- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | new york city |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 3223 |
| Registered on: | 3/11/2005 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Give me some insight on Darrin Strey. Is this guy a get?
Posted by epbart on 1/13/26 at 11:23 am to Louisianabound88
Upvote... because you made me re-read my post and I did write that like an AI. I got a chuckle out of that. But I can assure you I'm just wordy.
:geauxtigers:
:geauxtigers:
0
If you meant to ask if Strey is expected to be an impact player vs a get (since he's signed), then I think from the answer is he's not a surefire starter / impact player the way everyone projected Braelin Moore to be when he transferred to LSU.
A thread from yesterday suggested he was a mauler, but also that he didn't make an impact on UK's line this past year. Based solely on that, he's not a proven asset at this level yet.
That being said, since LSU hired UK's OL coach, Eric Wolford, and he got to see Strey practice everyday, that's a good sign. I have to imagine Kiffin discussed Strey's potential with Wolford before they signed him. He was, after all, only a freshman.
A thread from yesterday suggested he was a mauler, but also that he didn't make an impact on UK's line this past year. Based solely on that, he's not a proven asset at this level yet.
That being said, since LSU hired UK's OL coach, Eric Wolford, and he got to see Strey practice everyday, that's a good sign. I have to imagine Kiffin discussed Strey's potential with Wolford before they signed him. He was, after all, only a freshman.
re: Boys Clemson gonna come to town
Posted by epbart on 1/12/26 at 12:42 pm to JimTiger72
quote:
#LanePlane
re: Is This True About The Deep State?
Posted by epbart on 1/12/26 at 8:29 am to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
The lesson here is that the UniParty® exists to perpetuate the Deep State and the Deep State exists to perpetuate our nation’s print-on-demand monetary system. The current crisis continues until we return to sound monetary policies.
If one wants to really explore the potential conspiratorial depths of this, then it becomes interesting to know:
Senator Nelson Aldrich was one of the members of The Creature from Jekyll Island crew, and was the lead legislator who guided the drafting the of the legislation that created the Federal Reserve.
quote:
He worked with several key bankers and economists, including Paul Warburg, Abram Andrew, Frank A. Vanderlip, and Henry Davison, to design a plan for an American central bank in 1911. This work included a trip to Jekyll Island in 1910 to finalize the details of the federal reserve banking plan.[13] In 1913 Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Federal Reserve Act patterned after Aldrich's vision, creating the modern Federal Reserve System.
wiki
Senator Aldrich's daughter, Abigail, went on to marry John D. Rockefeller, Jr, whose children include Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller (who I mentioned already for his role in helping create the entrenched bureaucracy) and David Rockefeller (who aside from his already mentioned CIA ties, influence peddling through Kissinger, and acting as head of the CFR, also ran Chase National Bank (which became Chase Manhattan, then part of JPMC).
I'm straying off into my own opinions here, and haven't read anything to support this, but it seems interesting to observe how Nelson & David successfully leveraged their oil fortune into very deep tentacles in politics and finance to the point that the current Rockefeller generation can politically be somewhat anti-big oil and pro-green energy. Since the Fed is opaque and legally protected from audit, it is definitely interesting to wonder how it might be organized, who benefits and how.
Also, considering some of G Edward Griffin's allegations in The Creature from Jekyll Island (IIRC):
- that the Chair of the Fed is something of a ceremonial position, created to give the illusion that the government has control (when the cartel really makes the decisions)
- that the Chair is picked from a pool of pre-approved candidates (by the Fed cartel)
I can't help but wonder about the current tension between Trump and Powell. With the Rockefeller family having blood ties to the creation of the Fed, and having open (not conspiratorial) ties to orgs like the UN, WHO, CFR, etc. that have bled the wealth of the US, I can't help but wonder if Powell-- however independent he may claim to be-- isn't under the influence of those Rockefeller / neocon elements who do not want Trump to succeed-- especially not at the expense of the grift machine they've created. I know there are arguments for interest rates being legitimately too low (arguable), but to the extent Trump is acting against the machine, I simply see it is unlikely the Fed would lower rates to help a Trump to strengthen the US if its going to hurt their hidden globalist agenda.
... just some stray thoughts that have bounced around in my head that align to your assertion that the Deep State exists to perpetuate the print-on-demand money system. I mean, raking in interest ($400 billion a year or more or whatever it is at this point?) off the government debt created from fabricated money to support the agendas that they create for the government to spend on... which is also a profit center for them since they own at least a share of whatever corporate holdings benefit from government spending AND some of their NGO's receive government money... that's a helluva grift.
re: Meet force with force. Untie law enforcement officers hands.
Posted by epbart on 1/12/26 at 7:24 am to TigerPlate
quote:
Peaceful protest is protected under the Constitution. Blocking roads, throwing objects, ramming vehicles, putting hands on a officer is not.
I might be wrong but think some jurisdictions might make legal distinctions between protestors and rioters, which I would generally describe as spontaneous, mindless violence that arises from some protests. Perhaps the violent acts of rioting are simply charged based on the illegal activity itself: looting, assault, arson, etc. without the riot element itself necessarily making the charges worse. Not sure.
I would think the ongoing intentional harassment and intimidation tactics element these leftists are engaging in should be regarded differently. If you look up the definition of terrorism, it includes the word intimidation, which made it reasonable for Noem to say Good was engaging in domestic terrorism by following the agents around and harassing them, then attempting to run one over. I admit, though, that it would seem heavy-handed to call some dope following an ICE agent a terrorist. There should perhaps be a push to decide what charges are fair for this type of harassment/impeding/stalking activity, a strong PR / PSA effort to inform the public and a consistent enforcement.
re: What is the Democratic Party platform
Posted by epbart on 1/11/26 at 10:55 pm to DyeHardDylan
The Dem party significantly changed during Obama’s terms.
The progressive faction was always under the Dem tent, but it has taken center stage now and seems to be their primary platform. Anything too moderate bleeds into something Trump might support.
I only wonder, if Hillary had won, if the progressive element would would have been able to remain a little more in the shadows and not revealed it self as forcefully as it has. Trump seems to have somewhat derailed the original agenda 2030... not that we're at all out of the woods.
The progressive faction was always under the Dem tent, but it has taken center stage now and seems to be their primary platform. Anything too moderate bleeds into something Trump might support.
I only wonder, if Hillary had won, if the progressive element would would have been able to remain a little more in the shadows and not revealed it self as forcefully as it has. Trump seems to have somewhat derailed the original agenda 2030... not that we're at all out of the woods.
re: Shattered my calcaneus today. AMA
Posted by epbart on 1/11/26 at 10:13 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
If you cant walk on your own in 4 hours, we're going to have to put you down.
#Notpersonal
This gave me a vision of the old Chris Hansen To Catch A Predator gif where he emerges around a corner... except it was Christy Noem with a shotgun.
quote:
Is mandummi trying to sieze private property? ...
What the heck is he attempting to do?
Such ideas must necessarily advance incrementally...
I know he wants to hike property taxes in primarily white neighborhoods. I think he'll have to get city council support on that. Not really sure what is required to pass local taxes vs state level, etc. The council has tended to be progressive which should help his agenda... it was aligned with DeBlasio and was antagonistic with Adams, but the new Jewish lady who runs it now may be something of a foil or counter to Mamdani... though that remains to be seen.
I've also heard snippets about how if Mamdami were to succeed with his plans of higher taxes and whatever else that might force people to lose or sell real estate assets, then certain entities or groups who are aligned to his vision might be well positioned to snap them up as preferred / approved vendors or investors... something like that. And if so, this (his favored cronies taking ownership under the pretense of being non-profit orgs or similar with the publicly gracious intentions of providing low cost housing) would be a way of making it seem like he is achieving the progressive goal of getting rid of traditional private property ownership and helping the little guy when he would really just be facilitating transfer of ownership to allies.
The above point is of course just scuttlebutt and unverified. More of an interesting perspective of how he might try it than anything else at this point.
re: Is This True About The Deep State?
Posted by epbart on 1/11/26 at 4:02 pm to Mikes My Tiger
That gif is a bit odd for a reply and doesn't dismiss the general premise of my reply to you:
Toomer's contention that Trump's 2nd admin has been hijacked by parts of the Deep State that he makes further down on page 1 (there is a case for that) is a more plausible way of trying to tie Trump himself to the Deep State. Otherwise, your post was simplistic.
quote:
Technically, Trump is in the Deep State since he formally sits at the head of it as the lead executive. Being part of it in this way does not mean he is part of it in the context of having the same agenda they do... Clearly, for anyone with an IQ above room temperature, Trump is at odds with much of the entrenched bureaucracy.
Toomer's contention that Trump's 2nd admin has been hijacked by parts of the Deep State that he makes further down on page 1 (there is a case for that) is a more plausible way of trying to tie Trump himself to the Deep State. Otherwise, your post was simplistic.
re: Is This True About The Deep State?
Posted by epbart on 1/11/26 at 3:23 pm to Toomer Deplorable
To Larry McDonald, RIP... :cheers:
re: Is This True About The Deep State?
Posted by epbart on 1/11/26 at 3:20 pm to Mikes My Tiger
quote:
It's pretty hilarious that a lot of yall believe that:
1. The Deep State exists
2. But guys like Trump & Musk aren't apart of it
Musk is the richest man in the world and Trump is the single most powerful man in the world but they constantly get out-maneuvered by more powerful billionaires? Maybe yall should listen to those guys then.
1. There is a deep state to the extent certain elements / powerful groups have influenced what voices get promoted within both the R and D parties. Over time, they've filled in positions in government, and at certain elitist universities from which they recruit new talent, etc.
The system of elections has suited them well enough so long as their people get in. Notice how waves of messaging that the system itself is broken became amplified when a total outsider (Trump) pulled off the upset over Hillary. Notice how much of the Republican party (Ryan, McConnell, others) sabotaged Trump at nearly every turn.
The Deep State simply underestimated Trump's ability to be elected and to manage narratives. It doesn't help them that they overplayed their hand with terrible candidates (Kamala in particular).
2. Trump and Musk have operated alongside the Deep State for different reasons. Trump was useful so long as he was writing checks. I seem to recall at least one anecdote where Senator Gillibrand (D) in NY was more than happy to kiss Trump's arse when she wanted him to write her a check... well before he ran for President. Now, he's anathema to her. Musk was successful with PayPal and Tesla, but his SpaceX efforts in particular made him useful to the IC. So what.
Technically, Trump is in the Deep State since he formally sits at the head of it as the lead executive. Being part of it in this way does not mean he is part of it in the context of having the same agenda they do... Clearly, for anyone with an IQ above room temperature, Trump is at odds with much of the entrenched bureaucracy.
It's really not that hard to understand.
re: I have a question about the ICE shooting
Posted by epbart on 1/11/26 at 2:46 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
I think it was reported they were headed back to headquarters and stopped to help a car stuck in snow and the protestors descended upon them.
I saw reporting to this end, too.
re: Love it or Leavitt…
Posted by epbart on 1/11/26 at 2:43 pm to tigertracts
quote:
We don’t lose 7 million dollars a year to just make the tournament. They need to win or money could go elsewhere.
This talking point is dubious, though it exists for a reason.
Without looking at the books, I have to assume it's typical Hollywood accounting. In the same way studios have a number of subsidiaries and shell corporations, some of which own sets, equipment, etc, and whatever else, through which studios filter movie expenses until a profitable movie appears to be a loss on paper for tax purposes, the same is true in other contexts. If the owner of say MSG owns a WNBA team, and charges that team a high fee to pay in MSG, they create a loss for their WNBA asset which benefits them on paper and perhaps otherwise.
In short, that -7M may not be what it appears.
Enjoy the rest of the game.
:geauxtigers:
re: Is This True About The Deep State?
Posted by epbart on 1/11/26 at 1:47 pm to Toomer Deplorable
Interesting read.
There are definitely some complexities beyond the scope of this thread that implicate the West in allowing the USSR to become the monster that it became. But the USSR v US/West Cold War really did set up the stage for what the article describes.
Reading this, I'm also reminded me of something in William Cooper's Behold A Pale Horse.
Disclaimer: Of course, everything Bill Cooper said must be taken with a grain of salt... He was Alex Jones before Alex Jones.
I recall a part towards the beginning of the book (before he goes all in on aliens) where Cooper has a chapter devoted to the Executive Branch continuity plans for Cold War threat contingencies as part of the creation of the Deep State. Eisenhower, who Cooper alleges was either socially close or somehow connected to the Rockefeller's, turned towards them (to Nelson, I think... I'm just posting this off the top of my head without research and welcome any corrections) for assistance in developing those continuity plans. I think this wikipedia entry describe this committee / effort, and it looks innocent enough in this context:
wiki
Cooper, of course, contends that it led to the entrenched, parasitic bureaucracy, which became a feature of the Deep State.
The Rockefeller family is only briefly alluded to in your article here:
But I think when you look at their contributions that influenced the government across the board, a pattern emerges:
- What was their role in helping set up the administrative state during the Eisenhower admin?
- What was their role in the formation of groups like the UN and WHO?
- the CFR and Trilateral Commission?
- What was the influence that Rockefeller had over Nixon? Per Cooper's book, Nixon was more of a true conservative from California, who was taken under the Rockefeller wing. He later accepted David Rockefeller's protege, Kissinger, who played a pretty huge role in opening the door to China (which has benefited Rockefeller, Wall Street, and international interests (UN/WHO... unironically founded by the Rockefellers as well) at the expense of Main Street and a financially healthy US). Nixon also implemented some rather leftist social policies, which I suspect was a result of Kissinger/Rockefeller associations.
- David Rockefeller was close to Allen Dulles and was allegedly briefed on CIA matters routinely:
wiki
(Note: In the interest of time, I'm using Wikipedia, which is a general & neutral, if not left-leaning, source, which is sufficient... and it has footnotes/citations for anyone interested in digging further.)
My overall point is that it is interesting to consider some of the above as supplementary information to your article. I think the "synthetic" conservatism described here is essentially the same as neocon "Rockefeller" Republicanism.
There are definitely some complexities beyond the scope of this thread that implicate the West in allowing the USSR to become the monster that it became. But the USSR v US/West Cold War really did set up the stage for what the article describes.
Reading this, I'm also reminded me of something in William Cooper's Behold A Pale Horse.
Disclaimer: Of course, everything Bill Cooper said must be taken with a grain of salt... He was Alex Jones before Alex Jones.
I recall a part towards the beginning of the book (before he goes all in on aliens) where Cooper has a chapter devoted to the Executive Branch continuity plans for Cold War threat contingencies as part of the creation of the Deep State. Eisenhower, who Cooper alleges was either socially close or somehow connected to the Rockefeller's, turned towards them (to Nelson, I think... I'm just posting this off the top of my head without research and welcome any corrections) for assistance in developing those continuity plans. I think this wikipedia entry describe this committee / effort, and it looks innocent enough in this context:
wiki
Cooper, of course, contends that it led to the entrenched, parasitic bureaucracy, which became a feature of the Deep State.
The Rockefeller family is only briefly alluded to in your article here:
quote:
The populist grassroots masses of the Old Right were opposed in several GOP presidential elections (1936-1952) by the anglophile northeastern seaboard establishment forces within the nexus of the Morgan and Rockefeller Wall Street financial blocs.
But I think when you look at their contributions that influenced the government across the board, a pattern emerges:
- What was their role in helping set up the administrative state during the Eisenhower admin?
- What was their role in the formation of groups like the UN and WHO?
- the CFR and Trilateral Commission?
- What was the influence that Rockefeller had over Nixon? Per Cooper's book, Nixon was more of a true conservative from California, who was taken under the Rockefeller wing. He later accepted David Rockefeller's protege, Kissinger, who played a pretty huge role in opening the door to China (which has benefited Rockefeller, Wall Street, and international interests (UN/WHO... unironically founded by the Rockefellers as well) at the expense of Main Street and a financially healthy US). Nixon also implemented some rather leftist social policies, which I suspect was a result of Kissinger/Rockefeller associations.
- David Rockefeller was close to Allen Dulles and was allegedly briefed on CIA matters routinely:
quote:
In Cary Reich's biography of his brother Nelson, a former CIA agent states that David was extensively briefed on covert intelligence operations by himself and other Agency division chiefs, under the direction of David's "friend and confidant", CIA director Allen Dulles
wiki
(Note: In the interest of time, I'm using Wikipedia, which is a general & neutral, if not left-leaning, source, which is sufficient... and it has footnotes/citations for anyone interested in digging further.)
My overall point is that it is interesting to consider some of the above as supplementary information to your article. I think the "synthetic" conservatism described here is essentially the same as neocon "Rockefeller" Republicanism.
re: In 2020, Walz signed a law allowing an officer to protect themselves against vehicles
Posted by epbart on 1/11/26 at 11:31 am to SuperSaint
quote:
What do you personally believe the ‘intent’ of the driver was in this situation?
There are different lenses one can apply to this.
What do I think her actual intent was?
In a way, I think she panicked and based on whatever the officers were saying (not sure, but possibly they were telling her to get out of the car), she decided to try to get away.
But in another context, I think she decided to abruptly accelerate through a spot where an officer was standing. Whether her intent was to specifically hit him and murder him or to more innocently hope he moved out of the way in time, it doesn't matter. She abruptly accelerated, endangered the officer's life and put him in the position to consider her a threat. This is a little bit similar to how a drowning person might act irrationally and attack a person trying to save them... with regards to her mental state. But again, it doesn't matter. Her mental state doesn't invalidate the officer's right to protect his life. if you charge an armed officer with a knife or a car, you give him the justification to consider you a threat-- whether you're trying to kill him, whether you're trying to escape, or whether you're sleep-walking / driving and confuse him with a parking spot.
re: Dylan Raiola
Posted by epbart on 1/9/26 at 9:02 am to JakeFromStateFarm
quote:
Because he’s cosplaying as Patrick Mahomes
quote:
by JakeFromStateFarm
How fitting
re: Don’t give a ____, if you think I’ve been blackpllled.
Posted by epbart on 1/9/26 at 8:08 am to over_under
quote:
But checks and balances have their place in our government.
The glass is: [ ] half empty [ x] half full
The legislative branch is rotten to the core on both sides and controlled by monied interests.
The judicial branch harbors countless activists that are concerned with power, not justice.
Currently, the executive branch is the only one operating (however imperfectly) in the interest of the welfare of the US and its citizens, and not the bloated system itself. I, for one, am glad the executive branch is throwing its weight around to check and balance the corruption in the other two.
re: Why are liberal white women such an unhinged segment of the population?
Posted by epbart on 1/8/26 at 12:19 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
White people have a propensity towards falling for gaslighting and psyops. But that is equally distributed among pretty much all definable demographics. Women are biologically programmed to be ruled by emotion and compassion. That's the estrogen effect. Men are programmed to be ruled by decisive action and logic. That's the testosterone effect.
I just cited the following X account in another thread, but he had a post that covers this idea in a pithy way:
"Leftists use pathos to overide logos in order to push their activism. The "pity play" is a common form of this."
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. The logos is more traditionally associated with the masculine while pathos tends to have a more feminine connotation.
In an ideal world, there is a balance between mind and heart / between logos and pathos. Justice (logos) should have an appropriate level of compassion (pathos) for those it governs... but to abandon logos as the Left wants to do is the error. What they really want to do is tear down Truth and Justice (destroy Logos) in order to construct a false tower of sorts (cue Tower of Babble analogy) in which they rule.
In another context, last year I listened to Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World, and I recall (somewhat fuzzily at this point) him going on about male / Uranian / solar societies of the North which seem to align to an emphasis on logos, and how he contrasted them with what he considered corrosive feminine / chthonic (earthy, mob-driven, subconsciously oriented) / lunar societies of the South which seem driven by pathos much like today's Left. It seems applicable, but beyond pointing at the idea, I don't recall the relevant details well enough to express them here.
re: Excellent history of neoconservatism
Posted by epbart on 1/8/26 at 11:55 am to scottydoesntknow
I bookmarked the video to hopefully watch later this week.
I've only seen a snippet or two of Fuentes and his opinions, and know nothing about his opinions of neoconservatism.
That being said, I read the following X post a couple days ago and found it thought provoking, so will throw it into the mix if you or anyone else has opinions on it... whether it supports or conlficts with Fuentes, etc.
I've only seen a snippet or two of Fuentes and his opinions, and know nothing about his opinions of neoconservatism.
That being said, I read the following X post a couple days ago and found it thought provoking, so will throw it into the mix if you or anyone else has opinions on it... whether it supports or conlficts with Fuentes, etc.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.re: "Protests" Planned
Posted by epbart on 1/8/26 at 11:32 am to theballguy
quote:
They've thought this for some time but it very rarely works if ever. The point I was making is that what they're doing now is just futile.
...
Like I say, I'm always open to hearing any side. The way things work in this country (not "should", not "supposed to") is that we're a republic. Once someone gets in and wins, they get to introduce (and probably pass) their agenda.
If you want your group to have some control over agenda and policy in this country, you ultimately have to win elections and get into office as a starting point.
So, if you want to change things and get in, you'll have to win the vote. Start by convincing me of your points. These people have no logical points to make really. As such, they won't be winning much in the near future.
I partially agree. I very much agree "these people" have no logical points by which they might legitimately win elections. That being said, the 2020 election suggests it may not be that simple.
If you believe the 2020 election was fairly run in GA, PA, AZ, etc. then you are correct that we live in a republic and things run well.
If, however, you are suspicious of the results of the 2020 election results and think there was a steal (I do), then the combination of the covid narrative plus the George Floyd protests created an environment where the Dems, media, IC, etc. were able to seize the narrative and push enough voters to reject Trump in favor of Biden, as well as to create enough cover to fabricate the votes they needed in order to circumvent the fair running of the republic.
Even if you don't think votes were fabricated, this still speaks to the effectiveness of the narrative and the George Floyd protests-- much of which was organized by the aforementioned NGO's, but which also drew support from mindless NPC sorts.
It would therefore seem that the Dems/Marxists absolutely benefited from the protests, and succeeded in making people discount any progress Trump was otherwise making.
I didn't have the time earlier to post an add-on thought that I had... It isn't really addressed to you and isn't contesting what you say (I'd like to generally agree with you in principle); it's just more of a continuing thought as to why some protesters bother to do what they do (the ones that don't get paid). Since I had it half-typed, I'll finish and paste below:
........
My previous post summed up the issue of the false narrative and how it's used by the left to gain power. This post pertains largely to "organic"/ genuine protestors.
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that many people are experiencing a crisis of meaning these days. Life has always been hard in one way or another. Under hard circumstances, people traditionally have leaned on their identity for strength:
... I'm a man
... I'm a mother (or an independent woman)
... I'm a country boy / baw / from the streets
... I'm a Christian
... I'm an American
Etc...
Now, many of these identities are under attack. To be an American in a traditional sense is looked down upon by the left, the media, universities, and in many high paying workplaces. To take pride in being a capable man (especially a white one) is contemptible in these same circles. What even is a man or woman?! This confusion creates circumstances where young people searching for their identity and their place in the world are more easily swept up in the zeitgeist of any movement. Becoming a protestor and part of a movement-- however stupid-- gives them meaning and a place to belong... even if they're just sky screaming irrationally.
The insidious part of this is that the same people running the NGOs who fund and organize these protests are part of the same groups who have demonized the legitimate identities many of these young people might have leaned into for strength... going back to the Frankfurt school and cultural marxists like Gramsci, who observed that they needed to destroy the identity and will of any country before its people would accept Marxism.
In short, the Marxists corrupt the system to destroy healthy meaning and identity. Then they encourage participation by the youth and give them a false identity of sorts as part of their mob. Part of the effectiveness of this strategy is that it is very easy to show up with a sign and scream. It takes no intelligence or ability. But it is very apparent in watching some protestors that they feel a high level of satisfaction in abandoning any sense of true identity and just becoming part of the mindless mob. They need no discipline to do so (as they might if crafting a true identity) and are rewarded with the smug satisfaction of being able to call themselves something (a progressive, an advocate for this and that) when they may not even understand what they're standing for.
To the question of why people bother, the above idea is the issue. The fact that any given protestor accomplishes little means doesn't matter to them. They "feel" like they've acquired meaning and done something even if they haven't. It gives them a false sense that they have power, when really they're just pawns for the people who control the mob and to whom they actually give their power.
The antidote is of course supporting strong institutions (church, family, workplaces, schools, etc) where ethics and virtue are valued. If kids are supported in being disciplined and working towards creating authentic identities that cultivate their strengths and that give them a genuine identity to lean on during hard times, they will be less likely to become a marxist NPC, who will merely show up to be outraged at the next thing they're told to by their NGO / Marxist puppet masters... This would be the... I think Mamdami called it "cold" individualism (I think in an effort to avoid calling it "rugged" or some other descriptor of strength) that he wants to destroy in favor of his "warm" (read: stupid, weak) embrace of collectivism.
Popular
9
