ENOUGH.
I'm just DONE.
My last word on the subject:
Nothing more satisfying than being called a "brainwashed cultist" fed by "fake news" by people who two threads later are posting debunked AI images or selectively and deceptively edited videos of the topic in question.
Except maybe being called a "bootlicker" when I carry SCARS from police beatings at anti-government demonstrations that happened before they were BORN. That's right, youngster. Ive got SCARS older than you. Put there by cops that have long since RETIRED.
I was on the ground at the 92 RNC in Houston, "raging against the machine" of the Bush the Elder regime. Damned near run down on horseback in front of the Astrodome. I was at Waco four times during the siege. Had my life threatened by ATF agents with MP5s for JOKING. Dragged from my vehicle and faceplanted into the Texas asphalt. Punched. Kicked. Roughed up.
But now, because after reflection and examination, I support a Federal policy on its own merits while still calling out bad actors in its enforcement, because I say "that shooting COULD have been avoided" im 'betraying law enforcement' and because I say 'these people's actions were A (not THE) factor in their death and 'these operations are legal and necessary' i'm simultaneously a "bootlicker".
What delightful DoubleThink, Winston. PlusGood. Your Goodthink makes me Bellyfeel.
The current situation is GREIVOUS. TRAGIC. ABHORRENT. On every conceivable front. If you are "ALL IN" or "ALL OUT", on EITHER end of the political spectrum, you are not only intellectually LAZY but intellectually DISHONEST. Just because nuance is dead doesn't mean that your critical thought process has to join it in the GRAVE.
The fact that I don't see things in ideological lockstep with you does NOT, of necessity, mean that I didn't come to those conclusions honestly, and of my own accord, with facts and information of which you may not be even AWARE. And it CERTAINLY does not mean that you are right and I am wrong, regardless of your sanctimonious, performative moralizing.
Consider, if even for a MOMENT, that maybe, just MAYBE, I have more information, knowledge, and experience at my disposal, and CERTAINLY more of a Constitutional acumen.
Before you throw out pejoratives like "Bootlicker" and "Fake Christian", take nine seconds and ask yourself when the last time was that you read either the Constitution OR the Bible. If the answer wasn't "this morning"? STIFLE. And STAY IN YOUR LANE.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-The Rev
Didn't expect such a powerful read today, but you truely hit the nail on the head about the doublethink and the scars. How do we even begin to debug a public discourse that's so consistently broken?
I was thinking about this and for the most part am going to keep my opinions to myself, But I did have a conversation with LLM about this topic and had it put this together for me contrasting current events with history that most folks today didn;t get taught -- I don't agree with all of it, but there is some food for thought -- Classic Anarchism vs. Modern “Anarchism”
Constraint, Consequence, and the NGO Era
Executive Summary (TL;DR)
Classic anarchism (≈1860s–1914) was a grassroots, theory-driven movement operating under high friction and real consequences. Ideas spread slowly, leaders were exposed, and failure corrected itself through reality. What is often labeled “anarchism” today is largely astroturfed negation embedded in an NGO–media ecosystem. It operates legally, but with weak feedback: narratives are shaped from above, costs fall below, and failure is reframed rather than corrected. The difference is not ideology; it is constraint.
Classic Anarchism (≈1860s–1914)
Classic anarchism was a largely grassroots, theory-driven movement led by identifiable figures who argued openly about end states, replacement social structures, and tactics. Think Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, and Malatesta: writers and organizers whose influence spread through books, pamphlets, lectures, newspapers, and unions under conditions of high friction.
Funding was local and limited; communication was slow; leadership was exposed to repression and internal challenge. When ideas failed, they did so through arrest, exile, factional collapse, or violent repression, and the people advocating them paid the price directly. Bad ideas certainly circulated, but they were harder to amplify and tended to collapse faster because material reality enforced correction. Even when anarchists were wrong or violent, risk, responsibility, and ideology were tightly coupled, filtering participation and forcing continual confrontation with outcomes.
Modern “Anarchism” (≈2010s–present)
What passes for “anarchism” today is largely astroturfed negation, operating inside a professional NGO, media, and platform ecosystem rather than as a bottom-up political theory. Many NGOs exhibit systemic features that resemble organized extraction and insulation from consequence, while operating entirely within legal nonprofit and political structures rather than criminal ones.
Paid organizers, foundation-backed institutions, and remote influencers shape narratives and apply pressure, while street-level participants disproportionately absorb arrest, injury, reputational damage, and long-term personal cost. Participants typically have little coherent understanding of an end goal or a workable theory of replacement; action is driven more by reaction, identity, and moral signaling than by strategy. Failure no longer discredits ideas quickly; it is often reframed as moral validation, media content, or justification for further funding.
The Core Contrast
The contrast is not ideology but constraint. Then, friction enforced learning and accountability. Now, its absence allows weak ideas to persist, delays correction, and converts participants into expendable inputs. Classic anarchism was often wrong—but reality-trained. The modern version is often insulated—until someone else pays the bill.
High-friction systems correct themselves brutally but quickly. Low-friction systems feel humane—until correction is deferred and damage compounds. The problem is not dissent; it is dissent without constraint.