BlueOak

Depends if you want to lose again or not. If you do want to lose, stick with the status quo, non-populist approach. This does terribly in a time when people are economically suffering and want a change candidate. Remember Obama CHANGE, he used to say that every 5 seconds - Now you could brand yourself as a change to Trump, seeing as he's a raving authoritarian lunatic but it's not as powerful, as the anti-Trump message just won't land with a lot of people currently. If no you want to win and break the status quo, then you have an issue of actually swinging the pendulum left again. You've been heading right for 20 years, so its about time. It does come with some instability itself, but it's popular. If the economy starts doing well, then the change candidate doesn't work as well. In a fascist state however, the left tends to be more popular, which is what Kyle highlights.

Multiparty systems where I live do not suffer from the same degree of polarisations or succumb to authoritarian influence as easily, because either someone just starts a new party or one of the existing ones rises up. The upheaval comes because authoritarian values are being forced upon a population that doesn't want them and worse has a lot of minorities that require representationn. The dual system in America alongside its corporate nature, is vulnerable to one party being bought out. The horrific thing is, America is forced to do not only a regime change but also start deporting people to fit this new authoritarian mold. So no I won't be appreciating this change any time soon. We've lost an ally, and i've seen a country I once respected slide back 50 years.

I'll go with the data on this one. It's better than my own personal experience or yours. America is sliding more into suppression and racism, yes. People are self-interested, yes, and a percentage are racist to achieve it. The difference again is in a democracy, the minorities by necessity and design are represented, while in an autocracy, it's entirely optional and often designed to suppress them. Racism doesn't evaporate, but it is addressed by design. What an individual sees himself as, I have no control over. I only have control over my own perception. We use labels as a means of identifying something for the purposes of conversation and cooperation. I could list the themes of fascism and links for them, but as you don't like links, labels, or examples, we cannot have a common ground. We might as well be yelling random words at each other. That's why common definitions and labels exist.

Disabled protesters were zip-tied in the capital, protesting their medical aid being cut. Comical fascism-level of suppression this. Utterly nonsensical. *Something we see fairly often he says. - Well in that case he lives in a cartoon. I have never in my 40+ years of life seen a disabled protester be handcuffed by police, anywhere. But this is normalized now in the states, and its why I picked a random news network, not Kyle's original video.

Oh and your examples of 'propaganda' are belief systems which differ from yours. Reinforced by the society, education, institutions, etc, of those countries. Ditto every country on earth.

Animal Same Sex Statistics and percentage examples https://www.thoughtco.com/homosexuality-in-animals-4164365 https://blog.animalogic.ca/wild/why-do-some-animals-exhibit-homosexual-behaviour - Along with some extended reasoning of why. I'd say 15% is the extreme certainly, but in my opinion it largely depends on the acceptance of homosexuality as to how honest people are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation 15% in San Francisco for example, where it is widely accepted. This rise in homosexuality that people talk about is down to two things. The natural drives of the species over generations, food/available mates, and the ability to be honest safely. More democratic countries strive for equality; they have to because that's how their governments remain legitimised, which requires the inclusion of many minorities for stability https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu After Trump's recent policies, i'd put America further down this list above. Into a more authoritarian rating. Directly related to their treatment of minorities. Black people are still a minority in America, not a small one granted. 14.4% according to this: https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/fact-sheet/facts-about-the-us-black-population/ No country is a perfect democracy, certainly, and America has been sliding into fascism for many years now. They do not treat brown people like 'animals' in England. There is certainly racism, but the push for equality and/or meritocracy is what sets these countries apart. The very fact we are talking about the pushback against racism or gender inequality in democracies is the point I am making. It exists; I can point to examples of it on mass. Whereas in authoritarian regimes, this is much more suppressed. You are welcome to your opinion on authoritarian countries. Every example I see of them is horrific. They've done nothing these last years but reinforce this belief.

Part of my hatred toward the current state of the world is the autocracies are trying to do what America did to them, impose their own values over countries which are not them. Regime change in reverse. I hated America for doing it. I hate Israel now for doing it. I hate China, Russia and BRICS generally for doing it.

Where on earth have I said any of that? Uncharacteristically, I've said very little in these posts so far. 1, I loathe the term: 'The West' on a personal level, even more so in this context, as laws are specific to each country and often region within those countries. I use the term 'the west' as others like to, and it saves time. However, you are twice wrong here, as there are international laws on human rights, but I digress. 2, As I am not sure how you intend to prove or disprove the superiority of a person, and frankly don't want to find out. Let's look at the superiority of a law instead, if you want to go down that road. I didn't, I was merely stating you were wrong, but let's take a minute. Given laws are based upon the populations they apply to, and enforced by the state which governs them, they have to best represent that population, while being actionable by the state. In as in as much as a law can be considered superior to another law from a different country, those are the metrics i'd use. Your assumption that 0.1% of the population is gay is simply untrue. Generally, the level of homosexuality in a population of mammals naturally rises and falls with the availability of breeding partners and level of food, while we can and do override nature in many ways, what I am implying is its dynamic. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/lgbtq-population-by-country You are looking anywhere from 5-15%, which is within norms to my understanding, though I can cite specific scientific examples if we need more clarity. So these laws you are referring to need to account for 5-15% of the population, and in western countries that lean toward equality, or at least meritocracy, rather than hierarchy, the laws are naturally structured to better fit minority inclusion. In an autocracy, laws on equality and human rights are diminished as individual people matter less, their vote or opinion matters less, the stability of those countries is reinforced by having less equality, and suppression is very high, whereas in a democracy, it's the opposite.

This was teals take on it: I also want to say here that she dispels my main assumption that people could be in a world war but not know it.

All laws are man made. Society is man made. Most of the world you interact with is man made.

This is incorrect. Human rights: UK: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents USA: https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-hrsp/file/1002896/dl Women's Rights: UK: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/22/crossheading/protection-of-women USA: This is an ongoing fight since the 60's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States) International Law: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-and-mechanisms/international-human-rights-law

I am happy to say, while socialism is naturally expected when fascism rises, its been suppressed so much I didn't see this coming. I keep saying there'll be a big swing one day, and there will be, because people have pushed us so far authoritarian right, it's nice to see light at the end of the tunnel for when the pendulum properly shifts.

@yetineti *I have removed the letter I, it was not an intentional misquote. The post remains the same.

While I have heard people comment that we could live in a self contained reality that was oblivious to a world war, I tend to think it a bit far-fetched. Hence this matters. Becomes material to our lives. This particular pattern is defining a lot of it.

The patterns leading to World War have been obvious for 20 years to me, just by observation and acceptance of other persepctives. The only guess i'd be making is if they are reversed, altered, or not. Weighed against human nature seeking safety rather than danger and how that need is met. I see no evidence that violence is dissuading anyone enough, which is the most worrying trend that the rise of the authoritarian right has brought about. Currently, these patterns are not being altered; ergo, a prediction of world war is not rampant speculation, as you put it, it's a reasonable deduction. If you want to discuss those patterns, we can do but to dismiss those talking about them is frankly bizarre. I keep wanting to add some hope here, so I will in some form, I will add an optimistic hope that out of this pressure cooker we are all in currently, it will result in a positive condition for the planet, but I feel on this I am speculating, rather than reading a pattern.

I have never seen a better example of sovereign citizens than Eric Martin: It doesn't have the snappiest judge responses or the most 'clever' sovereign arguments, where they try to delay or frustrate the court, its simply a man who really believes his position and demonstrates the mindset without a lot of flair or subterfuge. It shows judges who know him well. I deduce this because this playlist is now sixteen videos long, and his appearances are fairly simple. If you want to see how it all started, look at the last one in the playlist also, its the same thing over and over.

For the most part, yes, in 99% of cases, or it ends up worse because of additional charges like contempt or resisting, or repeatedly not doing what they are instructed to do. They are within the system , which they are saying doesn't exist or has authority over them. The ability to enforce authority generally comes from both the acceptance of the social contract by the population and the projection of force, which the sovereign citizens cannot do against a well-ordered, functional country, where enough people respect or uphold its own social contracts. But some defences work on minor charges because they've either delayed the courts or police enough that they either get pleaded down or witnesses move on and are unavailable. Sometimes, police on a stop get called to a more important one. This is rare, but i've seen it happen. I've seen cases go years where people keep swapping out defense counsel. But I would call it far inferior to having even a half-competent attorney. As well as getting sovereign citizens into much more trouble than they would have gotten into, or adding time to their sentences by racking up more charges, I've also seen some hilarious responses, this judge especially:

There have been various offshoots or alternatives such as: Freeman on the land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land_movement The freeman on the land movement (sometimes spelled freeman-on-the-land or abbreviated as FOTL, also known as the freemen of the land, the freemen movement, or simply freemen, is a loose group of individuals who adhere to pseudolegal concepts and conspiracy theories implying that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. Freemen on the land are mostly present in Commonwealth countries. The movement appeared in Canada in the early 2000s, as an offshoot of the sovereign citizen movement which is more prevalent in the United States. The name "freeman on the land" describes a person who is literally a "free man" on the land where they live. Movement members believe that they can declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own idiosyncratic interpretation of "common law". Freemen on the land also advocate schemes to avoid taxes which they consider to be illegitimate. In Canada, courts and scholars use the technical phrase "Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA) as an umbrella term for freemen on the land, the precursor "Detaxer" movement, sovereign citizens, their pseudolegal theories and the vexatious litigation based on them. Freeman on the land arguments are legally baseless. Besides Canada, freemen on the land's pseudolegal claims have been argued in the courts of Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland but have always been rejected. The movement's influence peaked in Canada during the late 2000s and early 2010s; it has since declined significantly. Moorish sovereign citizens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorish_sovereign_citizens The Moorish sovereign citizen movement, sometimes called the indigenous sovereign citizen movement or the Rise of the Moors, is a sub-group of sovereign citizens that mainly holds to the teachings of the Moorish Science Temple of America that hold that African Americans are descendants of the Moabites and thus are "Moorish" by nationality and Islamic by faith. Far right groups such as: Posse Comitatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization) The Posse Comitatus (Latin, "force of the county") is a loosely organized American far-right extremist social movement which began in the late 1960s. Its members spread a conspiracy-minded, anti-government, and antisemitic message linked to white supremacy aiming to counter what they believe is an attack on their social and political rights as white Christians. Many Posse members practiced survivalism and played a role in the formation of armed citizens' militias in the 1990s. The Posse Comitatus pioneered the use of false liens and other types of "paper terrorism" to harass their opponents by mounting frivolous legal actions against them. As the Posse Comitatus began their decline in popularity at the turn of the 21st century, their tactics and ideology evolved into those of the Christian Patriot movement and the sovereign citizen movement. Among a few others

@Wilhelm44 Wikipedia lists it as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement Quote: The sovereign citizen movement (often abbreviated as SovCits) is a loose group of anti-government activists, conspiracy theorists, vexatious litigants, tax protesters and financial scammers found mainly in English-speaking common law countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Sovereign citizens have their own pseudolegal belief system based on misinterpretations of common law, and claim not to be subject to any government statutes unless they consent to them. The movement appeared in the U.S. in the early 1970s and has since expanded to other countries; the similar freeman on the land movement emerged during the 2000s in Canada before spreading to other Commonwealth countries. The FBI has called sovereign citizens "anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or 'sovereign' from the United States". The sovereign citizen phenomenon is one of the main contemporary sources of pseudolaw. Sovereign citizens believe that courts have no jurisdiction over people and that certain procedures (such as writing specific phrases on bills they do not want to pay) and loopholes can make one immune to government laws and regulations. They also regard most forms of taxation as illegitimate and reject Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, and vehicle registration. The movement may appeal to people facing financial or legal difficulties or wishing to resist perceived government oppression. As a result, it has grown significantly during times of economic or social crisis. Most schemes sovereign citizens promote aim to avoid paying taxes, ignore laws, eliminate debts, or extract money from the government. Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in court. American sovereign citizens claim that the United States federal government is illegitimate. Sovereign citizens outside the U.S. hold similar beliefs about their countries' governments. The movement can be traced to American far-right groups such as the Posse Comitatus and the constitutionalist wing of the militia movement. The sovereign citizen movement was originally associated with white supremacism and antisemitism, but it now attracts people of various ethnicities, including a significant number of African Americans. The latter sometimes belong to self-declared "Moorish" sects. The majority of sovereign citizens are not violent, but the methods the movement advocates are illegal. Sovereign citizens notably adhere to the fraudulent schemes promoted by the redemption "A4V" movement. Many sovereign citizens have been found guilty of offenses such as tax evasion, hostile possession, forgery, threatening public officials, bank fraud, and traffic violations. Two of the most important crackdowns by U.S. authorities on sovereign citizen organizations were the 1996 case of the Montana Freemen and the 2018 sentencing of self-proclaimed judge Bruce Doucette and his associates. Because some have engaged in armed confrontations with law enforcement, the FBI classifies "sovereign citizen extremists" as domestic terrorists. Terry Nichols, one of the perpetrators of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, subscribed to a variation of sovereign citizen ideology. In surveys conducted in 2014 and 2015, representatives of U.S. law enforcement ranked the risk of terrorism from the sovereign citizen movement higher than the risk from any other group, including Islamic extremists, militias, racist skinheads, neo-Nazis, and radical environmentalists. In 2015, the Australian New South Wales Police Force identified sovereign citizens as a potential terrorist threat. End Quote

Why do you believe a world war requires nukes?

Here are the principles of fascism for reference: Core Political & Social Ideologies Authoritarianism Totalitarianism Dictatorship One-party state Nationalism (Integral / Ultra) Chauvinism Populism Anti-communism Anti-intellectualism Anti-pacifism Anti-materialism Counter-Enlightenment Syncretism Third Position Statolatry (worship of the state) Reactionary modernism Economic Doctrines & Strategies Corporatism State capitalism Supercapitalism Dirigisme (state-directed economy) Class collaboration National syndicalism Proletarian nation Heroic capitalism Proprietary corporation Cultural & Psychological Themes Aestheticization of politics Cult of personality Propaganda Machismo Masculinity Heroism / Heroic realism Palingenetic ultranationalism (myth of national rebirth) New Man (idealized citizen) Social order Social Darwinism Irrationalism Militaristic & Expansionist Aims Militarism Perpetual war Direct action Imperialism (Economic / Social) Spazio vitale (living space doctrine) Biological & Racial Policies Eugenics Racism Philosophical Foundation Actual idealism (Giovanni Gentile’s framework) I have in the past argued the republican party embodies most of these; now I would argue they embody almost all of them. While the democrats embody quite a few as well. I will tend to do that via videos here unless someone wishes to dispute it.

That's also speaking from fear in my opinion. Its a way of avoiding what is damned obvious patterns occurring because its so horrific to acknowledge, so I understand it. I don't demean people for it, any more than I do the OP for writing this from fear. Increasing hostilities have been the pattern since about 2000, and nothing I have seen has led me to believe it will slow down now. Nor anything here, anyone has said on any thread in the forum, or from any political leader. Because that's the pattern they have been in. It's how all these countries are evolving further right and further militaristic. The video, however, is extremely flawed. Iran wanting war on their own soil is the most absurd claim. I could cite you decades of them not wanting war and all the actions they have taken. But it'll be easier for you to try to do the opposite, and I pull them down, because you'll find few examples of them wanting a wider war. Trump is the establishment; he's funded and backed by the establishment so which American empire would he be fighting? Israel, without a larger power supporting them, would be completely lost, so they don't want an independent empire; that's why they spend all this money guaranteeing the opposite. Trump would not abandon the oil either.

Yet the pair I showed you get most of their analysis right. You may not like it. I certainly could do without their bias, but yet they are right most of the time. I notice though how nobody disputed the main thrust of my point, which was the doubling of military spending will reshape the countries doing it, making them more likely to engage that military. *Have you considered that people fearmonger as you put it, because they are genuinely fearing an outcome?

Generally these guys are more accurate than most, because they analyse so much data and news: Would I say war is coming? Generally I see an increase in hostilities and pressure but also more internal unrest as a result. Recently, NATO committed to 5% spending on its military. Which is a doubling of their military size. Now when I said Russia would cause this increase, years ago now, I said that naturally, if 5% of your spending is on the military, you use it. It doesn't just sit dormant on the shelf. So I do foresee Europe getting more involved in foreign conflicts. Despite everyone telling me NATO has been warlike, attacking them for years, or decades, they haven't; that was hyperbole. But they might now, because all these resources, all this focus, and shaping of society to be focused on the military naturally create the conditions for it to be used. Like Israel. BRICS, Russia and China are creating the conditions they say the world already is in. The hyberbole they are acting on is slowly becoming more real. 'The west' is attacking us they say. Well done geniuses. Not only did you unify this once nebulous 'the west', but now you've got them doubling their military and looking outward to enforce it. I really never could understand why people can't see this, perhaps on this particular pattern, I have a high degree of insight, I don't know.

Fascism.