The Negative 48 cult in particular is fucking nuts.
The guy behind it calls himself negative 48 because he got into bizarre Hebrew numerology and came to the conclusion that the number "48" means "Evil" so by calling himself "Negative 48" he's "Anti-Evil". He died in some kind of automobile accident and his cult schismed over whether he's actually dead (they recovered his body) or is simply going into hiding ("Muh body-double, deep state assassins came after him.") He would do something like 8 hour livestreams where he rambles a bunch of numbers and explains their meanings.>>1612262
Yes. Its still a residual culture war issue, even as the government quietly accepts that folks will either get the vaccine or they won't. Q-Anon types, according to reports from their families, still insist that any day now a signal will go out that causes all the vaccinated people to die en masse.>>1612266>He's said some pretty repugnant stuff, but he hasn't actually admitted to any crimes, so there are no grounds for a criminal investigation.
If a guy repeatedly talks about how pedophilia isn't wrong, child pornography isn't wrong ("if you don't pay for it, bruh") and openly admits to masturbating to cartoon depictions of children and says that he finds girls as young as 14 sexually attractive, then at the very least
I wouldn't allow that man near any kids. That there are folks claiming Agent Kochinski sexually harassed them over fbi.gov is only more evidence against him. Past a point, he should be investigated for all the frankly disturbing comments he's made.
>If you treat anyone who wants to decriminalize something as a potential criminal then you can easily apply the same logic to justify police surveillance of anyone who espouses revolutionary views.
Except the government and police already do.
One of our comrades, JT of Second Thought and Deprogram Fame, got confronted by a few government spooks just for saying the CIA was a terrorist organization. There's no "red line" where, when we legalize going after suspected pedophiles we legalize going after revolutionaries. The government already does that.
I'm not advocating for the expansion of government power. The government already has that power and it's used it. I'm saying this particular guy has made enough perverted statements that he should be investigated. If he says he sees no problem with viewing child porn and finds the idea of an eleven year old having sex with an adult arousing, then he's given more than enough reasons to investigate him.
>With that said, I think it's obvious at this point that Vowsh has said enough pedo shit that his career is at risk if he challenges the established order too much.
Has Agent Kochinski, at any point, even remotely challenged the established order? Like, at all? He's openly supported NATO. He's frankly imperialist and has supported, at various times, the intervention in Iraq and the proxy war in Ukraine. He's claimed to be a "pacifist" so he's by no means a revolutionary. He's repeatedly attacked America's geopolitical enemies and openly promotes the democratic party. Has he done anything
at all to challenge the established order? Because we aren't even talking "too much" we're talking basic principles. He's attacked Socialists and various leftists more than anyone in actual power.
>One push from the corporate media demanding he be cancelled and he's done.G O O D
Agent Kochinski doesn't need to exist, at all. He's entirely self-serving. He doesn't organize anything. He doesn't advocate for anything. He should be working an actual job like a normal prole instead of subsisting off ad revenue and Patreon. He's just some fatass who plays video games all day. The Left doesn't "need" him at all.
>If he had opposed western "lethal aid" to Ukraine instead of shilling for it I think he'd be exposed already.
That implies he has any reason to oppose western lethal aid. This is the same guy who said Russians should be sanctioned until they're starved to make them "nice and compliant.">>1612275
He seems like more of a human than any freak in Washington right now.>>1612276>You either support freedom of speech for your worst enemies, or you don't actually support freedom of speech.
Do you think that's ever applied to the Right? I'm in the CPUSA, we had Klansmen hunting Comrades down throughout the cold war. If you were an open Communist, you'd be arrested, tortured, you'd lose your job, your relationships, all with the governments approval. Do you think at ANY point the fucking pigs said "Well we can't arrest this communist, because if we do we'll have to arrest Klansmen"? No. They just arrested the commies and rubbed shoulders with the Nazis. Fred Hampton was murdered by the cops, did the John Birch society have to deal with ANYTHING to that extent?
>If you say you support the right to freedom of speech
I never said I did.
>presumption of innocence and so on
What presumption of innocence did Henry Winston get when he was beaten and mistreated by the cops 'till he went blind? What presumption of innocence did ANY of the people dragged before HUAC and publicly shamed get?
>except for fascists and pedos, you're immediately going to see the definition of fascist and pedo rhetoric expanded past its original targets and used to attack the left.
You're making it sound like the Left isn't already attacked. Y'know the government is wholly capable of attacking one group while letting the other off, right? The constitution ain't magic bud, there's nothing stopping the government from saying "Well just because we attack the left doesn't mean we have to attack the right."
>This has already been used against us.
Which disproves your own point
that actually persecuting Fascists and Pedophiles would "open doors" for the Left's persecution.
>Because most of the left supports the position that fascist and anti-semitic speech should be suppressed
Which it should.
>the bourgeois establishment expanded the definition of "anti-semitism" to include any criticism of Zionism or finance capital and used it to launch a successful purge of the UK Labour Party, which the left could have resisted much more effectively if they had a history of supporting free speech on principle without exceptions.
What makes you think, even for a moment, that they wouldn't have done it anyways? The Right went on and on about "Free Speech" during the SJW years, and the second they had the chance they started banning transgendered athletes, banning books, legalizing running over protesters, on and on it went. Do you think some nerd in a lanyard pointing out "Heheh, well, looks like you just made yourself a hypocrite!
" stopped them at all? Y'know what all the calls of hypocrisy did to Trump? Jack. Fucking. Shit.
You want to know what Corbyn could've done? Not saying it would've worked, but he could've just said "Yeah these guys are obviously lying about anti semitism to kill my campaign." He could've been completely unapologetic, he could've said that the accusations were bullshit nonsense. That doesn't require some reliance on free speech, just common fucking sense.
The same people that fret about "tankies" on the Left are the people who threw Corbyn under the bus the second the first accusations came out. Instead of having a left "devoted to free speech" we could use a left with some cajones.>>1612318>Would you support that anyone who campaigns for marijuana to be decriminalized be liable to get their door kicked down to search for contraband weed?
Again, do you think that'd stop the feds from doing it even if they wanted to?>>1612319>Anarchists get called tankies these days which is hilarious. I've seen people bickering how CHOMSKY is a fucking tankie.
Every day I rebel against the idea that "leftism" has to do with morality at all. More and more I see it as some misrepresentation of Marxist ideals as "slave morality" rather than an actual political program.