.

[C-Mag]

The civil war we are currently engaged in is between the federal city and its clients against everyone else in the country.

Centralization of Authority without acceptance of Responsibility leads to destruction.

[Speaker to Animals]

But still largely an urban ideology against the rest of us. Globalists and Marxists are urbanites.

The battle lines are between urban and rural. Mostly weak men and maladapted women become Marxists, the highly educated and affluent become globalists.

It seems strange that globalists, who are the natural consequence of neoliberalism, would find themselves aligned with Marxists, which is essentially a social and psychological cancer, until you also realize they both inhabit the cities.

There is a very small city near me. Lots of fucking hippies. Most of them are not dangerous. The city is not large enough to become insular and breed so much hate and destructiveness. Some of them are, but not most. Nothing like Chicago or Portland.

[Martin Hash]

"There's no hate like the hate between ideologies." - me

It's not cities, and it's not liberals. The Right has always had a strong dose of greed and aristocracy, and it hasn't changed much, but there never really was a "The Left" in this country until 1992; instead it was the ideological battle against those less inclined to greed and aristocracy, but it's on now. "Losers" in The Patriarchy game naturally join The Matriarchy. The Dems are the Party of women, minorities & Socialists because there's only two Parties and the Marxists got one of them.

Yeah, there's lots of Losers in the cities but there's lots of greed & aristocrats too whom the Losers serve.

[C-Mag]

"There's no hate like the hate between ideologies." - me

It's not cities, and it's not liberals. The Right has always had a strong dose of greed and aristocracy, and it hasn't changed much, but there never really was a "The Left" in this country until 1992; instead it was the ideological battle against those less inclined to greed and aristocracy, but it's on now. "Losers" in The Patriarchy game naturally join The Matriarchy. The Dems are the Party of women, minorities & Socialists because there's only two Parties and the Marxists got one of them.

Yeah, there's lots of Losers in the cities but there's lots of greed & aristocrats too whom the Losers serve.

It's just damn hard to clearly communicate political view points because our language is so F'd up when it comes to defining Left-Right, Liberal-Conservative.

How you describe the Dems above is an accurate description and could describe the Modern Left as well. Most folks thing I'm a Conservative, but I'm not, I have no desire for the status quo, I want a radical change to more personal Liberty and a radical decentralizing of power in the country. A Classic Liberal POV.

[Martin Hash]

Classical Liberals are less concerned about concentration of wealth than Liberals but have the same views on freedom, and we differ on who gets liberty.

I make the claim that liberty requires two components: freedom and opportunity.
liberty = freedom X opportunity
On a desert island you have maximum freedom but no opportunity so no liberty. In a Marxist society you have maximum opportunity but no freedom so no liberty.

I also equate opportunity to wealth, so concentrated wealth concentrates opportunity.

My third part of the equation is "Most Liberty to Most People." Since wealthy people are hoarding opportunity, it limits the liberty of everyone else.

These three axioms differentiate a Liberal from a Classical Liberal because Hayek didn't develop them, I did.

[Fife]

OK, bongmeisters, back to the subject:

Who here thinks the Federal state and Beauregard Sessions should be involved in prosecuting the Pittsburgh murder defendant?

[heydaralon]

OK, bongmeisters, back to the subject:

Who here thinks the Federal state and Beauregard Sessions should be involved in prosecuting the Pittsburgh murder defendant?

I don't agree with hate crime legislation if that is what this falls under. Charge him for the murders, not his ideas.

[C-Mag]

OK, bongmeisters, back to the subject:

Who here thinks the Federal state and Beauregard Sessions should be involved in prosecuting the Pittsburgh murder defendant?

Who's Sessions ? Rosenstein runs the DOJ, don't you know anything.

No, the Federalis don't need to be involved at all.