All republicans should now just fuck right off and die. There is no such thing as a 'moderate' republican any longer. This includes 5/9ths of the Supremes
Instead of SCOTUS, I think I'll start calling them SCROTUS: Supreme Court Republiturds of the United States. And just one letter's difference from a ballsack.
Like
Unknown member
Jun 27, 2022
There has never been any such thing as a "moderate conservative." Since the days of Edmund Burke (sometimes called the "Father of Conservatism" for his description of the political principle), millions of trees have been cut for thousands of books to justify conservatism. Conservatism never had a name before, as aristocracy was the only form of government prior to the descriptions of democracy during the Enlightenment. Burke thus set himself against the Enlightenment (along with such concepts as scientific endeavour and freedom of religion).
Burke was concerned about the rise of democracy in the French Revolution. He argued that France's aristocracy failed not because it was autocratic, but had the wrong autocrats. (Compare with the adage today "conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.")
Burke's hierarchy of "betters and lessers" (conservatism) proposed that capitalism (then relatively new after the destruction by the Black Plague of feudalism) should be subverted by the very wealthy to subvert democracy (sounds familiar because there is nothing new in conservatism by its nature). By the way, Burke was an aristocrat and very rich.
When you are asked "what are conservatives actually conserving" the answer is "power." Hierarchies within conservatism extend even to the lessers: The opposition by average conservative voters to things like mitigating racism is because they still view themselves as betters than those beneath them in the hierarchy.
The extremist forms of conservatism are fascism (which strips all rights), and libertarianism (which denies governments have any real power over things such as circulating money, courts prosecuting things beyond property crimes, public ownership of anything, &c, though their are many flavours of libertarianism). Generic conservatives and fascists can be described as "Greed is good" (thanks, Ronald Reagan), and libertarianism as "The Virtues of Selfishness" (thanks for that book title, Ayn Rand).
This is why it is not hypocrisy when a conservative does something (such as get an abortion) but denies you the same right. You do not deserve it because you are not high enough on the hierarchical latter to be deemed worthy. It is not hypocrisy, that is the way the system is supposed to work.
None of the theoretical basis of conservatism actually enters the though process of a conservative: That is the natural way of things, and always should be so. When someone stands up to say "there is a different, better, or fairer way," that person or group must be suppressed, by violence if necessary, because they are upsetting the natural order of conservatism. Conservatism is not supposed to be fair. Thus conservatives become violent when they don't get their way.
This is also why conservative governments are inherently unstable: The ruling conservatives in their hierarchy can only advance if another leaves, is turfed out (politically shivved), or murdered. Power and rights are a pie to a conservative: The more you have, the less I have.
This is also why religions are inherently conservative. Religions are also structured in a hierarchy with betters and lessers (even such religions as Wicca: cross a priestess and see what happens to you in that coven). This is why religions become cruel with wayward members, why they never call out the cruelty of those nominally within their religion (while individuals have called out the Roe decision, exactly no denomination as an organisation has done so—and also why they've never called out as an organisation the racism of white Evangelical Protestants). It is especially why every religion on the planet opposes atheists (often violently, even in the USA).
Had a long convo with my 16-17 yo kids. They were rightfully pissed about the SCOTUS ruling BUT it sounded like their peer group has been “groomed” (hate the term now but it fits) to see both political parties at fault. Decades of GQP running on “govt doesn’t work and is evil“; getting elected on that premise; proving the premise by blocking anything useful once elected; then blaming the Dems especially when they have nominal majority in congress/White House; and continuing the little lies about voting fraud have taken its toll. We discussed how Dems have had a mixed history of contributing to a lot of these problems, especially the corporate Dems and the “republican-lite” Dems.
However, it dawned on me there really is only one clear and simple message/concept ALL voters need to focus on—elect fascists and we get fascist policies. Keep electing fascists and we eventually have a fascist government. All the other bullshit in media and social interwebz is just noise—much of it generated by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The Republican party has proven now that they are fascist—either outright or through consent.
All the other bullshit in media and social interwebz is just noise—much of it generated by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Hit the nail on the head! It's a well known tactic of all politicians, more so those on the far right called - deflect, and distract, which in this case would have worked for them.
But, with the Jan6 hearings being put on hold, all the attention now is turning towards the SCOTUS decision, rather than being spread out between the two most talked about events in the US.
I'm not sure if it was the intention of the SCOTUS to reveal their decision at the same time as the JAN 6 hearings, but I think that was the case and it has now massively backfired on them.
Yeah, when I turned on CNN/MSNBC this morning, I was taken aback, and I literally felt a wave of despair wash over me. Do six people get to decide the fate of millions?
Instead of SCOTUS, I think I'll start calling them SCROTUS: Supreme Court Republiturds of the United States. And just one letter's difference from a ballsack.
There has never been any such thing as a "moderate conservative." Since the days of Edmund Burke (sometimes called the "Father of Conservatism" for his description of the political principle), millions of trees have been cut for thousands of books to justify conservatism. Conservatism never had a name before, as aristocracy was the only form of government prior to the descriptions of democracy during the Enlightenment. Burke thus set himself against the Enlightenment (along with such concepts as scientific endeavour and freedom of religion).
Burke was concerned about the rise of democracy in the French Revolution. He argued that France's aristocracy failed not because it was autocratic, but had the wrong autocrats. (Compare with the adage today "conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.")
Burke's hierarchy of "betters and lessers" (conservatism) proposed that capitalism (then relatively new after the destruction by the Black Plague of feudalism) should be subverted by the very wealthy to subvert democracy (sounds familiar because there is nothing new in conservatism by its nature). By the way, Burke was an aristocrat and very rich.
When you are asked "what are conservatives actually conserving" the answer is "power." Hierarchies within conservatism extend even to the lessers: The opposition by average conservative voters to things like mitigating racism is because they still view themselves as betters than those beneath them in the hierarchy.
The extremist forms of conservatism are fascism (which strips all rights), and libertarianism (which denies governments have any real power over things such as circulating money, courts prosecuting things beyond property crimes, public ownership of anything, &c, though their are many flavours of libertarianism). Generic conservatives and fascists can be described as "Greed is good" (thanks, Ronald Reagan), and libertarianism as "The Virtues of Selfishness" (thanks for that book title, Ayn Rand).
This is why it is not hypocrisy when a conservative does something (such as get an abortion) but denies you the same right. You do not deserve it because you are not high enough on the hierarchical latter to be deemed worthy. It is not hypocrisy, that is the way the system is supposed to work.
None of the theoretical basis of conservatism actually enters the though process of a conservative: That is the natural way of things, and always should be so. When someone stands up to say "there is a different, better, or fairer way," that person or group must be suppressed, by violence if necessary, because they are upsetting the natural order of conservatism. Conservatism is not supposed to be fair. Thus conservatives become violent when they don't get their way.
This is also why conservative governments are inherently unstable: The ruling conservatives in their hierarchy can only advance if another leaves, is turfed out (politically shivved), or murdered. Power and rights are a pie to a conservative: The more you have, the less I have.
This is also why religions are inherently conservative. Religions are also structured in a hierarchy with betters and lessers (even such religions as Wicca: cross a priestess and see what happens to you in that coven). This is why religions become cruel with wayward members, why they never call out the cruelty of those nominally within their religion (while individuals have called out the Roe decision, exactly no denomination as an organisation has done so—and also why they've never called out as an organisation the racism of white Evangelical Protestants). It is especially why every religion on the planet opposes atheists (often violently, even in the USA).
The next time someone with a dick shares an opinion on what I can do with my body, I'm probably going to need you guys to bail me out. FUUUUUCK.
Had a long convo with my 16-17 yo kids. They were rightfully pissed about the SCOTUS ruling BUT it sounded like their peer group has been “groomed” (hate the term now but it fits) to see both political parties at fault. Decades of GQP running on “govt doesn’t work and is evil“; getting elected on that premise; proving the premise by blocking anything useful once elected; then blaming the Dems especially when they have nominal majority in congress/White House; and continuing the little lies about voting fraud have taken its toll. We discussed how Dems have had a mixed history of contributing to a lot of these problems, especially the corporate Dems and the “republican-lite” Dems.
However, it dawned on me there really is only one clear and simple message/concept ALL voters need to focus on—elect fascists and we get fascist policies. Keep electing fascists and we eventually have a fascist government. All the other bullshit in media and social interwebz is just noise—much of it generated by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The Republican party has proven now that they are fascist—either outright or through consent.
🤗😋😘...as well as a cuddle and a snog!!
You're welcome, it's my pleasure. 😼
Yeah, when I turned on CNN/MSNBC this morning, I was taken aback, and I literally felt a wave of despair wash over me. Do six people get to decide the fate of millions?
Anyhoo, am glad I made you smile, as you do me!
And it's not just isolated to the US, there's been a significant shift to the right in many conservative governments across the world.
Anyone that states they're a moderate conservative is either a liar, or a fool, sometimes both.