TakeYouToTasker

For people who have committed actual crimes, related to the matter at hand, discovered in the process of the larger ongoing investigation? You prosecute them. For people who simply say things I disagree with, true or otherwise? I defend to the death their right to do exactly that. That's how freedom works, Joe. You don't get to dictate to other people what they're allowed to say or think, no matter how wrong they are, and no matter how personally distasteful you find it. Otherwise you're just a different flavor of the same ****ty brand of ice cream melting in the sun.

So you're opposed to free speech then? You should be celebrating the imprisonment of Tommy Robinson right now, because every idea you're expressing is a justification of it. This is just about as dumb and as morally offensive as anything LA Grant has ever posted, while managing to be less eloquent. Congratulations.

Look everyone! I found him! The dumbest person on the whole internet! Look, it's not my fault that you have the laziest, most half-assed, "understanding" (I literally cringed using that word to describe your world view) of history I've ever seen. Basically none of what you've had to say on the topic is accurate. It's highly revisionist at best, and it works only to drive a false narrative of hate. That's what you are: a purveyor of hate. And stupidity. Abject stupidity. Someone trashing accurate historical accounts isn't debunking anything. They're either doing shoddy work, or they're being dishonest to drive their desired narrative towards people who won't actually do their own research and vet what they're being told. Like you. You !@#$ing muppet.

I believe that to be a false equivalence. In our Two Party false choice system, most individuals tend to "hold their nose" and pull the lever for one of the major party candidates either because they somewhat align with the individuals views, or as a vote against the other candidate because they view the person they voted for as "the lesser of two evils". People casting ballots outside of the two major parties for fringe candidates (not a Ron Paul, or a Jill Stein, who were fairly mainstream) usually do so because they are closely aligned with the belief systems being espoused, having done their research. This is especially true for individuals casting the same vote twice. And bear in mind, we aren't talking about the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party. We're talking about the Communist Party.

That's an absolutely horrifying notion. Placed on some sort of list by the Executive branch of government to be purged? You've totally lost the plot. That's not fighting against tyranny. That's seeking to impose your own brand of tyranny. I won't live under either.

A diplomat and a statesman.

Celebrity and expertise are not mutually exclusive, however they aren't conjoined either. All celebrity does is provide a pulpit. How it's used is another matter.

Will you next ask the sun not to rise tomorrow?

Both fair and valid.

I see you've decided to revert to being a classes and insufferable prick, but still seem to enjoy placing your incredible ignorance on display. It doesn't surprise me that you, as a world be maker of modern serfs, subject to the whims of the state, would attempt to tear down the Enlightenment. World history is not a blunt object or a weapon to be used to bludgeon one group or individual at the expense of another. History is history, nothing more. We can look to history, and it’s various resulting outcomes, as a study in trial and error in so far as it is applicable; but nothing more, as those of us living today had nothing to do with creating that history, and the motivations of those who created that history are largely lost to time, or are glossed over by those seeking to weaponized the past in order to dictate the future through the demonization of certain ethic groups or races. This is how you are proceeding. I am not willing to do that, as it’s monumentally stupid to attempt to view the world hundreds of years ago through the moral prism of life in 2018 America. Slavery was the absolute normal course of the world for all of human history. Nearly everyone alive today descends directly from serfs. Everyone. All of us. The realities are that history is a brutal place to visit. Technological advances are slow, and human beings are tribal, and as such are inclined to war and expansion when they encounter other tribes. Interactions with these other tribes necessitated either their extinction or their subjugation. Once we managed to pull ourselves out of a nomadic agrarian existence, subjugation became preferable because of labor scarcity. In other words, economic necessities in the time before automation required the taking of slaves in order to create any degree of prosperity. This is not my opinion. It is a fact. The world proceeded along this timeline, gradually pulling individuals up out of the mud as relative increases in prosperity allowed for capital formation, which continued the long arch of expanding economic empowerment. This gradual expansion of empowerment eventually led to places on the timeline where individuals could sustain themselves by thinking rather than toiling towards an early grave, which gave way to philosophy, which eventually gave us the Enlightenment, which set the whole western world free. No, it did not set the world free immediately, or all at once. Again, like everything else, the expansion of freedom was held captive to economic and technological realities, as well as the historical norms of captivity. Black Americans suffered deeply, and for longer than their white European counterparts, but make no mistake, it was the slow expansion of the ideals of the Enlightenment which freed them, and it was their white European counterparts who broke those chains. Make no mistake, this is not to laud white Americans in the mid 19th century. It simply to say that they, like slavery, are part of our shared world history, and that both, in their time, were considered just; just as what is considered just today has continued to evolve as freedom has expanded. Punch was sentenced for committing a crime. It was a criminal proceeding which obligated him for breaking his contract of servitude. It was not the civil taking of a slave, he was simply given a life sentence for his transgressions. One can argue that his sentence was unduly harsh, and that the reason his sentence was life while his European counterparts received four years was racially motivated, but this was not the beginning of institutionalized slavery as a civil practice. John Castor was the first man declared a slave in civil proceedings under English common law, and he was made slave to Anthony Johnson, a black man. This was the beginning of the legal institution of slavery in America.

Exactly. No one ever talks about how capturing slaves from rival tribes to sell to Europeans was the major industry in Africa during that time period. The other thing nobody ever talks about is black slave owners during the Antebellum era. Hell, the first slave owner in what is now considered America was black. Until he won a court case in which he refused to free an indentured servant after his period of servitude had expired, slavery didn't exist here.

It's actually a capitalist plot to make money by marketing products and services to black and brown people in order to separate them from their hard earned money, which they have only now begun to amass as capital, after a multi-generational struggle out from under oppression. I wish I was there to watch your head explode.

Ignorance works as a convenient airbrush.

Which was pretty much the way the entire world operated at the time, and really, still does today. Leviathan simply is. Governments, more than anything else, are consolidated monopolies of power, and when that degree of force is multiplied it will always be projected somewhere. During the Colonial era vast differences in technological advancement propelled Europe to the forefront, and they expanded outward, exerting their force. Which is why they are having the fight they are having. It's why Tommy Robinson, and those like him, are so vitally important to the National identities and cultures of the European nations. And this is why. They are laying the ground rules now, and the ground rules they are laying is: No, we will not live under any aspect of Sharia Law. We will live as a free people as our traditions dictate, and if you wish to live here, you will as well. But locking human beings in cages for exercising their natural rights does?

Almost all of history for all cultures was absolutely barbaric. In most places in the world it still is. We live in an oasis which affords us the relative peace an prosperity we enjoy. It is the absolute height of ignorance to not recognize how the world has worked for the duration of human history, and to attribute the worlds ills to our European ancestors. The Europeans were no different than anyone else in their ambitions, they were just more technologically advanced at the time.

Anchor baby factories?

My honest opinion is that we shouldn't wait for California to attempt to secede, which would violate their state Constitution anyhow. We should just throw them out. You don't keep a tumor for nostalgic reasons.

Classically liberal philosophies, which today don't differ much from American libertarianism. I'm actually far better described as a cynical classical liberal than a libertarian if we're being overly specific. Modern American liberalism has almost nothing in common with the classical liberalism birthed by the Enlightenment.

I'll again point out that you're advocating taking people as political prisoners for what they think. That's far more reprehensible than the phantom racism you're trying to catch with your butterfly net.

Again, this is why we're going to have real shooting civil war in our lifetimes.

26

It's called colonialism, it happened, and it's lamented as a great evil by leftists.

Terrible agendas like maintaining the intellectual and moral culture which brought us the Enlightenment, incentivizing the nuclear family, promoting prosperity through economic growth, rejecting post-modernism as the destructive and regressive neo-Marxist agenda that it is, establishing global reforms which have a real chance to bring about a real and lasting peace through the denuclearization of North Korea, the overthrow of the Mulahs, and the reforming of the Saudi government, and working to reform the US intelligence apparatus restoring the protection of the individuals right to privacy and their Fourth Amendment protections, standing staunch in their insistence on safeguarding Constitutional protections guaranteed by the First and Second Amendment? Which of these do you find abhorrent?

Thanks for dropping by. I hope to see more of you. Wishing you a speedy and full recovery.

Before we go any further with this, I'd like to sincerely thank you for toning down the rhetoric, and engaging me in what I believe has been a productive conversation. I understand that there may be lots of issues we fundamentally disagree on, and that's OK. Just because conversations are difficult to have doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile. In fact, I often find that the most difficult conversations are the most worthwhile. So again, thank you. I hope this can be the beginning of a more productive environment, at least where the two of us are involved. Now, onto your post: It may well be too late for Europe to proceed without bloodshed tactically, and obviously that will vary wildly from country to country. But when given a choice between cultural annihilation, and war, I believe it's just to choose war. Peace at any cost is too high a cost. Rights are something worth fighting for.