>>43334
Honestly I always thought that was like looking into a spooky mirror, like what honestly I could imagine someone like me ending up being like had they had their own house bombed out and instead of the Gospel having a lot of repetitive bullshit drilled into their head by the local Imam about some warlord. The thing about all that is, it's actually partly what made ISIS so effective against at least us because they were not a totally unintelligent or irrational actor in the typical sense, who truly had that capacity for being smart and careful analysis, but who at the same time were also extremely not a rational actor in that classic sense. See that is the thing that I have seen my country's political and military leadership routinely in a place where I know I could run circles around these damn fools. It was like it seriously never even occurred to any of them that you could not negotiate with somebody like ISIS or that these people did not in fact want a kind of state in the way that an actual political actor normally would, and that is why they spailed so fucking spectacularly to engage them.

What ISIS was was a fanatical death cult and I could have at least respected them for that. I actually also think that it was incredibly telling about how few actual devoutly religious people we have anywhere in positions of real power in this country because if you were then both ISIS' demands and some of their tactics were entirely sensible. It was a problem of the secular kafir world speaking its foreign too at this people. The internal mental landscape and the very neurological composition, the linguistics, it's all so totally different in much the same way that I have thought for years and years now speaking a different language is totally irrelevant if you cannot engage the different entirely mental and emotional language other personality topologies use, because no matter where you go a right wing reactionary is going to be the same, a bydlo the same, a professional soldier the same, the assburger the same. It transcends national and linguistic boundaries and it was clear to me that fucking nobody in our positions of influence spoke it or perhaps most critically even knew they had no clue how they were speaking a totally different language to these people.

What Daesh was fundamentally is a more akin to a doomsday cult except that it was one that wanted to build something. There is no sense or concept for negotiations. This is much, much different from the traditional approach to even radical Islam in a sense because I think that the most fanatical would legitimately not mind you killing their family for any reason except the few that are "weak" and more concerned with soul saving before that, but I'm sure plenty more would think well either they're kafir and deserve to die or they're faithful so let us celebrate the American bombs sending them to Jannah and martyrs.

It's hard for me to explain it accurate but I do believe there's actually a fundamental difference between the fundamentalist, the church going agnostic (the fundamentalist themselves may be agnostic though in the sense that the social mechanism is what they value, and not God or any overriding philosphy), the mystic, and the actual fanatic, as opposed to frankly what I think ISIS was which is not the same thing as a fanatic in the sense that a fanatic actually gives a shit about personal purity a bit more but without it merely being the hypocrisy of the fundamentalist. I think the better term might be the ideologue. They are the most dangerous of the three (or more) because unlike the rest their eyes are partially unclouded by some of the mystical and their actions unhindered by the ethical and moral roadblocks of other fanatics, but while having none of the morale problems of the otherwise agnostic or puritanical.

They are in essence somebody that is chiefly concerned with drawing down the other world out of the sky and onto the earth by any means necessary and they are totally uncompromising. The curious thing is I suspect many of this typology would be fully committed and willing to even casting themselves into Hell if they truly believed they can serve Allah's will by doing so, and are thusly more concerned about achieving their objectives. It is a sense of the psychopathic married to the mystical. I think that there are few in the entire neoliberal secular West who even have a capacity to understand how to enter into a dialogue with people like that and it is a Totalist view. You're a factor in the ideological equation whether you like it or not. It is the active principal of being the instrumentation for God's Will. I think that this marriage of the mystical with the militantly political is what confused people, and probably confuses people even more in Christendom because Islam as a whole does not distinguish between the two whereas we have the queer notion of secular and the mundane as being ruled by two separate principles, which itself might be a sort of, not Manicheaism not sure the word I'm looking for.

>>43260
Damn, I have known it that those neckbeards from Finland will produce an utterly shitty game.

As written in: >>41378

>And I also don't like that they aren't DSA-player. They preferred to have a D&D license, but didn't get one as small Finnish developers. Hence they decided to go for another license.

I have known it. Was still excited now, but damn I normally praise even the worst TDE game, but this game is shit for which I impossibly can put in a good word.

Those Finish guy must really be amateur programmers, who thought:'Hey, we are unemployed, Finish social system provides us nice NEET-boxes, let's make games.'
It is very badly programmed. I even feel sorry for cracker groups, that they wasted time for cracking/repacking it already.
Damn, such a shitty games. I really damaged the image of the TDE. TDE is doing so good right now, even with a bad current management. There are so many fans, who are outstanding participating in crowdfunding projects for TDE products and then they are licensing such a shitty game.

https://www.gameontabletop.com/pm5/ulisses-spiele.html

The current TDE-redax is worse than Thomas Römer, who I am really missing already.
The orkenspalterizing of TDE is doing no good for the TDE-world. Also that Mrs. Stritter has so much influence is not good, she might have nice tits, but strategic brand development is not one of her strengths. I also think that she is also a rather dumb person.

>>43188
I'd say state is refering to a sovereign government over a territory. Nation is indeed a young concept and is coupled with a patriotic believe of a community that oftentimes equals in it's scope that of the state territory.
A state is more a legal body and a form of organization whereas a nation is an emotional referent that works as orientation for identity. A frenchman develops pride in his Republic because it seem to have a certain characteristics he can identify with. Ofc these are rather general and it's a homogenization that never works out empirically as it is dreamed of.

>The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen. The man who is endowed with important personal qualities will be only too ready to see clearly in what respects his own nation falls short, since their failings will be constantly before his eyes. But every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.

t. Schopenhauer

>>43174

>and the attitude of oversimplifying issues to make your point snappier

Do you expect somebody write an essay on his protest sign?

Well those Germans who keep bitching about "occupation" should have something to be happy about at least
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-trump-makes-good-on-threat-to-withdraw-troops-from-germany-jqvmw7vdg
He isn't even taking that many out. He's only pulling a fraction of the military which frankly any so called liberal or leftist ought to be applauding. We waste trillions on this bullshit.

I was thinking about it while taking a break smoking today and realized that with the amount of money we waste on the military industrial complex I and everybody else could be living rent free. This is because I realized that that trillions dollar bailout that funneled $600-minus taxes (yes our unemployment gibes is taxed income btw) on UI benefits plus the $1200 check ultimately was not actually a bailout for Americans, it was a bailout to the landlords.

All of that money was basically just going to people so they could keep paying rent, in which case basically the property owners are all a middleman who doesn't really do anything.

Why shouldn't we just have the government build buildings for people to live in and then have people pay taxes for it while cutting out the middleman? It just seems from a business standpoint like a really inefficient and wasteful business model with superfluous leeching from the system.

Meanwhile
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/treasury-sec-says-no-economic-shutdown-for-coronavirus-resurgence
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/499054-trump-says-he-will-not-close-country-if-there-is-a-second-wave-of
https://www.newsweek.com/treasury-secretary-mnuchin-says-us-cant-shut-down-economy-again-if-coronavirus-second-wave-occurs-1510274
Meanwhile
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/treasury-sec-says-no-economic-shutdown-for-coronavirus-resurgence
The stock market is crashing again because
https://www.ibtimes.com/arizona-new-coronavirus-hotspot-states-health-director-urges-hospitals-use-emergency-2991437
In the famous words of Lord Buckethead "it. will be. a shitshow."

You know what you are doing by posting like this here. It comes across as being deliberately inflammatory. EC culture is different to many imageboards where posters try to bump their thread to to the top by being deliberately inflammatory and by posting bait. Seeing that you didn't just create the thread and leave, I'll give you my honest opinion.

Firstly, I do not support black lives matter.
George Floyd was indeed not a very good person. However, I do think that the police officer in question used unnecessary force. This is where my sympathy with the protesters/rioters ends. I see the underlying (unconscious?) purpose of the movement as a whole as just the strengthening of progressive political power.

Actual police abolition (as some anarchists imagine) would be the abolition of the modern state. This would result in anarchy, vigilante justice, and revenge killings.
Now we can debate about this all we want, but I think any such abolition should involve a very gradual change spurred on by incentives (cultural, economic, etc.). When I went up north in the countryside to buy certain foods and goods in rural Canada, there was no owner on site, just a donation box and various goods labelled with prices. The owner of the farm had the expectation that I would pay the appropriate price for the goods, and not just steal the goods and money outright. There was mutual trust between me and owner, and an expectation of a general "good will" between people. The state has no role here. I cannot be punished if I break the law, and the law is essentially meaningless here.
If such a thing as a stateless society can exist in a real meaningful sense, this is the closest in modern society (that I have personally witnessed) that approaches it.
I do not see such a form of organization arising in Minneapolis from actual police abolition.

Needless to say, this won't happen. The establishment is not going to abolish the police. It knows it can't.
The movement of "Police Abolition" is simply a demonstration of how far the mainstream will go to lie to their base to convince people that what they are doing is "radical".

This being said, what is likely to come from this Police Abolition/Defunding movement and how does it differ from what I want?
I'm in favour of community control over discretionary policing. This means that community representatives should be able to control how police patrol their neighbourhoods when no crime is committed. I also think active neighbourhood watches are good to the extent that they are possible. The purpose is to increase community ownership over the people who police them. If discretionary policing is essential to keep crime low (as most middle-class communities think) they can choose this tactic. If they don't believe this, they can accept a possibly higher crime rate. The point, once more, is control and ownership. If communities have a problem with police policy they are empowered to directly reform such policy, starting with how the police patrol their own neighbourhoods. The most likely result, again, is that this won't happen.

How does this differ from what's likely to come from the Defund/Abolishment movement that we are seeing right now?
Well, there might be a name change, a change of uniform (to trick gullible activists), or maybe some tweaks on the rules of engagement, but otherwise, the change will largely be cosmetic.

However, if this is really the beginning of an actual restructuring of the police I see two directions in which it can go:

Firstly, an ideological remaking of the police force. The restructuring would allow them to fire political wrong-thinkers from the department and replace them with ideologues and loyalists. This would mark the transformation of the police into a kind of progressive commissariat. Most likely this reform would work towards directly decriminalizing certain property and drug crimes in certain geographical areas to artificially equalize arrests between black and white communities. I can't imagine this transition not resulting in a massive crime spike. Knowledge of which will probably be suppressed until it is impossible to avoid the fact that the reform movement killed more black lives than it saved.

This is likely lead to the second direction: the full federalization of the police force.
This is a good arrangement for Democrats since it takes responsibility from Democratically ruled municipalities and places it with the Feds who still have some Republican patsies to blame things on. Still, even without the Republicans, Federal bureaucracies will be very hard to be held accountable for specific abuses since problems that occur in inner cities will be attributed to policies and systems designed to control order on a national scale. I speculate here that bureaucrats will ramp up police powers across the board in the hope that they might fix things in the black communities where problems emerge. This in fact incentives police brutality. The members of police that are most willing to get involved in mass crime ridden zones are those who tend be more violent and sociopathic, instead of those who are peaceable and empathetic. This results in more action being taken against police brutality, then local police becoming more ineffective, then crime rates increasing, and so on. You see where this is going.

All in all, a very bad circumstance.

Progressive spokespeople want a homogenization of the problem with other abstract issues like "racism". They want top-down oversight where it is never clear who is responsible for anything, and where a solvable problem is converted into a driver for more spending and political capital. The red team is made accountable to the blue team, or replaced with the blue team altogether. The result: increasing progressive political capital, while restraining their ideological enemies. This type of political maneuvering would be admirable, if it weren't so scarily effective.

"IQ" as a concept is much more hardwired. Your overall capacity for certain things like pattern recognition if you were a truly stupid individual would always be diminished and you'd always have to work harder, however it is still possible to overcome one's own limitations through hard work, at times in a way that "smarter" individuals will not namely because they are lazier. It reminds me, loosely, of Napoleon complex guys achieving much while the handsome jock may while away his time getting laid and being debauched and thus fail later in life, or the tortoise and the hare, or the story of Mike Tyson. You see Tyson got bullied a lot as a kid and his chief motivation for becoming a fighter and the first fight he got in was because some kid ripped off his pet pigeon's head. Now he's world heavy weight champion and can afford to keep as many pigeons as he fucking wants and be left in peace.

There is a degree to which one can always compensate for their deficits, and often times people will end up vastly overcompensating for them. The overwhelming underriding drive here is "I'm still not good enough." So basically while someone else might be doing stupid shit like getting high and playing videogames while engaging in pointless navel gazing with their high school buddies, if you maintain that internalized drive to better yourself it's possible the allegedly IQ120 kid is just going to atrophy into mediocrity at best, whereas you otoh will have bettered yourself into being a well read and perhaps scholarly man. The difference is just that you'll have way more difficulty in that area, chiefly of overcoming your own frustrations and converting that anger into Drive.

It's like having weak as shit genes for strength in a sense. You might have a predisposition to becoming fat, or of never building muscle tone, and maybe you will never aspire to the same heights as those born athletes, but nothing is stopping that athlete from leading a sedentary existence eating pastries and burgers and just turning into a disgusting fatass whereas the person who maybe needs to out three times the effort into it can still get super strong and become cultured. Nature is only part of the struggle. A critical part, but still only a part. So if you spend all your time reading, doing puzzles, and trying to learn a new language or three, you're still going to end up being "smarter" or far more intellectual than someone who otherwise might be smarter than you.

A key thing is obviously not wasting your time on trash like k*hl or the internet in general for the matter especially Twitter, or dumb YT videos or celebrities or whatnot. Read literature. Watch good documentaries. Understand the basics of concepts and work your way up to more advanced concepts. Read wikipedia articles for fun.

It's like everything else. Shitty IBs are the mental equivalent of junk food. If you consume nothing but trash you'll feel like trash and operate like trash. It requires the discipline that I frankly lack and has dragged me deeply down into the mud to abstain from the immediate gratification and focus on the less pleasurable task at hand for a plausible future reward. You can still better yourself physically for example by working out but if you do nothing but consume twinkies and fried chicken and coca cola all day then you're just working against yourself.

Find something like the mental equivalent of low weights before working up. Force yourself off the slob couch of imageboards and go to something familiar enough like wikipedia. Just keep clicking random links and reading about random things. Work your way up to the citations and references section of the article. Get to the point where you can take books out of the library. Learn more in depth about some chosen topic and try forcing yourself to stick with it. Don't move on until you feel a bit of mastery, and when you do, make sure to find something that challenges that sense of mastery (as iirc brick said in another thread, or maybe the american I forget re: dunning effect etc.)

Try taking up math. Start with the simpler concepts. You wouldnt expect to start benching 350 lbs so dont get discouraged and frustrated when you can't make sense of advanced algebra or speak German fluently or whatever. Learn to avoid junk food like the plague online. I have not been doing this and I feel massively dumber and just trashier and unhealthier as a result. EC at least has been helping to wean me off that and provided a refreshing sense of my own stupidity.

A key detail is if the people around you are making you feel stupid, you're in the right place. I still remember my first weeks of college where I went from feeling like some kind of intellectual in my high school to feeling dumb as a brick of shit my first semester. I felt completely untalented and stupid. Maybe it's still true in a sense, but it forced me most importantly to have more discipline and to sharpen my mind a bit, rather than the fatal poison of self satisfaction. Never let yourself feel self satisfied in anything, Ernst. If you want one thing of your enemies, it should be for them to feel that for extended amounts of time. Let others make you feel dumb or weak and try to catch up with them, challenge yourself, learn real satisfaction from the surmounting of great personal challenges, and be humble enough to start small and disciplined enough on the follow through.

If you already feel dumb you're on the right path. Just don't beat yourself up, beyond the way you'd beat pig iron into a fine sword.