Welcome to General Chat - GAW Community Area
This General Chat area started off as a place for people to talk about things that are off topic, however it has quickly evolved into a community and has become an integral part of the GAW experience for many of us.
Based on its evolving needs and plenty of user feedback, we are trying to bring some order and institute some rules. Please make sure you read these rules and participate in the spirit of this community.
Rules for General Chat
-
Be respectful to each other. This is of utmost importance, and comments may be removed if deemed not respectful.
-
Avoid long drawn out arguments. This should be a place to relax, not to waste your time needlessly.
-
Personal anecdotes, puzzles, cute pics/clips - everything welcome
-
Please do not spam at the top level. If you have a lot to post each day, try and post them all together in one top level comment
-
Try keep things light. If you are bringing in deep stuff, try not to go overboard.
-
Things that are clearly on-topic for this board should be posted as a separate post and not here (except if you are new and still getting the feel of this place)
-
If you find people violating these rules, deport them rather than start a argument here.
-
Feel free to give feedback as these rules are expected to keep evolving
In short, imagine this thread to be a local community hall where we all gather and chat daily. Please be respectful to others in the same way
Rules For the rest of the Site also accessible on the sidebar.
--
Coming up later, it's The Sunday Funnies!
Here's another one that didn't make the cut.
Tons of gunfire like a shootout at the white house. I was just there. Everyone is running, we went back to our hotel.
How exciting! Grateful you're OK.
Wasn't there an anon with a time, counter, day counter?
Could we get something like that for Epstein arrests?
Anarchy, Primitivism, and Technological Dictatorship
Introduction
I was wondering what people here have thought about primitivism (using less technology) and anarchism (there being less to no "government")
I was thinking about these topics when thinking about the political ideology of the USA for the Memorial day holiday weekend
As a teenager, the experience of "American freedom" was enjoyable, so I considered the idea of "anarchism" or taking "liberty" to its full logical extent to be possibly desirable
I think for me the idea of the old American less inhabited frontier seemed attractive, of someone having a plot of land and being self-sufficient ("individualist anarchism")
This kind of vision would only work somewhat with less technology (leaning in a "primitivism" direction), for if you need to make use of more developed machines, you become dependent on a complex network of people producing the machines
Anarcho-Capitalism
Eventually I was confronted with perhaps some of the naive views of "anarchism": for example, if there is no law against it, could someone just attack you and take all your things?
However, it was suggested in response, that if someone is "free" to do this, someone is also "free" to respond with self-defense; at this point, mere "anarchy" seems to transform into more of the vision of "anarcho-capitalism", or something like government entities existing without you having to have one central government
Because, in such a scenario, you would also be "free" to team up with friends to form something of a police force, of rules (laws) you agree to commonly, and of other such functions that we have centralized governments perform for us today
So, even if it is technically "anarchy", or there is no one single government, still it seems "naive anarchy" resolves to something of a "decentralized 'State'" existing - it's just not one entity, but it may be a collection of entities that we might group together and view as a "State" in one area
I guess a question is about if this is viable or desirable today ("anarcho-capitalism")
Such "anarcho-capitalists" (ancaps) I've seen frequently suggest that this would do away with taxes, which are involuntary costs paid to a government; however, while you might be "free" from paying for a police force to exist, in practice you'd probably want police protection, and hence would pay a fee that is like a "tax" that is somewhat involuntarily imposed upon you by the state of nature of needing police help
Objection Example: What About the Children?
Certainly if you consider a lot of objections against "anarchy", one for example might come up that children might lack protections that exist under a government
I concede that this could be an issue, but on the other hand it seems like even with a big State we end up with legalized abortion and plenty of abuse happening (whether by organized elites, or a common person) - so I'm not sure more abuses of children would or wouldn't exist (and I would enjoy hearing people's thoughts)
Technological Dictatorship
But I guess my question is about if we ought to move our government in the USA more towards smaller government (minarchy) or no government (anarchy), or about what goals exist for the development of our country going forward
Are we instead moving towards bigger government and more dependence on technology ("technological dictatorship") and is this process somewhat inevitable?
Big corporations buy up smaller companies and grow even larger; States acquire new territories (like Trump eyeing up Greenland and Canada) to become larger; we keep building up a bigger global technological "machine", now powered by many datacenters to run AI programs
So is resistance to this movement towards "One Technological World Government" just a temporary measure before inevitable "End Times" that will come, and to what extent is it desirable to form smaller operations (small companies which are subject to going out of business towards larger corporations, or smaller governments or entities which are subject to warfare by larger States, or primitive lifestyles which are subject to being forcibly disrupted by technological developments?)
Conclusion
In our current political situation, a lot of us have "tribally" rallied around MAGA with Trump as the leader, as we face many who don't share our values teaming up to bring us towards some other "vision" of what society should be; but I guess I was wondering what people think the ideal vision is to work towards in the face of the threat of "technological dictatorship" and if something of "anarchist primitivism" in contrast is desirable or an extreme to avoid, with a "lower tech small government" kind of situation being advocated for, or even something else entirely
There are many factors in how less a technology you can use and get away assuming the world is a free market economy.
The rate of growth of technology (productivity) needs to be in line with rate of growth of population for a country to sustain itself. A large population with primitive technology will struggle to cope.
In a free world, the free market will dictate the growth of technology. Only way to push primitivism is by enforcing it against the will of people, and this would inevitably lead to the collapse of the country.
Progress in technology almost always also has a military component. A primitive country will not be able to defend itself from other countries who have surpassed it in military technology.
The fear of technological dictatorship, does not arise from technological progress itself, but who controls that progress and how much aware people are in general. We are so blessed that the most powerful progress in technology is happening with "our guy" in charge, while the population itself has undergone a level of awakening not seen in 2000 years. This means, the new technological progress will not become a weapon against people but a tool for the people for prosperity.
It looks good on paper, but the fact is "power rules society". In a group of kids, the strongest or the smartest kids will lead the group. This applies to every segment of the society not just kids. In a truly anarchist society, we will have a small group of strong people who would rule the society in mafia-style.
This is why US constitution enumerates the powers delegated to the federal government. That is the bare minimum necessary to keep the society functioning properly and fairly.
I think one objection to this "free market development of technology" is that it forces everyone to go along with it; primitivism versus a society with technology are kind of two "total" systems: for example, if you didn't have technology, it's kind of "forcing" others to cope without technology (like some people who rely on technology to survive, who might die) - this is often focused on as an argument against primitivism, however the same problem exists with the technological society we live in: the technology we develop gets forced on everyone.
No one can really meaningfully "opt out" from the building of datacenters and march of AI for example, but are forced to deal with them to some extent - technology has this kind of "forceful" sense to it. The outmatched primitive tribe with basic weapons like a bow and arrow, are forced to get guns if facing an opponent with such weaponry. Hence technology forces people to keep adopting more technology, in something of a vicious cycle. I think some primitivists argue these technological developments ultimately take away our freedom and make us "slaves to technology".
I think anarchists would argue in response that we could have the same kind of problem with governments as we currently have abusive elites rule us involuntarily; so it's not intrinsic to anarchy or governments existing, it's just both systems can go in a good or bad direction.
It's certainly possible anarchy could devolve into a bunch of gangs or warlords fighting against each other, much like governments like we have now could be semi-functional also as we experience.
Froggy family-friendly fare featuring RJD
Love Is All
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjtXM55Nu8&list=RDYKjtXM55Nu8&start_radio=1
Coming up at Midnight, it's The Sunday Funnies!
Here is one that didn't make the cut.
Looking forward it, it looks like it will be another great one — the one that didn’t make it was good. :)
The bar is high to make the funnies, usually.
Thank you fren.
There’s a program called, Hidden Beneath the Cities that can be found on the National Geographic Channel. In Season 1, Episode 5, they ran a segment about tunnels underneath Washington, DC and how a bootlegger known as The Man in the Green Hat used the tunnels to supply members of Congress with alcohol during Prohibition. They say he made 25 deliveries each day to both chambers and that he was given his own office in the office building.
u/#ridetofreedom
Like a bird freed from the gaslight beside the pool of Truth.
Bolton looks like he has lost weight.
He should thank DJT for cutting him down to size....
No more fat cat status..
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026/05/22/bolton-six-weeks-of-ceasefire-has-benefited-only-iran/
Marjorie Taylor Green has a very low IQ. I was going to post this but I decided not to busy the Forum with a ReTarD like her.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYnK8utvMe8/
Title: Trump Cabinet Pattern — Transitional Optics
The early Trump 2.0 cabinet leaned heavily on politically confirmable, media-friendly figures — Noem at DHS, Bondi at DOJ, Gabbard at DNI, Chavez-DeRemer at Labor — to stabilize the rollout phase and absorb the initial media and confirmation warfare.
About 15 months later, they exited in a compressed window through different mechanisms but with the same functional result: replacements moved in with far less resistance after institutional momentum was already established.
The pattern is simple: confirmable stabilizers first, harder operators later.
Initial confirmations are the expensive fight. Replacements are easier once agencies are running, opposition fatigue sets in, and the political cost of resistance rises.
This is standard political mechanics. Both parties have used versions of it for decades.
Personnel functioned as perception buffers while the machinery locked into place.
A harder operator than Tulsi?
Hold on to your tinfoil hats!!!!
This sounds correct. But one thing to note is that the "first wave" also had their own specific targets. For example, Bondi established the Rico case against Brennan etc in her home turf Florida.
Tulsi declassified a lot of stuff that would have been highly resisted and she probably used unorthodox means to make this happen.
Will there be more people leaving? Maybe. Regardless this signifies a "change in epoch" - the operational transition, so to speak, to a next phase.
Correct
Pterosaur Herbivory BY FRANK SHERWIN, D.SC. (HON.)
MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2026
https://www.icr.org/article/pterosaur-herbivory/
The fascinating flying reptiles called pterosaurs are in the news again.1 In a not-so-surprising development, paleontologists have discovered a pterosaur fossil that was found to have small stones (used in the gizzard to grind food) and plant microfossils at the stomach mass.2 This indicates the pterosaur ate vegetation, lending credibility to the creation model. According to evolutionist Eric Ralls, “The research [of Jiang et al.] provides direct evidence that at least one pterosaur species ate plants.”3
Indeed, the discovery reminds one of the creation week account in Genesis where all animals were given only “green herbs” for food (1:30). It fits the creation model that states at one time in Earth’s recent past people and all animals, including crocodiles, lions, T. rex, sharks, spiders, alligators, etc., were vegetarian.4 It is not known exactly when the transition to carnivorous and predatory behavior occurred, but we do know it happened after Adam and Eve sinned and did not involve evolution (Romans 5:12). As one creation scientist said, “No physical evolution was required to change herbivores to predators—it was merely a change in behavior.”5
During the study, phytoliths were also extracted from the stomach contents of the pterosaur fossil.2 Phytoliths are tiny siliceous (mineral) particles produced by plants that can remain in fossils, being highly resistant to decomposition. This is additional compelling physical evidence that the pterosaur ate plants.
The scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (IVPP) used micro-computed laminography (micro-CL) to ensure that what they were seeing was actually preserved stomach contents of the pterosaur.
To exclude the possibility that these remains were preserved in this region as a result of the fossilization process, micro-computed laminography (micro-CL) was conducted. The result shows that these remains are positioned beneath some ribs and over some gastralia, confirming the interpretation that they are stomach contents preserved in situ [in the original place].2
Ralls stated, “We still do not know how often plant feeding occurred across pterosaurs. Future finds may show seasonal shifts, mixed diets, or age-based changes.”3 Clearly, however, this is a discovery that supports the creation model. Creation scientists predict that as paleontological investigation continues—like the increasing number of soft dinosaur tissue discoveries—scientists will continue to discover fossil animals that indicate a vegetarian or quasi-vegetarian diet.
References
Thomas, B. Pterosaur Revolution Confirms Creation. Creation Science Update. Posted on ICR.org September 6, 2013. Jiang, S. et al. First Occurrence of Phytoliths in Pterosaurs—Evidence for Herbivory. ScienceDirect. Posted on sciencedirect.com October 15, 2025. Ralls, E. Ancient Fossil Proves Some Pterosaurs Preferred Eating Plants over Meat. Earth.com. Posted on earth.com November 12, 2025. Genesis 1:29–30.