I would suggest that we have always wanted uprisings against the government which is ruled by corrupt, “middle of the road” people, right, so there should be a loose alliance between the grassroots right wing and the grassroots left wing that fight for policies that are ideological and based on principle.

It’s the centrists, who govern through practicality and concerns of the immediate future, that are the greatest stumbling blocks to change. They have obligations to the elites - the ideological left/right do not have any such obligations.

I disagree vehemently with Trump on his views of Muslims and his ideas about Israel, of course, but the guy certainly is an enemy of the establishment and floats out ideas that are radical and haven’t been talked about in decades, like his 10% tariff tax plan.

These are real starting points for change.

BTW, I am not really a conventional leftist - I am a Libertarian, and you probably got that from some of our arguments, but I want to come out and say it… I do nto want to be seen here like PRETENDING to be a conventional leftist and thus undermining discussion.

Nah, an insurrection is what was happening in Iraq after the 2003 invasion (and happening rightfully so).

If what occurred on J6 was an insurrection, it would have been explicitly violent or had a real organized plan for the literal overthrow of the government.

Even the ridiculous plan organized by the Proud Boys was not really an insurrection even though it involved demanding a re-vote (or a re-vote after a recount) because it ultimately wanted to preserve democratic norms, and the fools who came up with it sincerely believed that democracy was completely undermined by the last election… Which, arguably, it was.

Employing non-lethal means to occupy a place as a protest seems reasonable, doesn’t it? This is what people did after the killing of George Floyd.

The most annoying aspect of this is when you know actual information has to be out there, but it is being drowned out by dozens of sites reposting the less relevant and low quality information… And then you go to search in another language and you see substandard machine translations of all the garbage you were just fleeing, lol.

I suppose my definition is the one from the Oxford dictionary:

an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:

J6 cannot meet such a burden since it was not an organized attempt and it certainly wasn’t violent in the way that a real move to overthrow the government would be, only violent in the sense that any disorganized protest can be.

… And while some people can toss around the word insurrection, you notice that there is no serious charge against Trump on this, because there can be no charge, since he said nothing nor does any other evidence exists which show he incited anyone to any illegal act, let alone an attempt to overthrow the government. This is only possible through assumption & interpretation of what happened that it was even an ‘insurrection.’

That’s a mere interpretation of what happened that would never stand up in a court of law, hence why no formal charges have been brought. It’s completely speculative.

Which is exactly why we can’t remove him from ballots or refer to it as an insurrection.

Remember the Iraq War? We referred to the opposition after Hussein fell as terrorists (not very accurate, very lame Zioconservative take), or as insurgents, which is accurate.

Insurgency implies some long term armed resistance. It can’t refer to some impromptu riot on the police lines.

Ummm… but what about all the men in the bible with many wives. There was no one man one wife thing in almost the entire Bible. Almost all of the people who are touted to be amazing examples of God’s peopel… were polygamists… and since that wasn’t enough, they would have the concubines on the side. Point that out and they run away.

There’s several points in the Gospel where Christ points at a departure from this though, right, like in Matthew 19 and Matthew 22, but the most poignant passage is 1 Corinthians 7:

2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

The purpose of getting married is the relief of sexual lust - and since we are talking about just relieving it, the idea of having multiple wives or concubines on the side is a perversion of this. We can even look at the story of King David and Bathsheba as an example of why you shouldn’t covet moaaarr wamen. It has been pointed out before that, like, adultery and lust are so powerful and pertinent that 2 of the 10 commandments are about it…

So i would say that one of the clarifications that exist, and one of the new usherings in of Christianity, is strict monogamy, and also praise for monasticism…

Conservatism, at its core, has always been a purely reactionary opposition to liberal and progressive politics. In the modern era, it has felt the need to wrap itself in something resembling a positive ideology which presents thinly falsifiable policy positions, regardless of how narrow and mutable those ideological boundaries might be.

Well, there’s two major divides within conservatism as it plays out today, right?

Classical liberalism, we can call one, and then populist conservatism…

Classical liberal Republicans/Libertarians are highly principled and highly progressive with very positive, engaging values - think about these old guys like Paul Findley who were fundamentally isolationist, anti-war, pro-Palestine conservatives, that truly believed in Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty and that the key to bettering humans is through decentralization of power, minimal government, and human freedom.

And then there is conservatism that goes back to, like, tradition or populism.

Of course, these things often combine, but I think you need to treat conservatism with a lot of nuance because otherwise you are just dismantling a strawman.

Because until recently, abject, reactionary nihilism has been seen as a losing position.

Revolutionary nihilism is how radical liberalism was portrayed by Dostoevsky in the Devils - a great book - and it does make sense, because we see at its root that some of these radical movements actually were about reinventing all of society around totally new principles and annihilating what has hitherto been normalized in Western civilization…

Yes, there is like the Nietzschean reactionaries who want to build the New Man, but yeah, it’s still a losing position. I do not even think that guys like BAP are even on that level - like some of the hardcore neopagan LARP squad certainly envisions a completely new basis to muh Western civilization. But it’s not like Varg Vikernes is a viable option - in spite of how wildly popular Black Metal became after hipsters getting into blackgaze and shit after ironic Pitchfork album reviews, not even one of the most seminal figures in the genre can be anything much more than a joke for having these beliefs.

I think one of the problems we have is the paranoia about this stuff - you act as if the right is really some monster that is rising to swallow the country in a wave of Fascism, but it’s not the right who are anywhere near successfully removing their opponents from ballots.

Glenn Greenwald actually talked about how Trump supporters are famously distrustful of (a) the Security State and (b) corporate media, and so there’s only like two news sources that they show positive numbers for trust in - Fox and Newsmax.

What doesn’t help is that they do lie about Trump, and make him out to be a literal insurrectionist… Think what you want about him in terms of his politics being colored by racism and Islamophobia (his Muslim ban was pretty nuts), but you can’t call the guy an insurrectionist unless you greatly modify what an insurrection is and what it means to insight one. Things like this plus upgrading frivolous financial misdemeanors that megacorporations routinely violate to federal crimes in an effort to remove him from the ballot have a radicalizing effect…

But yeah, IDK, I’d vote for Trump over Biden because he is antiestablishment and his foreign policy is better in the long run.

… It’s doubly true for blue collar workers in Asia.

White collar workers get like 15-20 days off a year in Korea, and these are also used for sick days - at enlightened companies, you can work from home on a sick day and have it not count as leave…

I don’t know that much about what goes on in blue collar work, but something tells me the workplaces for natives just that are just a few steps above the blue collar labor done by migrants living in barracks in isolated locales working 60+ hour weeks aren’t the type to liberally give sick days.