#ribozyme

[carbohs-region]

Vribozyme, the RNA Pokémon!

Type: Poison

Evolves into Deoxydal

Being so simplistic, Vribozymes survive by drawing electrons and other forms of energy from nearby molecules. The red gem in the center is said to hold the RNA it’s composed of together, emanating a sort of glow that seems to resemble conscious thought.

[nofatclips-home]

Pleasure of Drowning by Ribozyme

[markrosewater]

Is there any cohesion if someone wanted to do a full block draft of unstable, unhinged and unglued, or was draft cohesion only considered for drafting three unstable packs?

There is some but not a lot. Also remember Unglued comes in 10-card packs.

[crewniverse]

Happy to help :)

[priceofliberty]

Richard Spencer has explicitly denounced violence, fascism and Nazism. Why does he deserve to get attacked, but Milo doesn't? Why are you drawing the line at Milo? The only substantive difference I see between them is that Spencer is a genetic racialist, and Milo is a cultural chauvinist that doesn't acknowledge race as anything other than culture. Part of me thinks you might just be more acquainted with Milo. I would watch David Pakman's Spencer interview if you want to understand his views.

Richard Spencer has also explicitly endorsed the use of force to evict non-white Americans from their homes in order to establish a ‘white nation’:

In an address at white supremacist Jared Taylor’s 2013 American Renaissance conference, Spencer called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.” As an example of how this could be accomplished, he cited the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, where new national boundaries were formed at the end of World War I. “Today, in the public imagination, ‘ethnic cleansing’ has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so),” Spencer said. “But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.”

Calling for a mandate of non-white Americans to leave their homes of their own volition (under a thinly-veiled threat of force) is not a denunciation of violence or fascism. This is a fascist ideology. Just because a duck refuses to call itself a duck doesn’t mean he isn’t a duck. Likewise, just because you say you’re a nazi doesn’t mean you actually are (of course, if you want to play stupid games you’re going to win stupid prizes). Spencer has made it explicitly clear that his end game is to acquire the social, political, and economic capital to enact these goals. He has called his mission a “white Zionism.” That, alone, is sufficient judging by how well Zionism has worked out for the native Palestinians living in Israel.

Milo is certainly a chauvinist; he around and gives deliberately inflammatory speeches railing against ‘SJW’ types. There is a very clear distinction between Milo, who is a jackass, and Spencer who wants to see an entire portion of this continent ‘cleansed’ of its ethnic diversity.

[priceofliberty]

So you support the unironic "throw communists out of helicopters" approach that people like AiB and tumblr fascists unironically advocate? How is a fascist any more of a threat to your safety than a neo-Stalinist or Maoist? Do you support the idea of attacking Maoists and Stalinists on sight?

If a Maoist or a Stalinist unequivocally states that they’re going to genocide people by starving them of their crops once they obtain enough political, social, and economic capital, I feel someone would be justified in knocking some sense into them once it can be verified that the person has expressed an overtly hostile intent. 

Like the coiled rattlesnake, those who would trespass against us deserve a fair warning that such transgressions will not be met with acquiescence. I am not obligated to wait for a man to have his finger on the trigger with a gun to my head before I can defend myself. Consider the following (very simplified) hypothetical:

“I am going to go buy a gun and kill you if you don’t give me your property.”

“You cannot, this is my property and I will shoot you first.”

“I don’t care that you have a valid title to that land. I want it for [X reason] and I will take it from you by force once I acquire the means and support to do so.

*several days pass*

*Aggressor, shouting from my fence* “I have a gun and a posse now. Give me your property or I will kill you.”

“Take it from my cold, dead hands.”

When would it be morally justifiable for me to defend myself in this scenario? Should I wait until he pulls the trigger first and hope he misses me? I mean I know the scenario is incredibly simple, but this is ultimately what it boils down to. Scenarios like this are why philosophers have agonized over the ‘State of Nature’ for centuries. Its why The Republic exists. 

Personally, I am of the opinion that these people can be redeemed if they truly desire it and so I would not initiate force nor would I advocate for others to do so. Were I a more diplomatic man, I would attempt to ease the tensions between myself and would-be aggressors by inviting them over for a cup of tea and a dank bowl of my finest green.

[priceofliberty]

ribozyme replied to your post: I know @anarchyinblack, who is an ardent proponent...

AiB is a hypocritical crypto-fascist that only justifies preeminent violence against communists, so that he might continue to pander to the fascists that frequent his blog, much as your current virtue signaling is an attempt to pander to the leftists that have been following you more recently.

But that’s not really true. Here he condones killing nazis under the NAP. 

Is it really ‘pandering to leftists’ to ask whether Spencer or others like him deserve a chance at redeeming themselves?

[lesdeuxmuses]

Ribozyme - Celestial Low (Apollon Records, 2023)