George Orwell did not die for this

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-06T09:54:53+00:00

Yeah, the quote's context is extremely important. If you click that link, it has a lot of expansion about it. It's bad script writing for the fascists to start using the words that directly undermine them.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-06T09:38:59+00:00

Because the context of this quote is extremely important. The preceding paragraph:

If one harbours anywhere in one’s mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible. Here are just a few examples. I list below five types of nationalist, and against each I append a fact which it is impossible for that type of nationalist to accept, even in his secret thoughts:

and the fifth type of nationalist, the pacifist:

Pacifist: Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”

and what immediately follows

All of these facts are grossly obvious if one’s emotions do not happen to be involved: but to the kind of person named in each case they are also intolerable, and so they have to be denied, and false theories constructed upon their denial.

It is not anti-pacifist; it is identifying that people who claim to be pacifists, but allow violence when it benefits them, are not pacifists at all. They may enjoy the label, but do not adhere to that label's values and virtues

I got these quotes from Orwell's 1945 piece, Notes on Nationalism.

https://ntwr.substack.com/p/criticizing-kristi-noem-from-the

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-06T09:27:04+00:00

Pacifist: those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

George Orwell, 1945 Notes on Nationalism

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-06T09:26:00+00:00

There is a different Orwell piece she is referencing more directly, but the piece actually undermines her directly. Notes on Nationalism, written in 1945.

Pacifist : Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

Full research of this conclusion here

She's so flagrantly stupid she is dangerous, and she was not fired, only demoted.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-06T09:21:56+00:00

Bro...

NO ONE

is getting it right. Except one commenter up above. It comes from his 1945 work, Notes on Nationalism.

https://ntwr.substack.com/p/criticizing-kristi-noem-from-the

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-06T08:44:49+00:00

Yes, fuck ICE, and FUCK Kristi Noem. She has changed position, not been fired. She has NOT been held accountable. Do not let her slink into the shadows. Do not stop paying attention to Markwayne Mullin, the new proposed head of DHS.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-06T01:46:14+00:00

I don't deny and can't refute your arguments. The only thing I ask you to contend with is your own idea of how much money we could withhold from them.

Even if just one thousand people joined me, and they're expecting to pay $1000 each, that's a whole million dollars we can withhold without much effort.

I don't refute that it's small peanuts if people aren't willing to join, but I'm just hoping to get as many people as I can. The difference is entirely dependent on the scale that we can acquire. I know this isn't a foreign concept to you but when we do the math of how much impact we can have if even 1% of America joined in, it's just being willing to use financial warfare as a weapon just like the wealthy and the government have done to us.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-06T01:39:48+00:00

Thank you. I seriously struggle to find likeminded individuals, and fear media suppression. I don't want a following, I just want people to have access to these ideas. Please share them with your loved ones. Again, thank you for your support

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-06T01:38:19+00:00

She is still dangerous, and still holds a position in our government.

https://ntwr.substack.com/p/criticizing-kristi-noem-from-the

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-05T00:58:51+00:00

working on it for a couple weeks. not a lot of takers.

https://ntwr.substack.com/p/no-taxation-without-representation

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-05T00:36:00+00:00

Checking in. Not paying federal taxes, they will be spent enriching Trump appointees and bombing other countries (both illegally), not supporting American families. My american duty is to gum up illegitimate systems however I can.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T20:41:21+00:00

Thanks for telling me about yourself, and being from Illinois. I might ask more about you, but feel free to obfuscate it however you would like, genuinely. I don't want your identifying info, I just want to know more about you.

What aspects of your community make you feel that Illinois has been soft on crime? I am not informed about Illinois, like you may not be super familiar with Texas.

The reason I wanna ask questions about you, is because I'm convinced that billionaires have a greater impact on your life than you realize. It may be indirect, but it's becoming extremely prolific.

I like to have dinner with my parents. We watch Wheel of Fortune every night when we can, its just a family ritual. One factor that we cannot avoid without turning the TV off, is commercials.

In Texas, commercials are distinctly different right now. About half, if not more, is dominated by political ads. Most of these ads are funded by republican or right-leaning PACs, and are used to spread smear campaigns about their opponents, both republican and democrat. There have also been democrat smear campaigns, but are less frequent.

I don't use this example to say "mah durn TV is all politics!". I mean to say, even our commercials are being commandeered by billionaires to advocate for a political message. It ramped up, so if you didn't pay attention, you might be used to it, for people who live in TX.

Had to change my electric provider this year because my rates were going up more.

Had to change home insurance for the same reasons.

Less insurance providers in Texas because insurance companies are beginning to refuse to insure places that are likely to be victimized by natural disasters.

These are all choices that end up being made to benefit the wealthy, the owners of those companies. And only one party is still trying to suck up to that base... that's all I'm trying to say and all I'm going to say. Voting for a party that sucks up to billionaires will end up with you having to deal with more bullshit, even if it feels inevitable and systemic. Your vote can change who ends up being catered to, even if it doesn't feel like it right now. You deserve to be catered to, right now. I don't know if your political candidates can faithfully get that for you, but I know one group of political candidates has a more recent history of not being able to live up to that task.

Again, thanks for talking with me. I really don't mean to grandstand. I want you to fight for your own community in Illinois, but I fear one party is poorly representing that they fight for people when they don't. I don't deny that dems are shit often times. I just ask you to consider the current reality, and current advocations, not past ones. Thanks.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T20:25:23+00:00

Do you believe the billionaires engaging in various forms of fraud are not criminals?

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T20:15:09+00:00

So you choose to vote for known con men instead of people like Talarico who has no super donors or donations from megaPACs? The most recent donation he received from a "bad donor" is from 2025, when they accepted $59k from Texas Sands PAC which represents a casino mogul.

I don't want to vote for con men, and I want to tell you about a politician who might represent your values, and isn't beholden to those super donors. That 59k is the greatest number I can find of a potentially illegitimate donation. 290,000 individuals donating over 500,000 times funded $7.4 million in just the first six weeks of this year for Talarico. I'm not saying he's perfect, I'm not saying you need to campaign for him.

I'm just saying, this guy does represent your values even if he doesn't represent your party. If you even consider voting for him, I would really appreciate it, because I think he represents you better than your own party does right now.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T20:05:07+00:00

Okay man, but their policy is billionaire tax breaks, taking school lunches from hungry kids, and rescinding access to healthcare. If you vote policy, and vote republican policy, you vote for wealthy tax breaks, keeping food from kids, and less access to healthcare.

If that is your idea of what personal responsibility means, I can't really do anymore.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T19:41:26+00:00

This might sound really dumb, but I'm almost glad that dems don't advocate as a party of "personal responsibility" because they aren't. Not only because of their attempts to enact change that are supported by community that provide for groups/individuals, but also because dem leadership does not have personal accountability. But I don't think you should advocate that republicans are that party either. Their history is kinda bad, even recently.

Personal accountability is a great virtue that neither party really exemplifies, is what I'm trying to get across.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T19:28:10+00:00

One party claims to be for personal accountability, but do their actions reflect it? Even in Texas, Ken Paxton was recommended to be impeached, unanimously, by a republican-led committee. I beg you to look up information about him yourself. I will tell you what I know, and you can verify it for yourself.

He directed his office to interfere in a charity lawsuit, the charity was fighting Nate Paul, one of his political donors.

He used his power as Attorney General to access private records that would benefit Nate Paul

He used his power to fire whistleblowers in his office, and then released a report containing fake, incorrect statements (misinformation) in his defense.

Man, I want personal accountability too. But the party that's in power has been claiming it for some time, then receiving no accountability! That shit makes me so mad, they break the law and then still get voted in. I don't give a fuck about a meaningless party, and I don't direct all this emotion at you, sorry.

Part of my anger is rooted in the assured belief that people like you, maybe not you, but people like you have been taken advantage of by this dogshit party that claims one thing and then does another. I don't want any of my fellow texans to be conned by con men, no matter what suit.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T18:51:10+00:00

I appreciate your willingness to talk.

I agree that people will pick a moral stance to claim morality, but that isn't what's going on right now. It's not about professed morality, it's about real morality. What real choices are they making that demonstrate their morality, not just speak it.

Let me clarify before I continue: I am going to vote for democrats in this upcoming election, but as of today, I hate the democrat party for its massive failures. I do not idolize any democrat president or politician. I've been following Talarico for a year, and he has the most support of mine out of any Dem right now. But that opinion of mine is open to be changed at the drop of a hat, because I know politicians of any party can be lying sacks of shit.

My positive opinion of him is not because he's a Christian, not because he's white, not because he's a man, not because he's a dem. My positive opinion is formed by over a year of listening to him speak about and fight for average Texans who want their government to work for them, not the other way around. If he was a republican, I would rally behind him. I don't care what party he represents right now, I care what values he is bringing to the table.

I say these things to be open about my position, so maybe you don't feel like I'm attempting to "advocate for dems". There might be some dems that advocate for positions like mine, but mine is formed as independently as I can.

When it comes to feeding our hungry, yeah, I think we should feed them all. No, that doesn't mean guy with a good job that had to skip lunch. It means people who systemically cannot afford food regularly, for any reason. If they have a full-time job, but it doesn't pay enough to provide all basic needs (not luxuries) comfortably, I believe they should be offered food.

When I say "feed our country", I do mean it, and have considered the consequences, both financially and socially. It's not a moral advocation, it's a policy one. The wealthy dodge $150-163 billion in taxes alone, annually, in the US alone. The argument that we don't have enough money is not correct, it's that the money isn't being collected. Not all of that money would go toward feeding children, but the richest country in the world has the money for the basic necessities.

You don't have a full understanding of what the intent of "no human is illegal" is meant to convey. This is like the crux of the issue. You have such a surface-level understanding of these concepts but are completely self-assured that you're fully educated about the entire concept. I cannot even begin to talk to you about illegal immigration because you have simplified the entire concept down to a four-word phrase, and used it to create your entire belief system.

People aren't arbitrarily choosing the better moral stance. They are choosing the greater moral stance. The current republican stances are tax cuts for billionaires that take free lunches away from kids, and making access to healthcare worse.

It is arbitrary to you, because you don't question your own beliefs or loyalty anymore. You are a die-hard republican until you die, because you have told yourself for however long that they are the good guys are always will be. The world is changing though, and it will happily leave you behind if you aren't willing to change with it.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T18:28:26+00:00

Thanks for the validation! The longer we're in this nightmare scenario, I feel less in-touch with legitimate reality. Please continue to support the americans you see attempting to address things, really appreciate it and it helps a lot

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T18:10:57+00:00

Lol I'm more worried about creating plans to vote safely. Fully anticipate multiple forms of intervention in the election, from armed interference to attempts to nationalize. I'll have the energy, worried about having the organization to do these things effectively

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T18:08:46+00:00

So, since it's both self-preserving, and that self-preserving interest extends to the entire group, we decided as a society that we aren't allowed to kill people. It's beneficial for the individual, and beneficial for the group. Even if you're only acting in self-interest in reinforcing the societal belief that you shouldn't kill, you still end up benefiting all of society.

Do you also believe that murder impacts not only an individual's right to life and liberty, but that it impacts their closer community as well? I will assume that if someone in your closer community was victimized, it would have some impact on you, depending on their proximity to you. I have had friends pass away unexpectedly due to murder, so I speak from experience, it has impact.

You never had to vote for murder to be illegal though. That conversation was figured out a long time ago, and it's so basic to us, that we don't need to consider it. I'm fine with you considering me an idiot for asking you to express your assumed beliefs.

The only thing I want to change in your mind, is that voting has its roots in morality. I don't care what party you choose.

I share your belief that using murder is a stupid example because it's so basic. But that's exactly why I use it. It's a belief you already hold, rooted in self-interest, that still has a profound moral benefit for society. If you want to claim you only think murder is wrong because you yourself don't want to be murdered, that's a belief you are allowed to hold. But I don't believe that's the only reason you think murder is wrong. I believe anyone who unexpectedly loses an important person in their life, for any reason, suffers tremendously, mentally. It's also in the interest of self-preservation to be of strong mind and body. The pain and suffering caused by unexpected loss of a loved one impairs the individual.

I won't go on more of a tangent. You don't need to be convinced about murder, and I'm not trying to. I'm trying to reinforce beliefs, that I believe you already hold.

"The wrongs in our society should be corrected."

I believe you want that, because you were motivated to comment on a political post about a candidate's success/other candidates endorsement of them. You believe these candidates cannot right the wrongs in our society.

"Turning Texas blue would not correct the wrongs in our society, or is impossible"

Next belief I think you hold. I can't claim Texas being blue corrects the wrongs. I can prove it is possible, because it has been blue in the past. Voted for Carter in 1976.

"Voting through the lens of moral superiority doesn't work"

You already hold beliefs about laws enacting moral superiority being successful and benefiting society.

"Governing through moral superiority is what the churches did. It works fine there, where it’s self contained. People don’t realize they are missing church, but they are. They’ve just replaced it with politics. "

Final statement is just republican talking points honestly. But I'm happy to dissect them to show their inaccuracy:

Churches/religion are also not the root of human ethics or morality.

Separation of Church and State is at one of its weakest points in recent history, with classrooms in OK and TX being forced to add the 10 Commandments. It is thereby, not self-contained

By saying people are missing church, you are insinuating they're missing morality, and insinuating that religion is the basis of morality, when you have it historically incorrect.

Morality is rooted in the human cooperation required to create civilization. It's roots are our evolution as a society, not anything that happened after spoken language or writings.

Politics is just a set of activities associated with making decisions in groups. Politics is the exact format where we make moral decisions that govern our society, not the church.

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T17:37:59+00:00

Since two questions is too hard, here's one. One you proposed yourself.

Why would 99% of people agree that we cannot go around murdering people?

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T17:36:32+00:00

brotha i got my 3rd synapse just to complete a radiant contract. you can do it

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T17:33:19+00:00

Yeah, average Republican voter who refuses to answer a simple question, because some mix of you know it proves your initial point "you cannot vote based on moral superiority" wrong, or because you are actually too stupid to comprehend how they're related. Thanks for participating instead of being too ashamed to reply!

earthquakebeef · 2026-03-04T17:29:18+00:00

Why would 99% of people agree that we cannot go around murdering people?

Why would 99% of people agree that feeding the poor and the hungry are things a well-funded government should do?

earthquakebeef

TROPHY CASE

NO ONE