Something I wrote up just now, could use some feedback to improve it. It's a bit messy, inconsistent in format, but I hope it's still reasonably impactful. Let me know what you people think. It Couldn't Happen Here It couldn't happen here, I say. There is no way. There will never be camps to hold others, at least not again, not since the second Great War. We aren't Germany, nor Italy, nor Japan, nor Russia, nor Spain, nor China, nor... The list goes on and on, but never will our nation's name grace that list. Ours is different. Pay no mind to the voices calling to re-educate the other party, or those of theorist's bent. It couldn't happen here, I say. There is no way. They won't restrict the people of a certain creed, not close the businesses of those that disagreed. No Star of David shall grace their sleeves. Just lists and lists, hidden from view... to say who can, and who cannot do. As voices call for violence; and also in the name of peace for their rivals' silence. It couldn't happen here, you assured. And you have not demured. You promise "You'll soon be free again one day, the muzzle you wear will be removed when you are cured!" But I am not ill I declaim. Whilst shackles and chains upon me laid. So I sit in quiet darkness, flashing a little candle light and wonder in idle horror. Who, this time, will last to write: "First they came for..." But it couldn't happen here.
which history? The history written for us, or the history you stumble upon after filtering out the fake narratives created by the brahman class that runs this crap factory?
The history of the US sticking people of Japanese ancestry in camps, native americans on reservations, etc. When it says "There will never be camps to hold others, at least not again, not since the second Great War." That's BS, that just means there hasn't been enough reason for the government to believe it's necessary to do again since then.
To be fair: both. In my view, not for lack of trying. It doesn't take "the government." "The government" is not a monolithic entity anyway (well, not quite yet, authoritarianism hasn't quite settled in yet). All it takes is a movement. One that says it's not only "okay" but "good" or "virtuous" to censor, limit, control, deny, "re-educate", imprison, kill, or destroy those groups or subsets which are deemed a (potential) threat, by painting in broad strokes. It's an interesting thing though... most people don't really seem to think of it, but the poem referenced, "First they came for..." it talks about ideologies, not races. Rival political groups were targeted first.
Related to the point of the poem... Authoritarianism, whether fascist, communist, or some other flavor (theocratic, technocratic, cronyism, etc.); always makes an effort to silence opposition. Wouldn't want anyone getting "pesky ideas" about things or to share information with likeminded individuals after all. Part of this is because authoritarian arguments are often flawed. "We need to have such and such authority in order to achieve X" can sound reasonable, or even aspirational, on it's own, but when looked at with a critical eye and a logical approach, flaws can be found. "Do you really need such and such authority? What abot when X is achieved? Will you relinquish that authority and how will we make sure of it? What else might that authority be used for? How might you or others in your position end up abusing that authority?" Such questions often do not have good, or at least complete, answers. Thus, when faced with alternative ideas, perspectives, etc. the authoritarian argument becomes much less appealing... thus the need to silence opposition. It's much easier to convince someone that they should do "x" if they don't think they have a choice in the matter, or know of alternatives (though there is always a choice). Silencing people also often has the added "benefit" of making it more difficult for people that already recognize alternative perspectives from coordinating and organizing, and may if effectively carried out impose a sense of isolation on them, and thus make them less likely to speak up in those opportunities that invariably become available for no effort of censorship or oppression is ever truly "complete." In that way it functions as a form of psychological warfare. This sort of censorship often accompanies demonization for those that might esspouse contrary or oppositional views. And, since truth often trumps propaganda... like light in darkness, once it is actualized, the effort of censorship has a limited time of effectiveness, and must therefore be followed up with alternative actions. When the Nazis, the Lenninists and Stalinists, the Maoists, the Fascists, and others looked to remove their opposition they started iwth demonization to justify censorhip, but also eventually move to limit their economic and social footprint. This often forced the targets into ghettos or removed them from everyday public spectacle... and thus made physical removal much easier. If you don't know an atrocity is happening, it makes it much easier to carry it out, as even with acclimitization... or slow movement of the "Overton Window" ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window there is a limit to how quickly people will accept mass incarceration or murder... so the goal of censorship is to slow public awareness until the "window" can be moved into place... Such that some people viewed death camps as a "solution to a problem" rather than the atrocity of murder that it was. Obviously, the "window" was not moved in all societies, and so much of the world was outraged once censorship efforts (not limited to Germany at the time) finally failed and the truth, like a light in the darkness, was finally seen. Someone asked... "why did people go with appeasement? Why didn't they try to stop Hitler sooner?" And this is the answer. It's the same answer why Canada, the US, and the UK are even now STILL considering participating in China's hosting of the Olympics despite their ongoing genocide of muslims, christians, folun gong, etc.... and those nations having officially recognized that in some capacity. It can be easy, when looking in hindsight at history far removed from the time itself, or when reading a book like 1984, to recognize the signs fo rising authoritarianism and it's consequences... living in it, with the emotions, the lack of complete information... makes it much harder to recognize for many. The world is changing, in some ways far more rapidly and drastically than many yet realize. Yet there is always a choice. We can choose how we react to such change, what we will do in times such as these. Choose wisely, for it always matters.
are we gonna talk about that time the US slaughtered all those muslim filipinos having a last stand near a volcano? or those times the US bombed its own citizens for daring to demans workers rights?
I'm just getting my popcorn ready waiting for the day America implodes and destroy itself The faster it happens the better. The world might actually move forward a little
You do know that the poem at the start is primarily refering to the US government right? And many European governments as well. It's left Generalized to a degree on purpose but... yeah... We can, if you want. Though it's worth mentioning that both of those issues have concluded (Filipines still have other issues of course), while China's ongoing genocide is a current issue... as is both (much of) Europe's and the Biden-Harris Administrations on-going demonization of rival political factions and move to censor and control people's thoughts. For both of you, remember: "What-about-ism" isn't terribly effective when it just reinforces the original point. If talking about one situation or the other can get that point across, I'm for it. If massive "self-destruction" is your idea of "moving forward" than you're part of the problem.... which also means that you'll be carrying around that problem with you even when it gets solved elsewhere. Fortunately, everyone can make choices so long as they live, including you. Whether to continue to cheer on desctruction, contempt, and hatred as some sort of "savior" or to reject those. Maybe even give love, hope, and kindness a chance? Who knows, you might like it.
Like bringing up past problems in a disccusion about current ones? You don't need to discuss the CCP's ongoing genocide and oppression of it's own peoples if you don't want to, but why even bring up the "Moro Rebellion"? It's not something I particlarly mind ultimately, but it seems strange given the rest of the thread, and given the time you took to finally come up with that topic, without adressing anything else already in this thread. Heck, why not bring that up in the "war for profit" thread with no proper title that IMAGIRL started? Or otherwise why not stick to the topic at hand? Again, these topics you mention hardly do anything against my point. Many regimes use manipulation (emotional and otherwise) to try and control the people. It's not new, but it's not something relegated to the past either. These sorts of regimes almost always point towards one end: suppressing people's rights unless (and often even if) they OBEY whatever flimsily(or even strongly) justified move they choose to make. Or otherwise oppose the growing fascistic/socialistic monopolization of power within government and select "big corporations" that benefit those "in control." People sometimes ask: "how is it that anyone could have supported [X Authoritarian regime] in their time?" And yet few realize that authoritarianism and even totalitarianism have largely been the norm throughout human history. People say: "The government/business should do this to stop Y behavior." Without stopping to think through the ramifications of such "powers" or that, in the end, those very same people could have solved the problem themselves rather than shunted responsibility (and power) to a third entity. The people that ask that question, are often the same ones that make that statement, not realizing they are answering their own question. "We must stop disinformation, therefore, we must encourage businesses to stifle speech in, around, and from employees, even firing them for old comments they might have made and may not even currently stand by." "We must stop racism, and what better way to stop people's hatred of the races than to start treating one race differently than another? You disagree? Well clearly you're a White Supremacist or somesuch." These feelings and ideas are stoked by narratives, or propaganda as it is more formally called. "We must not tolerate intolerance." It is an oxymoron. To say: "It is good to treat this group of people badly because they are bad people because (we say) they treat people badly." Of course, it is one thing if one is convicted of a crime, but this is not limited to such individuals... and even then convicts should be treated humanely and as actual people rather than merely "evil" entities. It is what turns well-intentioned people into extremists that hope for the demise of an entire nation in the name of an illdefined sense of social "progress." Or to say that it is a good idea to abort the "infirm", or prevent the "inferior" from having children. And all of it based on the whims of the "elite" in politics and business. Whether it's violence by the combined government and corporate forces against workers trying to unionize or just get better working conditions during the historical "Labor Wars" in the US and all around the world. Or the ongoing slave labor and forced organ harvesting in China of whomever the CCP deems an enemy to the "harmony" of China at the time. Or the human trafficking, including child slave trafficking, that has accellerated drastically under Biden's administration on the US souther border. As I've said before, we all have choices to make. We can't undo the choices we've already amde, but we can keep making new choices as long as we live. Choose wisely.
There are bad people everywhere yet America has shown they are the worst of humanity and I'm not saying their life is worth less than mine I'm saying that a civil war is inevitable THERE IS NO OUT It might not be now, it might be 50 or maybe 200 years
Some people ask me, "How can you support the left when your family left Hong Kong to get away from China?" And for me that is the really weird thing about America - where they equate authoritarianism with progressive policy. The truth is, these are the things that remind me of China: when politicians attack journalists and news outlets, or shut some outlets out because they aren't providing favorable coverage when people want private platforms to be forced to publish the words of a politician when protesters are forcibly removed with military force when police can declare a gathering a "riot," round people up and hold them for days, and then ultimately not charge them with anything when people put those in uniform on a pedestal simply for having the uniform on, rather than based on their actions or behavior when law enforcement can seize your assets without charging you of any crime Many of these things happened or ramped up under Trump. So when they ask me that question, I am like... Trump is what reminds me of China, not people wanting to increase the minimum wage. To be perfectly clear, I am not suggesting that the US turned into China - of course China is much, much worse in most areas. However, particularly as someone who watched Tiananmen Square unfold on TV as a child, the way the BLM protests have been handled by law enforcement and the Trump administration certainly struck a chord.
Certainly I agree, though it seems possibly for different reasons. America is the worst of humanity? Even if that was somehow quantifiable... even if America were somehow a homogeneous group (which, clearly, this forum by itself shows it isn't, there are STILL people divided over whether or not IS is OP... [which it is, obviously])... What makes America the "worst"? How is it worse than the CCP which is literally conducting mass genocide against multiple targets, and harvests organs from non-violent prisoners? That right now utilizes slave labor? That massacred, unlike the US (Sokolov, if you think any of the reaction to BLM has been anything close to Tianimen square you do a disservice to both US and those protestors in China), peaceful protesters en mass? Don't get me wrong, I think there are many problems with the US, and indeed this thread is about pointing some of them out. Yet your destructive rhetoric only adds to these problems, not solve them. For example, lets say that the US does get embroiled in a civil war as you cliam is inevitable... what do you think would be the actual outcome of such a thing? Do you really think the "world" would "progress"? How do you envision that happening? You say that "there is no out" other than destruction and death. I say... expand your vision and thinking. When politicians attack journalists and news outlets, or shut some outlets out... Not only are politicians doing this from within the Biden regime, they are calling on corporations like Google, Twitter, and others to actively hunt out not only news outlets, but news stories, and purge them from not just government access, but from digital presence within those companies. Yet, despite the blatant Fascism of this, Anti-Fa is if anything supportive... does this not strike you? When people want private platfroms to be forced to publish the words of apolitician... First of all, Google and Twitter aren't "Private" They have specific, government-granted immunities based on them being an "open" platform. Secondly... shouldn't you likewise be concerned about any government, or group of politicians putting pressure on "private" companies to exlcude a given politicans words? When protesters are removed with "military force"? I see you are quite concerned about the use of military force to disperse protestors on Jan 6th... right? No? The "Left" isn't worried about that? Huh... interesting how one action can be supported by a given group of people, but that same action is not supported when it impacts their alleged opposition. I can respect your personal views may vary from the group you support on this point, but the problem is the hypocrisy of that group. When police declare a gathering riot... you do know that some gatherings are riots right? Like, not all gatherings are riots, but all riots are gatherings, squares and rectanlges. Should police really do nothing but evacuate themselves while rioters set buildings on fire? Attack people and try to drag passersby out of vehicles? There were billions of dollars of damages caused by rioting in Minneappolis alone, let alone the rest of the nation (and world, as BLM rioters did have some activity in Europe as well). I agree that someone having a uniform on does not make them a good person inherently... but putting on that uniform is an act in and of itself. Police, firemen, EMTs, and soldiers, do a dangerous, highly stressful job, one that they chose to do of their own free will despite the risks, and are considered important by most of society... while that does not and will not ever excuse or mitigate any bad behavior, that act in and of itself is honorable, and should be honored. Even those soldiers working for the CCP, but again that would not excuse any other behavior they may engage in (oppression of Chinese people, or war crimes, etc.) Indeed, precisely because they take on an honorable job, their conduct should be worthy, lest it break trust in the occupation as a whole. This is a large part of why the uniform of "politicians" has been so tainted, because those that have taken up the job have, often enough, done so for their own enrichment rather than that of service to others. That includes Joe Biden and much of his family, whom have abused his position as a politician for their own financial and material gains. When law enfocrement can seize yourassets without charging you of any crime. The American Left seems to be much more in favor of this, though both parties have long supported "civil forfeiture" and similar things. Yet it is very much the Left which is pushing more the contiual lockdowns and destruction of select businesses. It is the Left in Canada which arrested a pastor for opporating his church peacefully. To be sure, the Right has been bad on this point too, and long before Trump (Bushes, remember them?) Yet if you think it's somehow getting better you're either not paying attention or your drinking too much coolaid. I'm not asking you to support Trump. Trump is, quite frankly, not someone I care about much. What I care about is that you and others open their eyes. To see where we're going right now under the "Left"'s leadership is much more like where Hong Kong is going than the other direction. This isn't limited to the "Left" either. Some people on the "Right" like Cheney, McConnel to a lesser extent, and many others are happy to stand by or even encourage this new direction as much as not.
Related: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...dan-conradson-public-meeting-block-entrances/ Saw the story just a little while ago.
Many of my Chinese friends and family watched with concern the way the Trump tried to use the law enforcement to stifle protests. I don't think it's "close" but as people who moved away from that regime, seeing these steps being taken here is of grave concern - because of ALL the places in the world, we didn't think we'd see anything like that here... or if we did, that it would have no support. Part of our concern is how many people aren't concerned here, and how many actually SUPPORT Trump and the actions of law enforcement in these things. It's very similar, to us, of the patterns that played out in China - long before Tiananmen Square actually happened. If you want a more scale appropriate example, we don't have to look much further than the recent protests in Hong Kong where similar clashes between protesters and police happened, with similar parallel rhetoric happening. I mean... sure, if they were remotely handled the same. When BLM protested the Capitol, the police was there in full riot gear. When Jan 6th happened, they weren't, and there are multiple videos showing them opening gates and barriers to let people in. The way it was handled was completely different. Yea, eventually they pushed them out, but this AFTER they had breached a federal building and committed actual crimes. Of course. But I do think that if they declare a riot, they should have a clear reason AND also not be the ones who instigated it. We have had these discussions in the country before, with there being Congressional commissions on what happens during these kinds of protests which concluded that half of the riots were actually caused by the police response to the protests. And, like, the recent BLM protests, people claim it is "Antifa" or "socialists" but, like before, there hasn't been any proof of that. "The president had chosen moderate commission members because he believed they would support his programs, seek evidence of outside agitation, and avoid assigning guilt to the very people who make or break national politicians—the white middle class. The report blindsided him. He had suggested that Communist agitation fired up the riots and to his dismay, the report disagreed, asserting that the riots “were not caused by, nor were they the consequences of, any organized plan or ‘conspiracy.’” And the commission rejected another common allegation: the charge that irresponsible journalists inflamed ghetto neighborhoods." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smit...ssion-got-it-right-nobody-listened-180968318/ ~ Also, yea, there's certainly been damaged, and if they were focused on the violence and the looting and arresting and charging people for that, I'd be fine with it! Instead, they have often been spending more time intimidating protesters while looting and violence goes on nearby. And when you look at the arrest records from the protests, you often see lots of arrests for "resisting arrests" and "failure to disperse" but few are actually arrested for and charged with any other crime that would been cause to remove the protesters in the first place. ~ Oh, and Minneapolis is a "fun" example because... you know who were charged with burning the police precinct? Not BLM members... Instead it was Boogaloo Bois. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/boo...minneapolis-police-building/story?id=73789955 And this is a common thing, some of them shot police, there are many videos showing people doing property damage or other things who seemed to have no interest in protesting, only making the protests look bad (most famous example is the umbrella man who was smashing windows that many believe was a cop). There was also the case of an undercover police officer who was beaten by cops in 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...officers-trial-luther-hall-undercover-protest You want to tell me that this undercover cop did something to warrant it? While I agree historically no one has done much about it, but you know who rolled back Obama era limiting federal use of civil forfeiture? Donald Trump. Here's Trump talking about Civil Asset Forfeiture during a meeting in which he only invited law enforcement people: During this, he threatened to destroy the career of a Texas (Republican!) lawmaker who was working to fight the practice. That said, there was a bill cosponsored by an R and a D that has some potential to limit federal abuse of the practice that Trump signed.
And I never said this is because of Trump. I said that these are things that I think the left is doing a better job with than the right when people ask me why I am on the left when my family left Hong Kong to get away from China. The difference between lockdowns for a pandemic and actual authoritarian policy is that the former is about the public good, while the latter is about keeping or abusing power. I understand why people make the false equivalences about masks and lockdowns vs "China" but as someone whose families and friends have actually lived under authoritarian regimes it's honestly completely laughable. In a perfect world, if people followed medical advice and willingly did what was necessary, would we need mandated lockdowns and curfews, etc.? No, and that'd be preferable. And is there economic tradeoffs to doing this stuff, willingly or otherwise? Of course, though personally I think the way to limit the economic impact of something like this is to act decisively and quickly and then when things blow over quickly, eat the lumps of people who claim you over-reacted even though the reason they can claim that is because of the swift and decisive action. The half-assed dragged out version of the way the US did it was the worst version and basically had all the negatives with very little of the gain. It's funny because this is the exact conversations I have with my conservation family and friends who like to ask me "But they are making us wear masks!" And I am like... "So what? The real stuff I care about is civil asset forfeiture and police brutality, those things remind me of China way more than mask mandates." And I am in no way suggesting "the left" has it figured out, but again, this is in response to Conservatives basically asking me why I am not automatically Republican because China: well, it's because I see them doing more of the things that make me think of China and the stuff the right claims to be "communist" doesn't make me think that at all.
