The answer is to come up with a way to successfully reason with lazy low iq/emotional men and all liberal white women.

Good luck with that.

AtomicActuator said:

---

The society-level danger is when the majority of a population is convinced that a smaller and less powerful group is the cause of their problems.

---

This statement paints way to broad of a brush to contribute to the queston posed by the op.

Truth is the most important source of action not power structures, oppressed / oppressor relationships, or levels of certainty in the problem root.

If the smaller less powerful entity is a problem, than it's a problem. It's such a straight forward concept that it's kind of embarrasing that it has to be put into words.

You can't. We either devolve into civil war or this country collapses. The leftist brainrot is unsolvable. They don't think rationally, you can't debate them, and they want us dead.

Where is the common ground?

It's also a quite simple concept to understand that groups without power are less able to impact society at large than groups with power.

It's rare that groups without power can have a significant impact unless they resort to mass violence. I know you will point to isolated incidents lately, but that's not what I mean.

I'm talking more like The Troubles - sustained and severe actions.

But back to OP's question - you cannot enforce uniformity of thoughts and ideas without implementing a closed society and policing thoughtcrime.

I'd say surely that's not what any conservative would want, but some of the answers here seem to lean that way.

AtomicActuator said:

---

It's rare that groups without power can have a significant impact unless they resort to mass violence.

---

This is patently wrong. I'm pretty sure this doesn't need to be spelled out for you, but this statement is not accurate. It's intellectually dishonest to argue that in the last 5 -10 years the 5% (woke agenda) hasn't significantly impacted the 95% non violently or subversively (however you see it).

It's not the 5% that's leading it, it's the other 46% that support it also that give it the power.

If that 5% was antagonizing and alienating 95% of the population, they would be getting nowhere. But they have found many allies instead.

So going back to my first post - getting better ideas and winning over hearts and minds is how you "defeat the mind virus". But no one seems interested in that here.

I am honestly getting kind of scared for both the near and long term future. I do not see how this is ever fixed peacefully. I can't believe what I am seeing from educated, successful family people on the left on social media (mostly people I went to school/church with back in the day). They genuinely think this lady was murdered in cold blood and that she was reversing her car and that ICE and BP agents are modern day "nazis" who are only out to kill or cause pain.

And these are the most sane and "normal" liberals I know of. So I can only imagine how the lower IQ faction of the base feels.

There are two political/ideological halves to this country, and they acknowledge COMPLETELY SEPARATE REALITIES. That just does not feel sustainable. It's troubling...especially considering most of us are just normal people from the 90's who want normal things...and it it THEM who have changed and been radicalized en masse...yet they think we have. Just unsustainable.

How long does it take to undo 40+ yrs of progressive propaganda pushed in schools, press, social media, etc? I think that's the answer to your question as imprecise as it may be. A long time I'm afraid .

A big part of the two realities is the bubble effect. I was just setting some liberals straight on some misinformation they were parroting (not here).

That's why I wade into these waters from time to time, to try to pierce this bubble a bit for the good of society.

To your example on the Minneapolis shooting, I've seen both sides. The video most watched on right wing sites is the far away shot where it looks like she hit him.

And the video most shared on the left wing sites is the driver side angle, zoomed in and slowed down, where you can see he jumped out of the way before he fired.

It's easy to come to opposite conclusions depending on which of those you see first.

MJ20/20 said:

---

AtomicActuator said:

---

It's rare that groups without power can have a significant impact unless they resort to mass violence.

---

This is patently wrong. I'm pretty sure this doesn't need to be spelled out for you, but this statement is not accurate. It's intellectually dishonest to argue that in the last 5 -10 years the 5% (woke agenda) hasn't significantly impacted the 95% non violently or subversively (however you see it).

---

Amen.

Another example: MLK and the civil rights movement. We could list hundreds.

AtomicActuator said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

---

Agreed - immigrants and poor people probably aren't the cause of all our problems.

---

But many of them are having their minds poisoned with envy and hate by the left. But true, most of our problems are caused by left wing ideology.

Quote:

---

Agreed - immigrants and poor people probably aren't the cause of all our problems.

---

AtomicActuator said:

---

Even if we limit it to illegal immigrants, the quote still applies. The belief that a group of people is responsible for your problems is dangerous. Especially when the most powerful people are convincing you of that.

---

So which group of people do you think those in power are convincing their problems are caused by something external to themselves? The middle class? The upper class?

Take criminals and criminal justice reform for example. Criminals are romanticized (the vicious murderer Daniel Marsh who gave a TedTalk to applause appears to be making the rounds on podcasts). There is no such thing as evil. They only commit crimes because of their environment, which is what liberals believe must be changed.

Quote:

---

It's also a quite simple concept to understand that groups without power are less able to impact society at large than groups with power.

---

Not exactly. The influential, having what Thomas Sowell termed the unconstrained vision, have empowered marginalized groups and a good segment of the population to completely disrupt civil society.

Quote:

---

As a result, unhappy social circumstances are more readily condemned morally - being the result of someone's exertion of power - and more readily seen as things which can be changed fundamentally by the exertion of power toward different goals.

---

Which is exactly what we are seeing with DEI, BLM, rising neo-Marxism and anti-white Western movement.

Quote:

---

Among contemporary followers of the unconstrained vision, individualism likewise centers on exemption of moral and intellectual pioneers from social pressures or even, in some cases, laws. For example . . . militant advocacy of violence in the face of perceived social injustice . . .

---

Which is exactly what we are seeing with people violently protesting ICE.

LarryLayman said:

---

The answer is to come up with a way to successfully reason with lazy low iq/emotional men and all liberal white women.

Good luck with that.

---

MLK and the movement won hearts and minds.

When the civil rights act was before Congress, a Gallup poll found 61% of Americans supported it.

Be better and you will get more supporters.

Outside of the golf course or ranch with like minded friends, this is increasingly me when anyone asks me about my thoughts on modern leftists....

AtomicActuator said:

---

MLK and the movement won hearts and minds.

When the civil rights act was before Congress, a Gallup poll found 61% of Americans supported it.

Be better and you will get more supporters.

---

Quote:

---

With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act.

---

Democrats, always on the *wrong side of history (tm).

AtomicActuator said:

---

MLK and the movement won hearts and minds.

When the civil rights act was before Congress, a Gallup poll found 61% of Americans supported it.

Be better and you will get more supporters.

---

No, I think we have reached critical mass of stupidity. "Be better"??? We ARE better. By a long f-ing shot. Too many Americans are just stupid, or over consumed with anger/envy/bitterness.

Useful idiots, plain and simple. And their leaders constantly stoke the fires and weaponize them, because they know that widescale chaos creates fear and hurts ANY sitting US president and his political party.

Kamala Harris was comparing ICE and BP to KKK years ago.

"Be better"



How about se separate into two different countries...oh wait, you hate us, but at the same time you won't allow that...like the batchit crazy lady from "Fatal Attraction"....that's basically what the modern dem party has devolved to.

AtomicActuator said:

---

MLK and the movement won hearts and minds.

When the civil rights act was before Congress, a Gallup poll found 61% of Americans supported it.

Be better and you will get more supporters.

---

So you admit you were wrong. OK. That was the point of the post. You made a statement that is flat our false.

What the actual hell are you talking about?

AtomicActuator said:

---

It's not the 5% that's leading it, it's the other 46% that support it also that give it the power.

If that 5% was antagonizing and alienating 95% of the population, they would be getting nowhere. But they have found many allies instead.

---

Again intellectually dishonest. In no way does 46% on the US support radical left ideologies. Anti Trump / MAGA does not equal radical left. I do believe 46% of the country would push the button for a rock over DJT, but that's far from radical left woke ideology.

I think you are on to something in the second statement. The 5% have very powerful friends who have over time used that power to force feed radical ideologies into the mainstream. Just because you see it on TV, hear it in music, etc.. does not mean it's an organic (46%) movement.

Your comments seem to be coming from a particular lense. Are you a socialist?

Can I start by asking a basic question about the premise of this thread? Can someone please define 'radical liberal mind virus' for me so we are at least forming a common and specific language about the problem. I promise I am not trying to be coy or play dumb pretending I don't know what everyone is talking about. This thread has people whose solution is to start shooting people infected by the 'radical mind virus' and everyone posting seems to completely understand exactly what the 'radical liberal mind virus' is, and well, I think revisiting definitions is useful here.

It's potentially a very broad answer. Is it woke ideology, is it being in favor of progressive tax rates, is it thinking that 'provide for the common welfare' means something a bit more than 'the invisible hand should solve all problems?' I promise this question was asked sincerely.

The top comment on this thread is saying the answer is something that would result in a permaban. To me that clearly is implying violence. Please clarify if you think it means something else.

If you have to use violence to get people to agree with you, then your ideas suck.

AtomicActuator said:

---

What the actual hell are you talking about?

---

I'm talking about your nonsense about minority segments of the population without power changing society in major ways without violence being rare. It happens all the time! Are you even aware of what you are posting?! Apparently not.

AtomicActuator said:

---

If you have to use violence to get people to agree with you, then your ideas suck.

---

I agree with you, but look around and read the room, bro.

Who is and has been violent for the last decade+ now?

Who is and was doing it in the last week? Month? Year?

Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump...

Angry republicans?

Malibu said:

---

Can I start by asking a basic question about the premise of this thread? Can someone please define 'radical liberal mind virus' for me so we are at least forming a common and specific language about the problem. I promise I am not trying to be coy or play dumb pretending I don't know what everyone is talking about. This thread has people whose solution is to start shooting people infected by the 'radical mind virus' and everyone posting seems to completely understand exactly what the 'radical liberal mind virus' is, and well, I think revisiting definitions is useful here.

It's potentially a very broad answer. Is it woke ideology, is it being in favor of progressive tax rates, is it thinking that 'provide for the common welfare' means something a bit more than 'the invisible hand should solve all problems?' I promise this question was asked sincerely.

---

I'll help...EVERY SINGLE LEFTISTS I KNOW THINKS THAT WOMAN DID NOTHING WRONG AND WAS PURELY INNOCENT AND A TRIGGER HAPPY GESTAPO ICE AGENT KILLED HER JUST FOR FUNSIES.

These are intelligent successful dems who are buying into, and pushing, extremnely dangerous false narratives.

Then they'll weep and gnash teeth when some other violent brainwashed liberal extremists tries to kill or hurt a "nazi", aka an ICE agent (Kamala compared ICE and BP to KKK), but are instead themselves hurt or killed. But your favorite leaders will celebrate behind closed doors because they want this...that's why they instigate it.

You probably go to a progressive church that is filled with seemingly normal people...I guarantee you the vast majority accept and embrace this completely warped and false reality.

Again, these are the most normal democrats you can imagine, nice polished successful TEXAS dems.

I HAVE NOT SEEN A SINGlE LIB SAY THIS MAN SHOT A WOMAN IN SELF DEFENSE BC SHE GUNNED HER CAR AT HIM WHILE THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO DETAIN OR QUESTION HER FOR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY. NOT ONE.

no it is acknowledging the historical evidence that once the revolutionary tactics and street level and coordinated communist violence starts taking place, the only thing that stops it is for massively drastic oftentimes violent pushback.

The key distinction is they didn't do it alone. They formed a coalition of allies and the allies had the power to create change.

Many on this thread are just suggesting ways to root out dissent from the top down.

The point is, the whole premise of the "mind virus" is just "ideas that lots of people agree with" and you are brainstorming ways to suppress those ideas.

AtomicActuator said:

---

The top comment on this thread is saying the answer is something that would result in a permaban. To me that clearly is implying violence. Please clarify if you think it means something else.

If you have to use violence to get people to agree with you, then your ideas suck.

---

Mental asylums, re-education camps...non-violent, but can catch you a ban on here.

Re: the bolded part, tell that to the left, they are the overwhelmingly violent and destructive ones.

I personally think balkanization or secession might be the only peaceful solution...but the libs have made it clear they would never allow that to be peaceful. They start talking about F-16's and sending military to attack if a state or group of states thinks about secession. But they hate us. But they can't let us go.

All we have to do is eject foreigners.

The vote will be conservative again. Liberals won't be able to shovel money propping up the leftist machines. Welfare will vanish.

It will fix everything.

What do you do to the (presumably all) people who don't submit to your asylums or re-education?

It's violence with extra steps.

AtomicActuator said:

---

The top comment on this thread is saying the answer is something that would result in a permaban. To me that clearly is implying violence. Please clarify if you think it means something else.

If you have to use violence to get people to agree with you, then your ideas suck.

---

Ok, let me make sure I understand...

The Bolsheviks idea - socialism- sucked because they resorted to violence.

But if you vote it in because you've convinced idiots to support you - e.g. NYC - it doesn't suck.

The same idea is good or bad depending on the method of implementation.

SMH

My comments.
1. The rorschach test of what happened in Minneapolis cuts both ways. I think the WSJ Editorial mirrors my specific feelings on the issue. However as framed by this discussion, 'radical left' is fitting a specific narrative that is dictated by faith and not facts. That's somewhat useful but you'll need to be more specific than that.
2. I attend Catholic mass, and when I do overhear people talking politics during coffee & donuts on the courtyard it is usually of the conservative flavor. I intentionally do not discuss politics at after mass, that's not why I'm there and I would rather be united in faith with my parish than seek out argument and divisiveness.

AtomicActuator said:

---

The point is, the whole premise of the "mind virus" is just "ideas that lots of people agree with" and you are brainstorming ways to suppress those ideas.

---

I would look at it a different way.

The "mind virus" are unpopular ideas to free thinking people, but are heavily pushed and promogulated through social media and mainstream media news to make them seem popular and acceptable.

Prima facie, they are not rational positions. You have to be "woke" to use the worn-out word to accept them. That is, you have to consider yourself supremely intelligent to take these irrational positions.

But the thing is, no one taking up those positions are smart in the first place. The opposite, in fact.

Quote:

---

MLK and the movement won hearts and minds.

When the civil rights act was before Congress, a Gallup poll found 61% of Americans supported it.

Be better and you will get more supporters.

---

I would say a more salient and recent example is the Reagan Revolution. He used a persuasive and public debate to really change beliefs regarding the role of government in daily life. You will never again see an electoral map and popular vote advantage like you did in 1984.





Almost every historical movement based on fear and demagoguery either eats itself or collapses out of exhaustion. Danton, Robespierre, and others go from passionate leader of the French Revolution to finding their own heads being cut off in the public square.

As an aside, Robespierre's death was really terrible. The dude tried to escape arrest by jumping from a hotel window and ended up breaking his pelvis and fracturing his jaw and skull. His compatriot gave him a pistol so he could commit suicide and ended up just wounding himself further rather than dying.

Instead of being taken to a hospital, the police left him on a table while they assembled his trial. He was then forced into the guillotine crying out in pain from all his injuries.

Yikes.

Malibu said:

---

Can I start by asking a basic question about the premise of this thread? Can someone please define 'radical liberal mind virus' for me so we are at least forming a common and specific language about the problem.

---

Short answer.

All, the gaslit lemmings, who voted for Democrats can be easily classed as afflicted with the radical liberal mind virus.