Thursday, November 12, 2020

The Riots Were For Fraud

I was fairly puzzled by the riots. Why riot in cities you already own? Isn't that counterproductive?

I get it now. I knew in 2016 they were planning to fraud the hell out of this election, and they did too. The riots were a preview of what would happen should these cities not fall into ideological lockstep on the post-fraud gaslighting. 

By the way.
Remember when multiple states paused counting state-wide all at the same time or thereabouts? If you don't think there's an orchestrator for these things, you have brain damage. 

Antifa is protesting Trump's lawyers. Just in case anyone thought the Enemy might win in the courts.
Broke: intimidating the witnesses.
Woke: intimidating the witnesses' lawyers.
Again, orchestrator. Again, orchestrator isn't an idiot, unlike their poor minions. The orchestrator planned for their minions to be idiots, but the e-right didn't plan on the orchestrator not being an idiot. Pwned. The inelectronic right, meanwhile, was never right at all. The term [outer party] is exactly apt. America is a one-party Communist state. (It would be great if someone could properly explain why the outer party is so content with staying out in the cold. That's some impressive submission technology. Are they all masochists?) 

Don't forget they could have foregone deep-sixing their own elections if they could manage to wait four years. Term limits are a bitch, but unfortunately they employed too many panicky morons. There's only so much you can control when your position's responsibility is fully laundered.

1 comment:

parisian said...

Ah, well, I see. Maybe politics really is everything. Or the most important thing. Everything else is either subsumed and bolsters it, or it doesn't really even exist. Or maybe politics is the outer expression of philosophy, which, at least, is important, or maybe even the most profoundly important, although science along with it tell us what is the most important.

I've talked to the furthest left people I could find and NRx is the furthest right, isn't it? I don't know if there's another that says 'no enemies to the right'. I did notice that at UR, both extremists and what, for lack of a better word, were more 'centrist', are allowed to speak. As far as I can tell, that goes for Ron Unz and Steve Sailer, but definitely the latter. Several of the writers there are saying what you are saying, or a version of it. Of course, you don't have a 'shill test' or a 'red-pill test' like Jim does, or whichever one is the 'woman test' he's got that says "Spandrell is red-pilled about women", something like that, so one just reads you. I can neither agree nor argue against. As an extreme outlier, I also could only say things that are of less than little consequence, even ones that support your claims.

I talked for some years to an extreme Communist, a wealthy New Yorkaise who spent several thousand dollars a year on opera when she moved to Paris after her parents died--but she could not stay with the subject of opera for any length of time. It had to get back to 'Marxist revolutionary politics'. The rest you can fill in, or rather, you already have, as having made a commitment to what you see as the only alternative for you, and maybe it is. It's possible that you would think I just don't know enough to fully embrace NRx, BLM, or antifa, or anything in-between. In that case, I would still probably try to go on living. I'd 'go on with my day'.

One thing I can definitely be sure of is that the fight for the election goes on as of this writing. Anything I might not agree with you on, you could say that I was 'just disagreeing with facts'--and had no evidence for what I was claiming. So I only claim that there is the March of Time and time will tell who gets to say "I rule because I can, suck it". About the election, you are sure you know about this one and the 2016 one, and all the rest. I don't, so maybe the courts this, maybe the courts that. You have a lot of readers, I'm sure, and some know you're very good at figuring out things, as the Dividualist, who comes calling from time to time.

I do know that Andrew Lloyd Webber is his favourite composer, or one of them, and well before and after Lloyd Webber had an apartment in the Trump tower. He has "Music of the Night" from Phantom of the Opera and "Memory" from Cats played at his rallied, and says that Evita is his favourite show, "saw it 6 times, mostly with Ivana." Evita was also Margaret Thatcher's favourite show and she wrote “If we apply the same perfection and creativeness to our message, we should provide quite good historic material for an opera called ‘Margaret’ in 30 years time,” Thatcher wrote. I have always admired Thatcher, but her assessment of Evita as 'perfect' does not even merit debate by those who don't see music (or any other of the arts) as purely a political instrument (although she wasn't really talking about the music, just the 'book' of the show.) I have never seen a Lloyd Webber show throughout many years in New York and having seen many shows, but I did watch the film versions of Phantom and Evita.