Notices by Aven (aven@shitposter.world)
-
Embed this notice
When I came back to my computer and saw 93 notifications, I was sure that the thread had been derailed by NatSocs, the way all Epstein threads seem to be. Pleasant surprise for it not to be. Triple parenthesis were mentioned, but no derail.
I've had multiple cases in the past where the thread would be brigaded by multiple natsoc users clearly oy-vey-shutting-it-down.
I've found that natsocs don't like Epstein being talked about. They'll even just n-word-spam to make it stop. It's very almond-activating about natsocs.
-
Embed this notice
@vriska @sun Trump actually kind of sucked at identifying evil. He vastly under-estimated the depth of the swamp, and hired lots of swamp monsters who undermined his agenda at every turn. He chose Mike Pence, too.
That was a huge flaw for him, and he better have learned from his mistakes.
-
Embed this notice
You know how during the War on Terror, the three-letter-agencies and related glowies intentionally radicalized muslims into terrorism so they could "catch them"? And then "failed to catch them" in a lot of cases, and the radicalization remained?
It's my belief that they're doing the same to "white males" in the USA with NatSoc. The same way glowies groomed radical islamic terrorists, they're currently grooming young white (frequently autistic) men into becoming "nazis".
To me a big tell-tale sign is that these "nazis" don't act or believe right-wing things, but rather they act and believe caricatures made by leftists of right-wing things. They're "what a leftist thinks a right-wing extremist is", and it's sad and pitiful.
This also lines up with the rhetoric from military generals like Mark Milley, saying that "white rage" is the biggest threat to national security, whereas when they were radicalizing muslims, it was "islamic terror" that was the biggest threat.
NatSoc is a grooming op.
-
Embed this notice
It also mirrors Woke and creates a foil for it, as a dipole. both Woke and NatSoc are fake, inorganic, top-down ideologies that are designed to fail, collapse, and destroy those who fall for them. Both are inconsistent, unprincipled, culty, cruel, manipulative, and full of patterns of narcissistic abuse. Both are socialist. There's a revolving door between the two ideologies, as well.
-
Embed this notice
@vriska yup, and took off right after it became legal for the US government to propagandize its citizens, when the post-WWII ban on propagandizing its citizens was lifted. (Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012)
A lot of this stuff was festering in academia before, then but in 2012 suddenly it was everywhere and had tons of money behind it. The word "Woke" as a political term was not in use before then.
-
Embed this notice
@vriska as someone who is more libertarian-right, I fear a similar fate will befall "the right" when the winds shift rightward. "Repeal the 19th" is a psyop. It's not even a thing the vast majority of right-leaning people believe, but it's "based" (in the woke-corrupted usage of the term to mean "deeper into hyperreality").
There's already an increase in "more right than thou" snobbery mirroring the purity spiral on the left.
-
Embed this notice
@vriska I just think its so telling that both Woke and NatSoc have no problem with what the CIA does, or at least that their intelligence agency policy would be identical if was their side in power. (if they're mad about CIA, they're only mad because they're losing, by their own (lack of) principles)
They look at the corruption of the Deep State and the TLAs, and their only real complaint is that they're not the ones doing it. They're already living in their ideal oppressive system, they're just on the wrong side of the boot. That's if they're not actually glowing, if they are glowing then they're living their best life.
I personally think the CIA/FBI is a bunch of Hunter Bidens near the top, with countless hard-working underlings and untold sums of money, cleaning up their incompetent messes 24/7. The very top is pedos compromised by Epstein and/or China.
They're clowns.
-
Embed this notice
@vriska I think a lot of it has to do with people taking their beliefs for granted, without understanding why they believe what they do. Many have passively absorbed premises that were baked into arguments with framing, without realizing it.
Woke and NatSoc mostly believe the same things:
* The government has a responsibility to control culture
* Different races should stay in their own lane (cultural appropriation)
* It's fine for the government to use corporations as its arms to work-around the law
* The government is above the law, anyway.
* Cheating and lying are fine for helping to win
* Appearances are far more important than reality
* Might makes right, you're just mad because you're losing, you should have cheated like we did
* Capitalism bad
* Jews bad
* words (like jew) mean exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less, and I'll change their meaning within a given sentence without notice (jew just means "outgroup", connections to reality are optional, similar to "racist" for Woke)
* the purpose of the existence of civilians is to be tax-cattle for the government, or GDP-growth-machines, they can be sacrificed if they become a nuisance
* words are tools of manipulation, not tools for conveying meaning for mutual understanding
* The CIA, etc, are omnipotent and omniscient forces that control literally everything, and are pointless to oppose and dangerous to criticize. They're also supremely competent and never make mistakes. Everything you see and read was designed by them, so there's no fighting it, just sit back and watch the show in Plato's Cave. They're also never corrupt and never have infighting. They're the true Philosopher Kings. Don't vote.
-
Embed this notice
@vriska I'm confused by your statement. by "modern right" do you mean the NatSocs or MAGA or neocons?
-
Embed this notice
@vriska also in my defense, the people I've named are also enemies of what I call "the sane left", people like Jimmy Dore or ShoeOnHead. I'd love if the sane left and the sane right could come together and say "pedophiles in government isn't a partisan issue!"
-
Embed this notice
@vriska
>just think its interesting that the names that come up are the same ones in all the grifter talking points, even if they deserve to belong there (and they do)
Then maybe those aren't grifter talking points? A "talking point" can also be a true statement. Not saying grifters don't latch on to true statements just so they can add their grift as an addendum.
The reason why so many of the recurring names of corrupt people are Democrats is because in 2016, when they failed to rig the Republican primary against Trump, the Uniparty chose the Democratic Party as its vessel. Trump usurped and took over a large portion of the Republican Party (though there are still backstabbers waiting for their chance).
Meanwhile the Democratic Party has made itself immune to reform, the corruption protecting itself, expelling any non-cynical hopeful reformers like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, and murdering whistleblowers like Seth Rich. Those are people who tried to save and redeem the party, and the thanks they got. Neocons like George W. Bush prefer Biden over Trump.
This consolidation of evil, and its control over the media and legal system, is why high-profile incompetence and criminality is protected and damage-controlled. If people in MAGA commit crimes, they go to jail. The result is competent MAGA and incompetent Uniparty.
-
Embed this notice
@vriska pedo or not-pedo
seems like a distinction with a difference.
The problem is that the left has made opposing pedophilia and not wanting Epstein-clients as CIA Directors (William Burns) a "right-wing talking point", because that's their counter argument: "You just don't like them because they're not on your team!"
This is how the left was eaten out from the inside by Woke. "It's okay for me to be corrupt, because I'm more ideologically pure than you. You cannot criticize me because I am more left than thou, and therefore to criticize me is to criticize the left"
People like that are as much your friend as a NatSoc glowie is my friend. Falling back to "team red vs team blue" doesn't apply here.
-
Embed this notice
@vriska yeah and he later had a "falling out" with Epstein and banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. Epstein distanced himself from Trump and called Trump "a crook".
The media spun this as "Wow, Trump is soooo bad that even Epstein thinks poorly of him", and though it was a win.
Got 'em!
-
Embed this notice
@lain spawn camped, long respawn timer, Australia bad gaem.
-
Embed this notice
@sun it's a slide to derail unwanted discussion. It kept happening when I talked about Epstein. And yes, when they do it about jews, it's irony recursion.
You not wanting to argue about jews is taken as evidence of "shut it down!" in a kafkatrap. It's great for glowie shills, they can't lose! Unless you name the dynamic and show them that they are indeed the ones "shutting it down". Then they evaporate away.
-
Embed this notice
@lain @opal @sun an underappreciated part of this is the OPM (other people's money) aspect. The vast majority of people funding ESG don't know they're doing it. They have pension/retirement funds, and the managers of those funds have decided that instead of maximizing safe return, they're going to "do good" by investing according to ESG scores, violating their fiduciary duty.
IIRC, it was Vivek Ramaswamy who said that the source of this was the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) which manages over 254 billion dollars, that told Blackrock that if Blackrock did not invest in ESG, they would pull out of Blackrock, and that's what started the long chain of arm-twisting.
Most pensioners, if they knew their pension was being wasted on woke Hollywood movies that lose money, and that their pensions would be smaller for it, would pull their money out.
-
Embed this notice
@opal @lain @sun a lot of the smaller developers and filmmakers could be getting funding to implement their visions, if that funding wasn't diverted to ESG-friendly big companies. This is what I mean by "flow of capital", and this is how ESG effects even small studios that don't do the ESG thing.
-
Embed this notice
@opal @lain @sun no I'm saying that ESG (and DEI, too) are being used to control the flow of capital, so that anyone who wants funding must bake ESG into their product and make shitty social justice propaganda instead of art. That effects bigger players like hollywood the most, but much of the rest of the market as well.
I can't wait for Hollywood to wither away and leave room for competition. They did it to themselves by falling for ESG, and the ESG strategy is a self-defeating downward spiral for those who adopt it. This is because it makes investors and activists your audience instead of paying customers. A business whose main income strategy is attracting investment instead of selling products, is called a ponzi scheme.
>but i don't understand why you care about the media market
I care about it because, although Hollywood was always corrupt and commie-leaning, at least they still made a lot of good stuff. The past decade's managed decline means that most of the media on the market sucks, and I do think part of the reason for that is to demoralize people into depression and black-pilling, and get them to consent to economic/cultural/spiritual decline, and "sunset" themselves, going over the cliff.
I agree that new-tech smaller players will inherit the market when Hollywood runs our of OPM (other people's money), but in the meantime they're filling the space with garbage, taking much of the oxygen. And they use their influence to demonize any indie success as "far-right" and "problematic". The salt over Palworld was insane.
-
Embed this notice
@sun @lain We're in a creative dark age. As long as we don't go off the cliff, merit will become valued again, and there will be a beautiful creative renaissance in the next decade. Talented people still exist and are still being born, they're just being smothered and stifled and held down by oppressive forces.
Just look at any of the wonderful media from the 80's and 90's and ask "Could this be made today? Or would it be deemed problematic?". It could be being made today, there's a huge hole in the market, but filling that hole and making tons of money, would violate ESG and the woke-scolds.
They're losing ungodly sums of money holding the market back, using pension-fund money to do it. That dam will break when they run out of OPM (other people's money), and a renaissance will occur. That is, if the total collapse, which is their goal, doesn't happen first. Their goal is to make everyone miserable and black-pilled to commit collective societal sudoku, so they can "rebuild" from the ashes (which they have no idea how to do, they only know how to co-opt and destroy).
-
Embed this notice
@sim @allison @dommymommy
the difference between "assimilationist current " and "visibility at all costs current" (good names for these, btw) is idpol.
"visibility at all costs" makes money, pushes political activism (of the cultural marxist kind), subjugates a minority to activists who claim to represent them, and creates a dipole:
Rubbing "pride" in everyone's faces is designed to create resentment toward gay people. Associating "queer" and pedo with gay also does this. Creating anti-gay sentiment is useful for LGBT activists as they can point to it and say "you need us!". Everything becomes pro-gay and anti-gay, with nothing in-between (dipole). This is great for making money and pushing for marxism via societal collapse, but terrible for actual gay people. It was never about gay people, it was always about social justice (the revolution).
>Although I will say that sometimes it is nice to see characters in stories that happen to be LGBT. I just don't want that to be their defining trait or to have bad writing attached to it.
Exactly this. Gay isn't a personality, the same way skin color isn't. Gay people aren't one-dimensional caricatures. But for idpol activism it is and they are, which is part of why woke writing sucks.
Contrast this to "assimilationist", which is the actual desireable outcome of gay rights. It's just not profitable for grifters, nor useful for collapsing countries, so it doesn't get the same funding.
Statistics
- User ID
- 254194
- Member since
- 6 Apr 2024
- Notices
- 20
- Daily average
- 0
Aven
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the