Armchair Philosophy, June 16, 2020
Topic: The false false flag of the Red Scare and creation of American Socialism
This will be one last long post for a discussion I need to review too much of to execute properly in podcast form.
Communism's greatest victory in America was convincing Americans that communism was not a real threat. Socialism and socialist ideals had slowly gained steam throughout the world over the past century. As America is the land of the free, we can broadly describe this influence in the acceptance of centralized governmental power among the people. Teddy Rosevelt, founder of the progressive Bull Moose Party, destroyed the trusts of early industrial America. This sounds like a move to decentralize power, but it actually gave the US government new power over corporations, limiting their potential growth. After returning from a trip abroad and tearing the Republican party in 2, Roosevelt enabled Woodrow Wilson to become president, who sold out US currency production to permanently centralize US banking through a private bank known as the Federal Reserve, and Income Taxes were first burdened onto the American people. This is the turning point where American currency began its path from wealthy growing deflation, immediately into an inflationary fiat system. With these 2 actions, the US government gained power over private corporations and gained the ability to choose winners and losers.
Later in his term, Wilson gave women the right to vote, solidifying female preference for his party, ensuring the longevity of the changes he had made. FDR, much like Teddy before him, was a progressive, even a socialist. During his tenure, FDR began numbering citizens for the first time, through something called Social Security, a name both referential to its socialist origins and using linguistic language to convince people it was a good thing, something to protect them after the horrors of the Great Depression sank in. FDR was consistently being ruled unconstitutional in the courts until he threatened the courts with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, wherein he would've enabled himself to flood the courts with his own party members who would rule in his favor unanimously. This bill immediately failed, but it was not long after that a justice flipped on his stances and started supporting New Deal legislation referenced as "the switch in time to save nine". Occam's razor places most theories about the sudden switch as a compromise to prevent the packing of the courts under duress. FDR is basically seen to have threatened the courts and the one justice left that they needed the support of flipped under this threat. This was especially damaging as the American courts primarily judge based on precedent set by past court rulings, meaning an act that may otherwise be considered unconstitutional now how permanent precedent within our legal system.*
Skipping forward, the civil rights movement was spearheaded by a self-proclaimed socialist and arguable communist in Martin Luther King Jr. I have a hypothesis that it is no coincidence that the movement was led by a man named King. To this day, MLK is seen as a pharaoh among men, a saint who cannot be blemished, lest the person attempting to besmirch him be labeled a racist. Yet, any socialist christian will gladly spread the word of MLK's red leaning tendencies. Following the Civil Right's movement it was not long before the black household went from having the highest rate of intact family households to being the least. This may be attributed to Lyndon B Johnson's Great Society. Another cheerful linguistic piece of propaganda to convince people that he was making things better, akin to Orwell's Ministry of Truth. These bits of propaganda are important because they poison the minds of the citizens to accept things that they would normally oppose. Things that are strictly anti-American.
Between socialized welfare in the form of the Medic-twins and Social Security, as well as unemployment benefits, and other programs, the US citizenry had adapted to a civilization where the government could easily track them, the police could easily identify them, and an increasing number of problems people could face would be mitigated by the government. John F. Kennedy said to "ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for your government", but the programs that preceded and followed him led to a modern thought structure quite the opposite.
One last little historical point I would like to bring up is the political color transition of red from communism to the american Republican Party. Does that not strike people as being odd? The color that was originally associated with communists was now reattributed to the conservative party of the united states. This sleight of hand trick could have multiple effects on how people viewed both republicans and communists. Suddenly red was no longer so scary, after it had been for so many years. It was traditional. Second, it brought about an association between republicans and communists, not that it made them seem similar, but that it would make people feel like they were not so far apart as initially thought.
In modern days, teachers are being arrested for selling US grant supported research to China. This is happening en masse. Modern feminists now do not argue for women's rights, but for the rights of minorities and so called scientific beliefs that treat gender as a psychosomatic illness. People stay on their parent's health insurance until they are nearly 30, likely near the age their parents were when they first started to have kids, and well older than their grandparents or great grandparents likely were when they had kids. My great grandma was 15 when she got married and had her first child, and that was not an accident as most people would suspect in a modern setting.
What we now see, in this modern era of red, can stem back generations, and has slowly unfolded through the slow eradication of American Civics. Our schools, our media, our entertainment, our companies, our government, they all have these influences of communism and socialism throughout. Now they try to convince you that Antifa is just a word that means anti-fascist, because we all hate fascism after the holocaust, when it is really a decentralized organization with many factions and independent cells operating to push a violent political agenda. Protest, something defined as "peaceable assembly" in the US constitution has been coopted for riots to cover their tracks. The old word for happy has now been coopted to mean homosexual. Gender has been coopted to mean self-image and the way someone chooses to sexually present themselves. It is consistent that you see these words associated with positive connotations within the American English vernacular used to promote agendas that Americans of their time would normally be against. Additionally, negative words have been coopted to target specific people, none more so than the word racist. No longer is belief in racial superiority a requirement for racism, and the simple concept of racial differences or inequalities have taken the place of the meaning, so the term can be thrown at anyone who so much as verbalizes an example of a racist word or a word related to a racial stereotype. With this as a weapon, any adversary to the cause can be eliminated, and any servant who fails to achieve the goal of forwarding the mission can be written off as an other. It is a linguistic nuke in modern society. And what has made it this? It is hard to say, but it seems to be tied to the civil rights movement and the events that have passed since then. Perhaps our culture was manipulated to give it the power it currently has. Words unused tend to gain power, so perhaps the labeling of the "N" word as a societal Voldemort was a tactic used in this process. A combination of guilt, and villainization of words, so that once any person crossed the line and said one of the words that shall not be spoken, the universal word for "other" would become the word "racist". That is just a hypothesis though.
Anyhow, that is all from me for this one. Thank you for taking the time to read all of this and I look forward to reading everyone else's thoughts on the topic. Until next time.
*I will be looking into creating an analysis video on the history channel's article I used as a source to verify this information, as there is some prominent linguistic propaganda worth pointing out in the article
Just thought I'd share this comment I was trying to comment on a Lotus Eaters video. Btw, ya'll should follow the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters if you aren't already. Great analysis and discussion
It's been a while since I've made a video, and this time with a locals exclusive. A cherry on top that I managed to fit within the size requirements. I like making shorter form content like this, considering my tendencies to ramble. Having content exclusive for my followers here is something I'll be working on doing more and more. I'll be creating more value here for my subscribers as well, with some subscriber exclusive content in the future. No timeline promises, cause I think we know how I get when I make a ton of promises (go hardcore for a week and then fall flat on my face unable to keep up with the sprint, lol).
Anyhow, let me know your thoughts and questions below. Have a great day everyone!
A direct upload! It turns out I recorded a video just short enough to meet the minimum upload offerings that locals offers to small communities like mine. That means you guys get this exclusively on locals!
I didn't sleep much last night, so I decided this was the perfect time to mull over my confused thoughts on how businesses are viewed from a legal perspective. Businesses are somewhat legal enigmas to me. Corporations are kinda treated as persons so that they can be double taxed, but have other protections, other types of businesses aren't treated the same way. They're able to consolidate power like governments, yet aren't subject to any form of limitations in regards to violating natural rights the same way the government is, despite being treated somewhat like persons they can still buy each other. It's just very odd to me from a principled, legal, and philosophical position.
Anyhow, my ramblings here are just that, ramblings. Still, I am curious what you all think of this topic. ...
The 2020 election is over, and the battle has just begun. What do I expect to come from the end of the election? Will the legal suits turn over anything for this election, or will they mean something for later down the line? I reflect on these questions and more in this discussion, and I also reflect on some final thoughts relevant to the Rise and Fall of Empire Series, that, thus far, being episodes 8 through 10 of the Construct Cast. Let me know your thoughts, and if you have any reflections of your own from this year's political cycle or other developments that you can't seem to get off your mind in the comments below.
In this episode of the Construct Cast, I discuss my analysis of Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, with an emphasis on my own consideration for what it would take to help an empire survive, or reboot. If immortality for an Empire is impossible, is rebirth impossible in the same way? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Editor's Note: Returning to the podcast versions of the Construct Cast, I want to catch our content up to the videos we have had released over the past month. I apologize for this getting away from me for a bit. With the rise in content production, I had allowed this to get away from me. We will be returning to audio podcast uploads of the Construct Cast as per our original regular schedule, at 12PM EST on the day of the original upload, going forward.
In this second Crossover podcast, we are once again recording with Kevin @Eng_Politics. His channel is a bastion of political thought and analysis from the perspective of a conservative engineer. Interested in diving deeper into my concept of Progressive Traditionalism and combating the concept with his own beliefs of what it means to be Conservative, we decided to put our definitions and beliefs to task in this crossover episode!
Be sure to check out Kevin's locals community here:
And if you're more interested in the video version, here is a direct link:
As someone who works with daily reporting to the Fed, big companies dealing with regulation are basically a clusterfuck and the requirements basically leave the companies in a position where they can never really update their systems because they need their systems literally every day. They can make new systems, potentially, but updating the regular system is more of a liability since missing a single day can screw the company up. At the same time, it seems like the big companies, at least the one I'm in, are mostly carried forward by the inertia of their own weight. I am fully convinced there will be another massive financial crisis if other major banks are like mine, just cause there really isn't anything that can be done if something is messed up. It's like fake it til you make it, only in reverse. Once something goes wrong, the requirements for constant regular action leaves no time to go back to correct the damage. All you can do is mitigate. Like debt gaining interest, eventually ...
Does anyone have any advice for the work, life, content creator balance? I just genuinely have not had the spirit in me to be able to create the content I want to be able to create these past few months as I am just feeling totally worn out day in and out. I'd like to get back into the philosophic deep dives and contemplations you followed me for, yet that's feeling like a lifetime ago now and every day feels like a step away from where and what I'm supposed to be doing
My locals app is finally working again. Been sick lately. Started considering the differences between corruption and evil. I decided to look at it from a moral framework and came up with a new perspective on how to define the 2 from a moral standpoint. A corrupt person will defy their morals to achieve their goals, whereas an evil person will determine their morals based on whatever ends satisfy or help to achieve their goals. In this way, you can see that a corrupt person may acknowledge when they are doing something morally wrong and feel guilt over it, whereas an evil person will determine that all who oppose them are the true evil threat and could even assess their own will as being justice.
Just a little thought that's been running through my mind lately. And it's interesting because it really makes you wonder which is worse? One who will defy morals or one who will redefine them? Perhaps they both have the same end result, but do they both have the ability to find redemption? I ...
Welcome to Commutation Construct. This is a community designed around maximizing open dialogue and discussion. Get your first month on us by using the coupon code "STARTHERE" or by following this link:
Happy to have you!