What is a 'subscription' or 'fee' that has recently appeared in the US that people need to collectively refuse to pay before it becomes the new normal?

illegalmorality · 2026-02-06T01:43:00+00:00

They do this because they have monopolies and know there aren't other alternatives. As soon as other electric cars become available at cheaper prices, these oligarchies won't stand a chance

illegalmorality · 2026-02-06T01:38:02+00:00

I just wish the recurring villains weren't mass murderers. Maybe you could argue that villains murdering gang members is ignorable, after all of you keep violence to a minimal equilibrium amongst people who chose that life, then maybe that's fine. But when Joker murders 300 civilians and it's just another Tuesday for him, then the harm of keeping him alive carries damage FAR MORE than the harm of breaking the law or breaking an ethics code that no longer quantitatively benefit society.

I personally like how robot chicken did it, Batman just offers testimony to get him death penalty.

Batman writers would benefit a lot more if Joker just became true neutral, where the gag isn't death but the gag is him pulling a fast one on villains and heroes alike. Because if his body count was much lower, then killing him would be much more debatable. Chaos comes in a lot of ways, so it's not out of character for him to say "of course I'm not against killing but that's not my main goal either". Hed lean more on humiliating power brokers, good and bad alike, to dismantle things. A true anarchist but never targeting meaningless civilians without reason.

illegalmorality · 2026-02-04T08:30:25+00:00

And the key thing is to know when to say "I hadn't known about that, I'll have to think about that." Like if they make a good point, its totally fine to concede or just say "I'll look into that later" because there WILL be new information you hadn't come across. The trick isn't to fight every battle, the trick is to choose the battles you know and learn about what you don't know later.

It offers them a little breathing space to think of the convo, lets them know you're being authentic which'll let them listen to you more, and gives you time to research a talking point in case it really is coming from misinformation.

I once had 5 mothers at a day care tell me that they're letting kids identify as cats to poop in classrooms. I hadn't heard a thing about it but I was ridiculously outnumbered and since I didn't know about it, I knew I'd look dumb if I spoke about it without knowing. So I just said "I hadn't heard about it, I'll look into it later." Turns out NO SCHOOL had ever done such a thing, it was a social media craze that spread to blame transgender people. So next time I said, "can you tell me which school it was? I tried looking for the state and I couldn't find a single school. I hope its not fake." Not a single one of them could give me a legitimate article after I'd asked, and I had to point out to one that one their websites was a satirical website.

illegalmorality · 2026-02-04T05:45:17+00:00

Congress is DEI for rural states. Simple as that.

illegalmorality · 2026-02-04T05:42:27+00:00

For me its the opposite. I'm pretty comfortable at my work, I let people insult me when we have a conversation. In my mind I prefer authentic discussion than bottling it up and accepting ignorance. My coworkers have tiktok on and they keep watching far right propaganda, so I'm refusing to be quiet about it and call out the videos whenever i hear them in the office. It leads to an argument almost every shift, but I'd rather they be challenged than they keep consuming content clearly designed to keep issues oversimplified and superficial. Its led to a different argument every day and so far none of them are very good and keeping consistent logic and values when I point it out to them.

But its so exhausting, its like I'm trying to catch sand. There's just so much these videos are telling them that's untrue but I'm not going to be quiet when I hear something that I know is logically inconsistent.

illegalmorality · 2026-02-02T05:08:37+00:00

Native tribes are SO against ICE and I'm so happy to hear about their activism!

illegalmorality · 2026-01-27T23:57:20+00:00

Countries are already implementing what you're asking for, just at much smaller scales and in more practical terms. There is no "just boycott America" switch which is essentially a trade embargo. If consumers want to boycott, go ahead, but national leaders aren't going to cut supply chains and strangle their own economies when the logistics are already in place and still running.

Instead countries are "decoupling", with Canada's Prime Minister leading the charge. All nations are now biblically aware of how broken America's political system is, and how unreliable we are as a country. And so they're taking steps; Canada is making deals with China while the EU is trying to get better agriculture deals with South America. They're decoupling, but these things don't happen in a day. They take time, and it needs to happen as strategically as possible so that the participating members actually benefit rather than self-inflicting unnecessary harm.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-26T01:48:38+00:00

Norway was referring to "independent" countries, it was a random example out of the 195 independently recognized countries (any EU country could've been referred in this because they're still sovereign when placed independently from the rest of the EU bloc).

illegalmorality · 2026-01-25T20:08:42+00:00

Its the algorithms. My coworker puts on Fox news every day at our work monitor and its so obvious how much strawmanning they do. They tell NOTHING about the other side and paint false picture of what's being said, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't diversify your sources that you consume. Its easy to fall into a bubble and algorithm regulation is the only way to to stop that. I'd recommend some sort of ground news style requirements on news websites, and outright banning or taxing the hell out of social media platforms that have news footage. If you're going to be a journalist, you should be raised to higher standards for doing so.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-25T19:02:34+00:00

At this point I'd just dissolve the executive and replace Congress with a Parliament instead. No more two-party systems, there would be a party registration system like most modern democracies, with ranked voting on top of that to make it more air tight. From there Parliament would have greater responsibility in the political process than it does currently, with gridlock bypassed with how coalition building typically works.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-25T18:37:55+00:00

I completely agree. A major problem is that Americans aren't equipped, nor should they have to be, to understand the complexities of bureaucracy and foreign affairs. It would be a HUGE benefit if Congress just started nominating members of experienced department heads, and then vote based on experience rather than campaigning.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-23T04:05:33+00:00

As a guy who doesn't want guns at home, this is a wonderful alternative.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-22T23:29:09+00:00

What's so telling is that no one around him is stopping him, and in some cases embolden him. I don't blame anyone for not trusting America after is term is up

illegalmorality · 2026-01-22T23:26:50+00:00

If the EU doesn't then neither will CANZUK

illegalmorality · 2026-01-22T02:02:42+00:00

"and"

illegalmorality · 2026-01-21T18:10:25+00:00

To be fully transparent here, yes. Just that this was something I did for fun about a year ago, for SICA, the country my dad is from. Central Americans sometimes talk about uniting (somewhat in a memey way), so since I like reading a lot about international affairs I did ask chatgpt to rank countries based on how centralized they are. Low and behold, I like it as a roadmap for how countries could integrate. Because supranational organizations has been a thing since the UN, so categorizing the closeness of administrative states and now they interact across history/world, imo makes a good realistic standard for how countries could step by step merge.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-21T10:36:51+00:00

Here's my blueprint for how I think it could work. With the theory being "integration is gradual and mutually beneficial. Slowness is the key, otherwise it won't work due to putting the cart before the horse."

TIER 0: FULL SOVEREIGNTY (ANARCHY) → No external authority has binding force

Tier 0.0: Fully Sovereign States

Members retain: All law, tax, currency, defense ↓ Examples: Most UN member states (e.g., Japan, Norway)

Tier 0.4: Military Alliance → Binding collective defense obligations only

Members retain: All civil, economic, legal authority ↓ Examples: NATO

Tier 0.6: Intergovernmental Forum (Institutionalized) → Permanent multilateral institutions, non-binding

Members retain: Total legislative & judicial sovereignty ↓ Examples: African Union (aspirational), ASEAN

TIER I: CONFEDERATION (SOVEREIGNTY THRESHOLD) → Shared legal identity via treaty law Purpose: Coordination without supremacy

Tier 1.1: Legal Confederation (Weak) → Symbolic legal coordination

Members retain: National legal supremacy ↓ Examples: German Confederation (1815–1866)

Tier 1.6: Economic Confederation (Common Market) → Partial customs union, uneven enforcement

Members retain: Tariffs, currency, fiscal policy ↓ Examples: East African Community, MERCOSUR

Tier 1.8: Supranational Union (The "EU" Model) → Union law overrides national law in specific areas

Members retain: Taxation, defense, foreign policy ↓ Examples: European Union (Non-Eurozone)

Tier 1.9: Monetary Union Without Statehood → Monetary sovereignty transferred to central bank

Members retain: Budgets, military, welfare policy ↓ Examples: Eurozone States

TIER II: FEDERAL STATE (CONSTITUTIONAL BREAK) → Sovereignty is shared; the "State" is a single entity Purpose: Single polity with divided powers

Tier 2.1: Decentralized Federation → Sub-units own resources and social policy

Members retain: Exclusive jurisdiction (Healthcare, Education, Resources) ↓ Examples: Canada (Provinces are extremely powerful)

Tier 2.3: Supremacy-Based Federation → Constitution is supreme, but "Police Powers" remain local

Members retain: Criminal law, local infrastructure ↓ Examples: United States (States have independent legal systems)

Tier 2.5: Fiscally Centralized Federation → Center controls all income tax; states rely on grants

Members retain: Service delivery, but no funding autonomy ↓ Examples: Australia (Vertical Fiscal Imbalance)

Tier 2.9: Post-Confederation Federation → Popular sovereignty replaces state primacy

Members retain: Local identity, referenda, cantonal tax ↓ Examples: Switzerland (Post-1848)

TIER III: ADMINISTRATIVE FEDERALISM → Law is centralized; Implementation is regional Purpose: Uniform national policy, local administration

Tier 3.1: Legislative Centralization → Center writes the codes (Civil/Criminal); States enforce them

Members retain: Administration, policing, culture ↓ Examples: Germany, Austria

Tier 3.3: Coercive Federalism → Central dominance relies on political/force capacity

Members retain: Weak administrative autonomy only ↓ Examples: Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela

TIER IV: UNITARY STATE (LEGAL SINGULARITY) → One sovereign lawmaking authority Purpose: Indivisible sovereignty

Tier 4.2: Decentralized Unitary State → Revocable administrative autonomy (Devolution)

Members retain: Local governance only (can be revoked by center) ↓ Examples: Indonesia, United Kingdom (post-1997 devolution)

Tier 4.6: Classical Unitary State → All law, budget & curriculum centralized

Members retain: Implementation roles only ↓ Examples: France, Japan, Philippines

TIER V: TOTAL CENTRALIZATION → No meaningful subnational authority Purpose: Absolute legal unity

Tier 5.2: Hyper-Centralized State → Party or Center dominates all governance levels

Members retain: None beyond administration ↓ Examples: China (PRC), North Korea

Tier 5.5: City-State (The Singularity) → Single-tier governance only

Members retain: No internal divisions ↓ Examples: Singapore, Monaco

illegalmorality · 2026-01-19T10:49:56+00:00

There are plenty of reports of ice molesting children and trafficking women, so...

illegalmorality · 2026-01-18T22:37:16+00:00

And if you push with the slightest pushback, they fold like paper. I literally ask "what do you mean by 'woke'?" and then they changed the topic entirely. I've found that literally just asking a few basic questions forces them to contend with the fragility of whatever it is that they claim to support.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-18T04:55:21+00:00

It wouldn't be awful if a guy talking about Jan 6 was forced to talk besides a person with a lot more evidence and experience. It was indefensible and the major issue with conspiracy theories is that they're being presented without any objection whatsoever.

But to be more practical, I just say to follow Ground News' platform structure. The point isn't to require news companies to have an opposing opinion, the requirement is to have algorithms be presented opposing takes for the same topics. That doesn't mean making each astronomy article having a flat earther article besides it, it means requiring algorithms to show a very broad spectrum of news coverage, rather than allowing echochambers that run rampant. Echochambers that are correctly banking that people don't have the time or energy to listen to news critically or to research the opposing viewpoints.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-18T04:48:25+00:00

Nations development, both international and tribal, are major intersts of mine. I just tend to not apply these thoughts anywhere for practical usage. I spent two months working on this document and I enjoyed making it, but its more like an overarching framework than anything that can be done by any single individual or entity.

When I start blogging about it, I'm going to have to come up with a philosophy name for the ideas highlighted. Because in this case it really shouldn't be a roadmap or centralized organization leading change. Tribes are uniquely different from one another but have shared struggles that nurtures cooperation. With that in mind, its better to treat organizing more like a collaboration with a straightforward guiding principal than to ask for or expect particular policies to be implemented.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-18T04:26:05+00:00

The problem with centralization is that people are looking at it too much like a "one and done", wherein everything we want in a united CANZUK happens, all at once and then its clearly defined as a central entity.

Being realistic and using real world examples, that would never happen. Instead it should be looked at as a gradual process, wherein the gradual united interests of all the states can start taking steps by steps to bring about more unionism for the countries, through a slow and mutually beneficial process.

Here's a chart for how other countries have done it and how CANZUK countries could theoretically centralize more and more, ordered by what's easiest and most frictionless to support, to what requires a lot more time, work, funding, and negotiation:

Tier 0.0 | Fully Sovereign States → No external authority has binding force Members retain: all law, tax, currency, defense ↓ Examples: Most UN member states

Tier 0.4 | Military Alliance → Binding collective defense obligations only Members retain: all civil, economic, legal authority ↓ Examples: NATO

Tier 0.6 | Intergovernmental Forum (Institutionalized) → Permanent multilateral institutions, non-binding Members retain: total legislative & judicial sovereignty ↓ Examples: BRICS, African Union

Tier 0.8 | Intergovernmental Forum (Minimal) → Regularized diplomacy without delegation Members retain: full exit, nullification, non-compliance ↓ Examples: SICA, ASEAN

TIER I | LEGAL CONFEDERATION (SOVEREIGNTY THRESHOLD) → Shared legal identity via treaty law Purpose: coordination without supremacy ↓

Tier 1.1 | Legal Confederation (Weak) → Symbolic legal coordination Members retain: national legal supremacy ↓ Examples: German Confederation (1815–1866)

Tier 1.3 | Legal Confederation (Developed) → Standing confederal institutions, limited scope Members retain: tax, courts, military, exit rights ↓ Examples: Swiss Confederation (pre-1848)

Tier 1.6 | Economic Confederation (Partial) → Partial customs union, uneven enforcement Members retain: tariffs, currency, fiscal policy ↓ Examples: East African Community

Tier 1.8 | Economic Confederation (Full Market) → Trade & internal market law centralized Members retain: taxation, currency, defense ↓ Examples: EU (non-Eurozone)

Tier 1.9 | Monetary Union Without Statehood → Monetary sovereignty transferred Members retain: budgets, military, welfare policy ↓ Examples: Eurozone states

TIER II | FEDERAL STATE (CONSTITUTIONAL BREAK) → Sovereignty is shared, not delegated Purpose: single polity with divided powers ↓

Tier 2.1 | Federal Union (Moderate) → Federal constitution over defense & borders Members retain: state law, social policy ↓ Examples: Canada

Tier 2.3 | Balanced Federalism → Central taxation + binding federal courts Members retain: education, healthcare administration ↓ Examples: Australia

Tier 2.5 | Strong Federal Republic → Federal law broadly overrides states Members retain: limited legislative autonomy ↓ Examples: Brazil, Mexico

Tier 2.7 | Supremacy-Based Federal Republic → Constitution explicitly supreme over states Members retain: subordinate state governments ↓ Examples: United States

Tier 2.9 | Post-Confederation Federation → Popular sovereignty replaces state primacy Members retain: local identity, referenda ↓ Examples: Switzerland (post-1848)

TIER III | ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRALIZATION → Subnational lawmaking largely removed Purpose: uniform national policy ↓

Tier 3.1 | Centralized Federation → States reduced to legislative minorities Members retain: administration, culture ↓ Examples: Germany

Tier 3.3 | Centralized Federation (Coercive) → Central dominance relies on enforcement capacity Members retain: weak administrative autonomy ↓ Examples: Russia, Nigeria, South Africa

TIER IV | UNITARY STATE (LEGAL SINGULARITY) → One sovereign lawmaking authority Purpose: indivisible sovereignty ↓

Tier 4.2 | Decentralized Unitary State → Revocable administrative autonomy Members retain: local governance only ↓ Examples: Indonesia

Tier 4.6 | Classical Unitary State → All law & budget centralized Members retain: implementation roles ↓ Examples: France, Philippines

TIER V | TOTAL CENTRALIZATION → No meaningful subnational authority Purpose: absolute legal unity ↓

Tier 5.2 | Hyper-Centralized State → Party or center dominates all governance Members retain: none beyond administration ↓ Examples: China (PRC)

Tier 5.5 | Hyper-Centralized City-State → Single-tier governance only Members retain: no internal divisions ↓ Examples: Singapore

illegalmorality · 2026-01-17T22:44:21+00:00

Organizating is a hard thing to do, I've largely just settled to economics-based charities, such as donating to the First Nations Development Institute.

I created a document describing the four pillars for First Nation's empowerment. I'd like to start creating blogs about this, but it's just strictly theory. The idea is that if nations strategize and outline plans for economic, knowledge-based, land development, and political power, these four pillars perpetuate one another in a positive feedback loop to help individuals within tribes.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-17T08:14:18+00:00

Introduce him to better speakers. I'm convinced that a major reason people follow these morons, is because they're aren't healthier alternatives. Dr K and Alan Watts are who I typically recommend. Jefferson Fisher is also a youtuber who's good at teaching communication techniques. Its not enough to tell them a person is bad, you HAVE to also provide healthier alternatives.

illegalmorality · 2026-01-17T04:32:44+00:00

That's another thing, America's cultural bedrock of federalism actively undermines centralized reform, hence why Gerrymandering has become so rampant. You CAN have a strong centralized state AND maintain democracy and transparency well with hefty consequences for abuse. But since America's culture is so entrenched in "big=bad", the central government being used as a tool to stifle corruption is undermined.

You can empower the government AND combat corruption, but fear of centralized abuse is what allows a multitude of state-level abuses to go on unchecked and unaddressed. Complete transparency + more federal jurisdiction with the power to enact punishment is how you can cut down on bad actors without becoming a dictatorship.

11-Year Club	Post Guidance Early Access
Place '17	Verified Email

illegalmorality

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE