Putin

[Pursang]

"all the fascists were first Marxists" ......

Oops! Well, Ok! Not The First one!

Rise to power of Benito Mussolini

Wounded while serving with the bersaglieri (a corps of sharpshooters), he returned home a convinced antisocialist and a man with a sense of destiny. As early as February 1918, he advocated the emergence of a dictator—“a man who is ruthless and energetic enough to make a clean sweep”—to confront the economic and political crisis then gripping Italy. Three months later, in a widely reported speech in Bologna, he hinted that he himself might prove to be such a man. The following year the nucleus of a party prepared to support his ambitious idea was formed in Milan. In an office in Piazza San Sepolcro, about 200 assorted republicans, anarchists, syndicalists, discontented socialists, restless revolutionaries, and discharged soldiers met to discuss the establishment of a new force in Italian politics. Mussolini called this force the fasci di combattimento (“fighting bands”), groups of fighters bound together by ties as close as those that secured the fasces of the lictors—the symbols of ancient Roman authority. So fascism was created and its symbol devised. (Source Britannica.com)

There are many paths to a Fascist State,
Both the farther ends of the political spectrum vehemently deny the Horseshoe effect. (for obvious reasons.)

For those of us in the Centrist zone the circle or compass is a good analogy. (This one is missing the "Thick" line through the middle on Antivax)

[TheDemonLord]

"all the fascists were first Marxists" ......

Oops! Well, Ok! Not The First one!

Rise to power of Benito Mussolini

Wounded while serving with the bersaglieri (a corps of sharpshooters), he returned home a convinced antisocialist and a man with a sense of destiny. As early as February 1918, he advocated the emergence of a dictator—“a man who is ruthless and energetic enough to make a clean sweep”—to confront the economic and political crisis then gripping Italy. Three months later, in a widely reported speech in Bologna, he hinted that he himself might prove to be such a man. The following year the nucleus of a party prepared to support his ambitious idea was formed in Milan. In an office in Piazza San Sepolcro, about 200 assorted republicans, anarchists, syndicalists, discontented socialists, restless revolutionaries, and discharged soldiers met to discuss the establishment of a new force in Italian politics. Mussolini called this force the fasci di combattimento (“fighting bands”), groups of fighters bound together by ties as close as those that secured the fasces of the lictors—the symbols of ancient Roman authority. So fascism was created and its symbol devised. (Source Britannica.com)

There's *quite* a few key omitted details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito..._and_socialist

Mussolini thought of himself as an intellectual and was considered to be well-read. He read avidly; his favorites in European philosophy included Sorel, the Italian Futurist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, French Socialist Gustave Hervé, Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta, and German philosophers Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, the founders of Marxism.

As I said, All the Fascists were first Marxists. And I'll be more than happy to back that claim and point to any of the Italian philosophers who founded the movement and quote their Marxist roots.

There are many paths to a Fascist State

And they all start with Marxism or variants thereof. Collectivist ideology, whereby Group A is pitted against Group B for some version of original Sin.

Both the farther ends of the political spectrum vehemently deny the Horseshoe effect. (for obvious reasons.)

For those of us in the Centrist zone the circle or compass is a good analogy. (This one is missing the "Thick" line through the middle on Antivax)

See, Horseshoe theory is interesting - but when you compare the British Liberal traditions (both Political and philosophical) where the focus is on the individual, you never end up in the same realm as the Communists or Fascists. Therefore I don't believe in it's validity as a theory.

Not only that, but the graph (whilst amusing) is demonstrably wrong on a number of Key points.

[Pursang]

And they all start with Marxism or variants thereof. Collectivist ideology, whereby Group A is pitted against Group B for some version of original Sin.

Well, I'm Glad that that's all sorted out!

We have no need to be concerned when the conservative, Don't tread on me, climate change denying, Alt right, NeoCon, Corporate Fundamentalists vote Trump back into office and install him as 'President for Life'. At least it won't be a Fascist State!

Might need to watch out when the religious fundamentalists combine with right wing voters, politicians and a hand picked, conservative Supreme Court (say Group A) to collectively deny the rights of Women (say Group B) for the 'Sin' of unwanted pregnancy. (But that can't happen 'cos that would be ... Marxist?)

Marx himself must be almost magic. You only need to Read his work and you automatically become a Marxist!
And of course, being considered to be intellectual and well read is another Marxist Gateway. Much better, conservatively speaking, to be Thick and Ignorant.

[Pursang]

Problem Solved!

[TheDemonLord]

Well, I'm Glad that that's all sorted out!

We have no need to be concerned when the conservative, Don't tread on me, climate change denying, Alt right, NeoCon, Corporate Fundamentalists vote Trump back into office and install him as 'President for Life'. At least it won't be a Fascist State!

I mean, I'd be fine with Trump back in office - life was demonstrably significantly better when he was in charge. Petrol was cheap, Inflation was sensible and Putin didn't invade.

I'm inclined to believe based on your previous posts that you aren't a fan of the war in Ukraine, so it stands to reason to point out that after the Annexation of Crimea - Russia didn't try anything whilst Trump was in office...

But let's pick those claims apart, because some of them don't bear a little scrutiny:

'Don't Tread on me' - This statement is essentially 'Respect my Natural rights' - an entirely conservative principle.

'Climate change denying' - Most often this accusation is leveled at people such as myself, who point to every alarmist Climate prediction that did not come to fruition since about the 1960s and respond to the current crop of climate alarmism as 'Boys crying Wolf'.
More specifically, the Conservative position is that we shouldn't be wasting billions (or in some cases, Trillions) of dollars of Tax Payer money on the pet projects the middle/upper class.

'Alt Right' - So, you are aware that the Alt Right leader voted for Biden, yes? And that the they essentially agree with the Critical Race Theorists on everything except on the question as to who should be on top (they believe it should be the White Race, the CRT types believe it should be PoC), it might have 'right' in the title, but there is nothing Conservative about their ideology.

'NeoCons' - They are an interesting bunch, on the one hand I tend to agree that if you leave evil alone, it tends to flourish - whereas if you enforce things like the Rule of Law globally - it is best for everyone, for example the Pax Romana or Pax Britannica. The biggest critique is that many of them were former-left wingers who got smacked in the face by a dose of reality, without renouncing some of the ideas that lead them to that place in the first instance. In some ways they are like the current TERF movement with the 'If you want my X, respect my Sex'.

Corporatism- Given the relationship between Corporate interests and Government regulation/intervention - the best topical example being how Amazon, MS, Netflix etc. made serious bank off of the Lockdowns, but small businesses went bankrupt - I'm not sure how this can be considered truly 'Right Wing'. Capitalist for sure, but it's not espousing the individualist principles of minimal/limited government. In fact, the definition of Corporatism is that it is a Collectivist ideology - which puts in squarely in the Left Wing.

Finally - Fundamentalism - This is perhaps more tricky to define - which Fundamentalism? Religious? Political? More broadly - it's the absolute adherence to a set of Laws. You could say that the Supreme Court is a fundamentalist institution in reference to the Constitution. If the Aspect that is being Fundamentally adhered to is the individualist principles of British Liberal Conservatism, then yes - it absolutely belongs on that diagram and in the position that it's placed. If, however, what is being strictly enforced is any form of Group identity, then it does not belong.

Might need to watch out when the religious fundamentalists combine with right wing voters, politicians and a hand picked, conservative Supreme Court (say Group A) to collectively deny the rights of Women (say Group B) for the 'Sin' of unwanted pregnancy. (But that can't happen 'cos that would be ... Marxist?)

I'm going to preface this with 'I'm Pro-Choice' and that my personal opinion is that a Feotus cannot be called 'life' until it is capable surviving outside of the Womb. With a Caveat that this line will be forever moving as Medical Technology increases, to the point where I will be forced on this principle to agree with the religious view that life begins at conception.

However on Roe v Wade - there are some fundamental questions:

1: Does the Constituion and the 14th Amendment grant that access to Abortion is a federally protected right? The argument in the decision was around privacy, which from a purely legal stand point, I do not think covers Abortion.

Now, before Husa starts sperging out on 'knows more than the Supreme Court' - reading the history of the justices after the decision is quite interesting, Justice Blackmun had some choice words to say about the case: "It was a serious mistake ... We did a poor job. I think the committee should have deferred them until we had a full Court", although to be clear - he did still stand by the framework he used to reach the decision.

There are a good number of Legal Scholars who otherwise agree with unrestricted access to Abortion who took great issue with the Roe v Wade decision because of the means by which the decision was reached.

And it seems that the current supreme court is inclined to agree with my position.

2: If it is not a Federally protected right, it doesn't mean that it's therefore illegal - it just means that individual states can decide this issue for themselves, so a State might make all Abortion illegal or restrict the number of weeks or the reasons that it can be done.

Finally - and this is specifically in regards to your point - this is not a 'Group rights' issues, it is an individual issue - and at the core of it, is the question:

Does a Feotus have individual rights? If the answer is Yes, then the state is obligated to protect them (and therefore Abortion is illegal), even at the expense of Bodily Autonomy of the Mother 'The right to swing your fist in public ends where my nose begins'.

I've stated my position that I do not believe that a Feotus gains these rights until it is capable of surviving outside of the Womb.

Marx himself must be almost magic. You only need to Read his work and you automatically become a Marxist!
And of course, being considered to be intellectual and well read is another Marxist Gateway. Much better, conservatively speaking, to be Thick and Ignorant.

I mean, Shall I post up that he was raised by a life-long Socialist, or that he was a member of the Italian Socialist party or that he was considered a leading Socialist Philosopher?

Because the more you try and ridicule me, the more I'm happy to post up the details about Mussolini's early life... And while we are at it, let's raise the person who helped write the Doctrine of Fascism with Mussolini: Giovanni Gentile:

but also strongly influenced and mentored by the German idealist and materialist schools of thought – namely Karl Marx, Hegel, and Fichte

[Pursang]

Because the more you try and ridicule me,..... :

My apologies. It is not my intention to have ridiculed anyone personally, or their philosophies, in this thread.... Except Putin, his Minions, Apologists & Supporters.

Cheers, Daryl.

[sugilite:Me]

Oh bruh, you gone done over egged the pudding and scared away a potential combatant . May I suggest next time you come out with a parapet of text rather than a east/west German border sized wall of text

I mean, I'd be fine with Trump back in office - life was demonstrably significantly better when he was in charge. Petrol was cheap, Inflation was sensible and Putin didn't invade.

Riiiight, because had Trump won 2020 instead of losing by a landslide, petrol would still be cheap and there would be no inflation - riiiiiight. As for Putin invading or not, highly subjective at best.

'Don't Tread on me' - This statement is essentially 'Respect my Natural rights' - an entirely conservative principle.

Well, blow me down, respect natural rights is entirely a conservative principle, so a concept never before ever considered until the conservative movement appeared? Riiiight

'Climate change denying' - Most often this accusation is leveled at people such as myself, who point to every alarmist Climate prediction that did not come to fruition since about the 1960s and respond to the current crop of climate alarmism as 'Boys crying Wolf'.

Oh really? So lets create a scenario where there is two investment properties available of equal caliber, you only have the funds available to buy one. One property is right on the water front, it has never had any issues with flooding from the sea thus far. The other property is also on the water front, just atop a rocky cliff, say 10 meters higher than sea level. Which one would you purchase as a long term investment. As an aside, which one will be insurable the longest? I guess one advantage for you to live right by the sea, is an endless amount of sand for you to bury your head in

'Alt Right' - So, you are aware that the Alt Right leader voted for Biden, yes?

Ahhh, you are rolling out this old chestnut again, conveniently forgetting to add it was in fact a protest vote against Trump for killing Iranian Qassem Soleimani. I especially applaud the way you frame it as tacitly implying the whole alt right must of voted the same as their leader did, bravo
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-ideology.html
I found the above gem with a few seconds of googling, I wonder how many other of your dubious claims would stand up under scrutiny?

And that the they essentially agree with the Critical Race Theorists on everything except on the question as to who should be on top (they believe it should be the White Race, the CRT types believe it should be PoC), it might have 'right' in the title, but there is nothing Conservative about their ideology.

About a decade ago, I was getting questions about artifacts being used in satanism, so I thought I should look into what it actually is, and that was a real eye opener as it was 90+% in line with Christianity. Same eco system I guess. sometimes seemingly strange bedfellows are not that strange.

[TheDemonLord]

Riiiight, because had Trump won 2020 instead of losing by a landslide, petrol would still be cheap and there would be no inflation - riiiiiight. As for Putin invading or not, highly subjective at best.

Petrol would be cheaper because one of Trump's key policies (which Biden revoked) was for the US to be Energy Independent. If you're making your own, instead of buying from the market, that means there's less demand on the Market, therefore price goes down.

Inflation - Biden's Covid Policies pretty much caused this, so....
And Putin - he's only invaded other countries under the Democrat watch, so....

Well, blow me down, respect natural rights is entirely a conservative principle, so a concept never before ever considered until the conservative movement appeared? Riiiight

It is. The concept traces it's roots to Hobbes and Locke, via British Liberalism - which is a cornerstone of Conservative thought - small government, individual rights etc. etc.

Oh really? So lets create a scenario where there is two investment properties available of equal caliber, you only have the funds available to buy one. One property is right on the water front, it has never had any issues with flooding from the sea thus far. The other property is also on the water front, just atop a rocky cliff, say 10 meters higher than sea level. Which one would you purchase as a long term investment. As an aside, which one will be insurable the longest? I guess one advantage for you to live right by the sea, is an endless amount of sand for you to bury your head in

Depends on where we are talking - In NZ I'm far more concerned about the possibility of a Tsunami or other seismic event than I am about rising sea levels.

In the UK - it would be Beach front all the way.

(well... what passes for Beaches in the UK anyway...)

Ahhh, you are rolling out this old chestnut again, conveniently forgetting to add it was in fact a protest vote against Trump for killing Iranian Qassem Soleimani. I especially applaud the way you frame it as tacitly implying the whole alt right must of voted the same as their leader did, bravo
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-ideology.html
I found the above gem with a few seconds of googling, I wonder how many other of your dubious claims would stand up under scrutiny?

Okay - bear with me for a second:

Can you explain why a self-avowed White Supremacist would be upset over the killing of an Iranian (who is not White)? Please, I'll wait.

And furthermore - If someone says 'To Hell with Libertarian Ideology' and then votes for Biden and against Trump - what does that say as to which candidate is the Libertarian Candidate?

At their core, the Alt Right believe in a collectivist ideology - that is of a White Race/Group. Collectivism is an explicitly Left Wing idea. It might have 'Right' in the title, but it's philosophy does not stand upon the individual liberal principles.

Hence his actions.

About a decade ago, I was getting questions about artifacts being used in satanism, so I thought I should look into what it actually is, and that was a real eye opener as it was 90+% in line with Christianity. Same eco system I guess. sometimes seemingly strange bedfellows are not that strange.

Satanists are a weird bunch.

There's the Religious Satanists who, as you say, believe in pretty much the same things as Christians.
There's the Philosophical Satanists who are more about extreme self-reliance, free from the limitations imposed on the individual by Religion (These are your La-Vey Satanists types).

[Pursang]

[sugilite:Me]

Petrol would be cheaper because one of Trump's key policies (which Biden revoked) was for the US to be Energy Independent. If you're making your own, instead of buying from the market, that means there's less demand on the Market, therefore price goes down.

Fair enough, though I highly suspect the US oil companies would of jacked prices up at least some amount.

Inflation - Biden's Covid Policies pretty much caused this, so....

Bullshit, Trump was printing money too, remember how he wanted his name on those checks that went out to everyone?

And Putin - he's only invaded other countries under the Democrat watch, so....

Actually, soooo nothing. It is highly subjective at best, as I'm sure you are well aware. Besides, as you point out yourself, Trump is war averse (one of his few good qualities), so hardly projecting a barrier to Putin to not invade. I can only speculate the following, but I'm sure Putins invasion would have gone forward even if Trump had won in 2020.

It is. The concept traces it's roots to Hobbes and Locke, via British Liberalism - which is a cornerstone of Conservative thought - small government, individual rights etc. etc.

A very pompous reply, as if they were the first to think of such a concept You are not doing the conservative stereotypes and favors here.

Depends on where we are talking - In NZ I'm far more concerned about the possibility of a Tsunami or other seismic event than I am about rising sea levels.

In the UK - it would be Beach front all the way.

(well... what passes for Beaches in the UK anyway...)

Insurance companies do not agree with you, as they know full well to do otherwise will be the end of them. They have to face up to reality, where as you can post frivolous comments to support your arguments without consequence.

Can you explain why a self-avowed White Supremacist would be upset over the killing of an Iranian (who is not White)? Please, I'll wait.

No need to wait, as I simply do not need to comment as he himself has already stated it was a protest vote. May I suggest you take it up with him if you wish to know his true state of mind? My point was rather you were assigning this statement over many threads, missing out the fact it was not him voting for Biden because he is a closet democrat, but rather a protest vote against Trump. Very poor form there ole chap. The truth certainly does not support the spirit of the arguments you were putting forward.

[Pursang]

On a Lighter Note....But a PUTIN theme!

[TheDemonLord]

Fair enough, though I highly suspect the US oil companies would of jacked prices up at least some amount.

Sure - but this was one of Trump's key policies - Energy Independence for the US. Which Biden quashed.

Bullshit, Trump was printing money too, remember how he wanted his name on those checks that went out to everyone?

He was, but this is the difference between someone turning a tap on (Trump) and someone blowing up the Rohr Dam (Biden). I believe that one Metric is that under the Biden Administration, they have printed more money than in the history of the US.

Actually, soooo nothing. It is highly subjective at best, as I'm sure you are well aware. Besides, as you point out yourself, Trump is war averse (one of his few good qualities), so hardly projecting a barrier to Putin to not invade. I can only speculate the following, but I'm sure Putins invasion would have gone forward even if Trump had won in 2020.

He was anti War, but he made it clear - you either play nice and civilized, or you get a visit from a friendly Drone. The age old 'Fuck around and find out' method. And it turns out, you only have to do it once or twice for people to sit up and pay attention.

I also get to add in that Biden's shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan seriously hurt America's military prestige globally - which just emboldens people - if they think you are weak or incapable, they'll push their luck. Which is what Putin did, what Rocket Man is trying to do.

A very pompous reply, as if they were the first to think of such a concept You are not doing the conservative stereotypes and favors here.

There have been some civilizations that have had a limited concept of rights (Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece) but these generally only applied to Citizens or Free Men. That is - these rights were granted conditionally by the state, which is a very important distinction between Continental Philosophy and English Philosophy.

The idea of a Natural right, that you are born with, that is universal to everyone is entirely an English Liberal concept. I don't dispute that there is a long chain of thought behind this concept - but this notion is unique to English philosophy. It's the idea that ended that Slave Trade and declared globally that Slavery was a moral wrong.

So yes, it IS a Pompous reply and one that the British have every right (pun fully intended) to be pompous about.

Everywhere else has always had conditional rights, not the British.

Insurance companies do not agree with you, as they know full well to do otherwise will be the end of them. They have to face up to reality, where as you can post frivolous comments to support your arguments without consequence.

That's one explanation, another is that Insurance companies are thieving cunts who will use any excuse to screw people out of money.

(and I dare you to argue with me on this :P )

No need to wait, as I simply do not need to comment as he himself has already stated it was a protest vote. May I suggest you take it up with him if you wish to know his true state of mind? My point was rather you were assigning this statement over many threads, missing out the fact it was not him voting for Biden because he is a closet democrat, but rather a protest vote against Trump. Very poor form there ole chap. The truth certainly does not support the spirit of the arguments you were putting forward.

Oh I'm not going to let you off that easily.

Let's first take him at his word (that you so kindly provided the link to):

'To Hell with Liberalism' and 'I'm protest voting For Biden, against Trump'

In those two statements, based on what he says - Voting for Biden against Trump is an act of rejecting Liberalism. Therefore, a Vote for Trump is an act of endorsing Liberalism. Ergo - Trump is the Liberal Candidate (in the British sense, not the American) and Biden is the Illiberal candidate.

But let's go one step further - you've dodged the question: Why would a self-avowed White Racist object to the killing of someone who isn't White? There's an internal contradiction there between his words and his actions. If your premise is that this was the sole reason that he voted, then I get to point to that contradiction and make the claim that it does not follow logically.

However, if you've read a little more of Spencer and you read a little more of CRT, you very quickly see that they both want the same thing, just with a different racial group at the top.

I'm now going to put forward a theory - and when finished - I'll ask you to compare which one fits.

Spencer sees that the Democrats have fully embraced Wokeism and that includes CRT. His hope is that the Democrats will push CRT and (to quote the CRT Scholars):
"Raise Racial Consciousness"

No, seriously that is what they say they want to do, look it up - and bonus points for Pritch - see where it talks about kids and Educators.... That's CRT being taught in schools... again...

Translation - they want everyone to see Race as a defining characteristic of a person (Not the content of their character...) - and White Supremecists (like Spencer) love this idea - what better way to increase recruitment? Tell a bunch of Kids they should focus on the colour of someones' skin and tell all the white kids they are evil for having white skin, then you take all those angry young men who have been taught to be ashamed for their race - and hey presto! the Klans back in business, boys!

Then we get to the end-goal, and it's quite simple a numbers game - Spencer endorses Biden cause he hopes the decline of race relations by pushing this poisonous crap will result in the long-dreamed of Race War - and 60% of the population vs 12% of the population, Spencer reckons his 'side' has a better chance of winning.

To sum up then:

One theory states that a White Supremecist was so outraged by the killing of a foreign, non-white person, that they voted against Trump or
They voted for Biden to increase Racial division caused by the teaching of CRT to kids, to increase the number of racists and eventually win the Race War and setup an Ethnostate.

Which one is more internally logically consistent?

It is not a protest vote because someone got blown up, it's a calculated vote that endorses the collectivist left-wing world view.

[Pursang]

Ukrainian resilience and sense of humor is inspiring!

Coffee shop in Kyiv

[sugilite:Me]

Sure - but this was one of Trump's key policies - Energy Independence for the US. Which Biden quashed.

Yep, good for America, not so great for the environment, but none the less, one of Trumps better policies.

He was, but this is the difference between someone turning a tap on (Trump) and someone blowing up the Rohr Dam (Biden). I believe that one Metric is that under the Biden Administration, they have printed more money than in the history of the US.

Great, more for me to grab, just grabbed some more USD a few minutes ago

He was anti War, but he made it clear - you either play nice and civilized, or you get a visit from a friendly Drone. The age old 'Fuck around and find out' method. And it turns out, you only have to do it once or twice for people to sit up and pay attention.

Not Putin though, the guy is a cold ruthless killer, I doubt he would of been swayed by Mr Bombastic.

I also get to add in that Biden's shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan seriously hurt America's military prestige globally - which just emboldens people - if they think you are weak or incapable, they'll push their luck. Which is what Putin did, what Rocket Man is trying to do.

Yeah nah, anyone that callous with his own troops and allies, imagine what he could do to his enemies.

So yes, it IS a Pompous reply and one that the British have every right (pun fully intended) to be pompous about.

Everywhere else has always had conditional rights, not the British.

And yet here you are in New Zealand - why? Was the pull of David Seymour that strong?

That's one explanation, another is that Insurance companies are thieving cunts who will use any excuse to screw people out of money.

(and I dare you to argue with me on this :P )

Dirty pool old chap, asking me to defend the indefensible lol
For the record, I have never been able to make out the difference between the TAB and insurance companies. I have only ever gone for the compulsory house insurance for mortgage purposes and do 3rd party on motor vehicles, that's it. I'm fucking way ahead with the money saved.

Oh I'm not going to let you off that easily.

You will have to let me off, as I've already left the building on this issue. It was a protest vote against Trump, far from how you were framing it. I mean that was an impressive wall of text and everything, but your average alt right cletus would be simply left blinking if they were asked to attempt to read it You may keep typing however, as deemed legal by NZ law

[TheDemonLord]

Yep, good for America, not so great for the environment, but none the less, one of Trumps better policies.

Au Contraire - I'd say it's significantly better for the Environment for the Fuel that the US uses to be shipped from local sources, instead of having to be shipped in from overseas and even better that it's burnt in the US (with it's emissions restrictions) than say China.

Not Putin though, the guy is a cold ruthless killer, I doubt he would of been swayed by Mr Bombastic.

Then why didn't he invade under Trump? Remembering the claim that Trump was a Putin Puppet? My personal thought is that Trump represented an Unknown. Putin didn't know how he would react, so never pressed the issue, whereas everyone knows how the Democrats would react (Sanctions, Aid etc.).

And yet here you are in New Zealand - why? Was the pull of David Seymour that strong?

I've thought about moving, but Family is here and that is a significantly offsetting factor.

Speaking of Seymour, had a nice catch-up with him on his publicity Tour - found out that he's read the work of James Lindsay. Suffice to say I not only fangirled a little, but also my support of the Man was vindicated to the Nth degree.

Dirty pool old chap, asking me to defend the indefensible lol
For the record, I have never been able to make out the difference between the TAB and insurance companies. I have only ever gone for the compulsory house insurance for mortgage purposes and do 3rd party on motor vehicles, that's it. I'm fucking way ahead with the money saved.

Heh :P

I'm very much the same, I've found I'm allergic to Insurance Companies.

But jokes aside - on the point we do agree on - it's a very good example how something can be easily put forward, with an ulterior motive.

"We are concerned about Climate Change, therefore we need to increase your premium" is a lot easier to sell than:

"We are Cunts, therefore we have increased your premium"

Despite our agreement that the latter is far more accurate.

You will have to let me off, as I've already left the building on this issue. It was a protest vote against Trump, far from how you were framing it. I mean that was an impressive wall of text and everything, but your average alt right cletus would be simply left blinking if they were asked to attempt to read it You may keep typing however, as deemed legal by NZ law

It simply does not follow that a White Supremacist would be upset at the killing of a non-white foreigner. I mean, back in the wild-west days of the Internet (when Ogrish was a thing) people of a particular viewpoint would regularly celebrate the killing of 'Rag heads' and 'Sand N....rs' and other assorted terms.

Now, does the average Alt-Right cleetus know all the associated stuff? I'll grant you not. However, they do know that they have an In Group (Whites) and an Out group (Non-Whites) and they know that the more people who take into consideration the colour of someones skin, the more likely they are to convince them to their world view.

That's Collectivism and CRT in practice right there - both very much Left-Wing Ideas...