RSS
One man, in this case dfordoom, calls it an echo chamber. Another man might call it a sanctuary:
The purpose of any kind of political activism is to target the normies, the majority who don’t have rigid opinions. To try to persuade the normies to start thinking a little bit. You can’t do that in an echo chamber. So joining echo chambers like Gab is an admission of defeat. It’s an admission that you’ve given up trying to reach the normies, which means you’ve accepted defeat.
Maybe. On the other hand, the presumption that there should be a designated place where people of disparate beliefs and sensibilities congregate is an odd one. It isn’t borne out in other media or entertainment trends. A generation ago, it was easy for someone only casually plugged into mainstream American culture to know what the top shows, movies, books, and video games were. Because of the proliferation of media over the last few decades, most people have no idea what they are today. Cultural civil war, like political civil war, is bad. Cultural secession, like political secession, is the way to go.
Coming from someone who predicted a Biden victory and who thought that while the election fraud claims were intriguingly indicative of a decaying political process the fact that the alleged kraken turned out to be a water lily confirmed the validity of that prediction, it’s hard to find fault with Mark G.’s assessment of what is going on in Arizona:
It does seem a tad suspicious that the Democrats are so eager to block an audit of the vote in Arizona. What are they worried about if there is nothing to find?
…
The Constitution gave the role of certifying the election results to state legislatures. Since they are in charge of that they also need to be in charge of setting the procedures for how the voting is done and how the votes are verified as being accurate after the voting is over. Some of these decisions were made in the last election by state governors, the secretary of state for individual states and even city government officials. In any situation like this, the Constitution says it should have been the state legislature making the decision. Now that the election is over, the Democrat controlled Congress should not be taking over and trying to stop attempts to uncover voter fraud.
Democrats control the presidency and both chambers of congress. If Republican losers want to bark up a tree for a cat that isn’t up there, why not let them further discredit themselves in the process? It’s almost as though they’re worried a cat really is hanging out in the branches. What conspiracy theorists!
Nebulafox loquaciously adapts a common expression about politics to offer a profound insight into how modern Americans weary of empire might reflect upon the middle of the 19th century:
You wish to destroy everything Confederate in an age where there is increasingly reluctance to make your own stand on things, to not obey nagging schoolmarms who wish to dictate what history *is*, you don’t have a heart. You actually think the Confederacy was a good idea with over 150 years of hindsight, you don’t have a brain.
RSDB notes the humble blog is in good company observing that slavery isn’t responsible for America’s wealth, ending slavery is. Alexis de Tocqueville, writing nearly two centuries ago:
The more progress was made, the more was it shown that slavery, which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.
…
But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio.
…
That which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky, that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two States only differ in a single respect; Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the State of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders.
Thus the traveller who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi, may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of the surrounding objects will convince him as to which of the two is most favorable to mankind. Upon the left bank of the stream the population is rare; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primaeval forest recurs at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and of life. From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard which proclaims the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests, the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborer, and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.
…
The money which a master spends in the maintenance of his slaves goes gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the free workman is paid in a round sum, which appears only to enrich the individual who receives it, but in the end the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less productive.
Triteleia Laxa on how reaction and revolution map on to perceptions of Israel and Palestine:
People who don’t talk about revolutions, all over the world, like Israel. People who talk about them a lot, like Palestine.
Slogans like “white lives matter” play directly into the Church of Woke’s hands. It’s easy to portray those pushing it as narcissistic jerks. ChrisZ suggests challenging the liturgy in a more devious way:
I’ve come up with “ONLY Black Lives Matter.”
Make the woke temporize on that (which is tantamount to retreating to the verboten “All Lives…” heresy), or embrace it (which would alienate all but liberal college-“educated” Whites).
Forget it’s okay to be white. Go with it’s not okay to be white.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Consider than even in ruby-red Oklahoma, the football coach of a big university was forced to kneel before BLM and denounce OANN.
The US Right is incapable of understanding what the NED types have imposed in Eastern Europe. Control of the culture industry is indispensable for seizing power.
It should not be considered extreme to say that in a red state, a majority of university professors should be Republicans.
Just the same, all journolists should carry a mandatory partisan identifier in the same way that politicians do.
I have absolutely no idea what they are today, and I very much hope that’s the reason why. The alternative explanation is I’m just getting old (which I refuse to countenance).
The US Right is incapable of understanding what the NED types have imposed in Eastern Europe. Control of the culture industry is indispensable for seizing power.
It should not be considered extreme to say that in a red state, a majority of university professors should be Republicans.
Just the same, all journolists should carry a mandatory partisan identifier in the same way that politicians do.Replies: @Bill
Yes. There will be a state religion. Pretending there isn’t one is refusing to see what it is, who runs it, and to what purpose.
I disagree with dfordoom. Normies are irrelevant. During the Korean War, the Chinese discovered that if your remove the ten percent of the POWs who are not born followers, the rest do not even need to be guarded. Normie is a euphemism for sheep. The contest will decided by the people who give a damn. The problem is that the other side control all the institutions. The right needs to create its own.
The Cultural Right (or the social conservative Right) on the other hand has no power and no money. So their chances of creating their own institutions are effectively zero.Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
Normie opinion is not important, because it's not even their opinion. And perhaps conservatives lose exactly because they try to appeal to normies. Normies flutter like the wind. Whatever they think or do not think, doesn't change anything. They will support Hitler one day and gay marriage the next.
You don't try to convince normies, you just grab the megaphone from those who are holding it. Once you have the megaphone, you'll be able to convince normies of whatever you want.Replies: @BlackFlag, @dfordoom
Why should there even be “top” things? Tastes differ. Top movies for one are rarely top movies for someone else for example.
I just took it to mean in terms of popularity, not quality.
It came up in a conversation I had a couple of weeks ago, and it dawned that I’m completely out of the loop in terms of what’s popular in mainstream culture. I suppose I only tuned out a few years ago, but it feels so much longer than that.
I don’t feeling as though I’m missing out on anything (not at all!), but I did grow concerned that it comes across as a bit “weird” to not even be able to name any leading actors/actresses under 30 (or hell could even be under 40 by now haha). Or if I hear an actor’s name that sounds somewhat familiar, there’s basically no chance I could place them with the right movie, even though movies are one part of mainstream culture I’ve sort of kept up with. (At least in terms of watching them, not in terms of discussing them or being interested in learning any more about them, as I have with older movies.)
With music, I’m even more clueless. I do hear some popular contemporary tunes at the gym, so I’m vaguely aware of what’s out there (and it’s crap, total crap), but other than that I pay zero attention to it. (It’s deflating to think that I was once mesmerized by the equivalent crap when I was younger.)
The Economic Right already controls all the institutions that matter. That’s one of the major problems. There is no genuine debate on economic issues, and to make sure that there never will be such a debate the Economic Right is happy to fund and encourage things like antiracism and Social Justice and Wokeism. The Economic Right can do that because they have all the power and all the money.
The Cultural Right (or the social conservative Right) on the other hand has no power and no money. So their chances of creating their own institutions are effectively zero.
True. Climate change, an elite preoccupation, has side-tracked what would've been the natural opposition to what you call the "Economic Right." Isn't neo-liberalism a more accurate term to describe economies dominated by the needs of the same elites pushing the Gaian religion?Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Even when recucklicans held both chambers of congress with Trump in the WH, democraps remained in charge. #uniparty
While pleased at the sinister outcome, not even shitlibs believe Fraudsident biden won.
81 million is the new six million.
Agreed.
I have something I didn’t not say in time for the last “open for business” post:
Never be fooled by this “return to business” ploy since as a lot of us know, “getting jabbed” is the condition they are forcing onto anyone dare to be back to the formal economy – sieving the compliant sheeple out from the masses. The businesses that are reopening will fall into the same economic trap WEF has set up anyway – they are the formal ones to be suffocated. Besides, why should we miss our chance for our Great Reset of seizing economic, social and cultural power back with our hands and planting it in the commune, when the elites aren’t passing up their chance?
Agorism and economic localism full speed ahead!
The South would have phased out slavery within twenty years anyway. The unCivil War was a complete waste of blood and money. As was WW2, in which the United States, Soviet Union and Great Britain conspired to keep Japan and Germany from becoming first-rate engineering/manufacturing nations–an utterly futile exercise. Unless one were to completely annihilate them (a prospect which was put forth by the criminal master mind Morgenthau) there would be no way to keep those nation’s native genius from expressing itself. But “native genius” is not a concept that gets much respect lately inasmuch as it implies a cultural identity in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
My advise to all young folk: when you’re country calls upon you to fight in some foreign war, beg off. None of the wars we have fought have produced the intended results. They have all been misguided failures. The men who designed them did so for their own reasons, chief of which was personal gain.
Thoughts on slavery and ‘free’ labor:
America as an industrial power was built neither by slaves nor by ‘immigrants’. America was built by free Americans in the North, who combined a moderate fertility rate (and very little immigration until 1888) with abundant resources, the rule of law, a strong work ethic, and enlightened industrial policy. The slave-owning south was an agricultural backwater, slavery benefitted the plantation owners but not most white workers nor the society as a whole.
As to whether slavery is more or less expensive than ‘free’ labor, that depends. When you have a tight labor market – when there are relatively few people and abundant resources – slavery is indeed more profitable than free labor. But when there are 100 desperate hungry people competing for every job – as in modern Pakistan or India – then ‘free’ labor is indeed more profitable than slavery.
Most of the time when slavery has been ended, it was because population pressure had reduced the cost of ‘free’ labor below that of slavery. That was the story in Brazil, which had slavery for longer than the United States. The American Civil war is the only time in history that slavery was ended while it was still more profitable free labor! (OK there was the slave revolt in Haiti, but that was sort of a different thing)
As a member of the white working class, I say to American blacks, you are welcome!
So instead of “black slaves built America” we are supposed to go out and sell “black slaves are responsible” for the South lagging behind the rest of the country economically and culturally.
No problem.
But the bill did not come due until centuries later.
No problem.Replies: @Supply and Demand, @Audacious Epigone
They built it, just without Silicon Valley’s efficiency. That’s why the South must be destroyed, in fact.
In an additive system, black is the absence of colour.
Slavery in the annuity that keeps on taking.
It’s about as negative a Net Present Value investment as one could make for the future of one’s family and nation. Maybe we should exhume all those dead Southern gentlemen who stuck us with our modern day problems and hang them at the town centre.
And then of course there’s the impact on those who come after: the descendants of the master are themselves forced into a choice between continuing the institution; repaying the slaves with freedom and forty acres, and suffering those consequences; or freeing the slaves and committing the necessary cruelties to prevent those consequences (a.k.a. the Liberian option). That’s a hell of a choice to foist onto your grandkids.
We therefore see slavery is a selfishness not only with regard to the slave, but with regard to the master’s own kind and posterity.
I’d make a joke about pulling the demand curve forward, but I’m not sure what that actually means.
Now THAT’s alpha!
Made me conjure up John Wayne in The Green Berets for a second.
Anyway, Class, here is your lesson for the day, discuss amongst yourselves…
https://historyofyesterday.com/how-slavery-fueled-the-industrial-revolution-a0190a9b48a1
The etymology of "alpha male" links back to a descriptive used by a plantation slave-owner whilst watching newly-arrived Africans clearing pale Irish bodies from the fields. The Irish were cheaper than the sturdier African, but they wilted under the sun and planted bombs in the master's quarters. Complete pains-in-the-ass.Replies: @Truth
Would you mind saying that John Wayne bit louder so my wife and sons can hear?Replies: @Truth
The Cultural Right (or the social conservative Right) on the other hand has no power and no money. So their chances of creating their own institutions are effectively zero.Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
“There is no genuine debate on economic issues”
True. Climate change, an elite preoccupation, has side-tracked what would’ve been the natural opposition to what you call the “Economic Right.” Isn’t neo-liberalism a more accurate term to describe economies dominated by the needs of the same elites pushing the Gaian religion?
My own preference is for Russell Kirk's division of the party of progress from the party of permanence. Kirk's division maps fairly neatly to the French Revolutionary National Assembly, but it is still just Kirk's division. The historic composition of the Assembly itself must finally decides the question. Otherwise, left and right lose their anchors as metaphors.I am unsure whether neo-liberalism belongs to the left or to the right. To the right, maybe, but not necessarily very far to the right. More likely, it is the issues of the day that decide where the neo-liberal sits. At the moment, the neo-liberals seem to be in coalition with the Jacobins of the far left, which clouds the question from the U.S. standpoint of 2021.A leftist, which I am not, would of course disagree with me, demanding that ancient definitions be updated—but that is precisely why he is a leftist, isn't it? Leftists in 1789 demanded the same.Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @SunBakedSuburb
“Forget it’s okay to be white. Go with it’s not okay to be white.” – the essay
“I surrender.”
– Gary, with perfect concision, in Franzen’s “The Corrections,” one of the most critically and publicly acclaimed novels of the past generation. And one of the most prescient.
Made me conjure up John Wayne in The Green Berets for a second.
Anyway, Class, here is your lesson for the day, discuss amongst yourselves...
https://historyofyesterday.com/how-slavery-fueled-the-industrial-revolution-a0190a9b48a1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0&t=4sReplies: @SunBakedSuburb, @ChrisZ
“Now THAT’S alpha!”
The etymology of “alpha male” links back to a descriptive used by a plantation slave-owner whilst watching newly-arrived Africans clearing pale Irish bodies from the fields. The Irish were cheaper than the sturdier African, but they wilted under the sun and planted bombs in the master’s quarters. Complete pains-in-the-ass.
The etymology of "alpha male" links back to a descriptive used by a plantation slave-owner whilst watching newly-arrived Africans clearing pale Irish bodies from the fields. The Irish were cheaper than the sturdier African, but they wilted under the sun and planted bombs in the master's quarters. Complete pains-in-the-ass.Replies: @Truth
I can find no evidence that this is true. Full disclosure: I looked for less than 3 minutes.
The bill was being paid even while it was active. It’s like hiring employees with intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: you have to keep upping the dopamine dose for the latter. With slaves, you have to turn your energies to controlling them, a negative task, from the ones of innovating and growing.
That’s why Alexis D’T noted the extrinsically motivated slave lands as largely barren. They were suffering, but the elites that benefitted from the system kept it in place. Just like English commoners were kept a lot poorer by the Empire using the wealth of the industrial revolution to control India. The common man got no economic dividend from it, but the grifter class at the top of the British Empire DID. And they were the only ones whose votes counted, in the final sum.
If you don’t think I’ve also described modern USA, where we spend about $1trillion all in on “defense” that does not benefit the little people, except in offering an opportunity for their children to become cyborgs, you’ve not been paying attention. But I think you have.
Not long after Toqueville’s tour, Kentuckian VP Richard Mentor Johnson sent his men into Ohio to retrieve his runaway slave mistress (the niece of his late wife), her sister, and their escorts. Once caught, she was whipped and sold to someone else.
Later, Kentuckian Peggy Garner crossed the river to Cincinnati– in supposedly sovereign Ohio– with her family to escape their sex pervert master. When it appeared their capture was inevitable, she stabbed her toddler daughter to death. Peggy was captured, but not punished. This murderess was also sold, eventually to live in a mansion in New Orleans. What looks like a bizarre notion of justice is easily explained– sales pay, imprisonment doesn’t.
Really, if Ketuckians wanted to keep their property so bad, why couldn’t they have built a wall along their border? It’s pretty low-tech. The Chinese had done it two thousand years before, and Berliners did it in a hurry in the 20th century.
Yes, I agree with you and disagree with dfordoom.
Normie opinion is not important, because it’s not even their opinion. And perhaps conservatives lose exactly because they try to appeal to normies. Normies flutter like the wind. Whatever they think or do not think, doesn’t change anything. They will support Hitler one day and gay marriage the next.
You don’t try to convince normies, you just grab the megaphone from those who are holding it. Once you have the megaphone, you’ll be able to convince normies of whatever you want.
That slavery existed for thousands of years demonstrates its economic drawbacks were not so apparent. I happen to agree it is not the most efficient form of human organization but this overlooks the capital value of slaves. If you free them their capital value falls to zero and worse yet, unless you can ‘disappear’ them, they remain a population that must be provided for but who provide no economic return to the former owners and maybe impose a greater burden on the economy than they were as slaves.
This seems to have been born out in the case of the negro. Once freed his net contribution to the American economy was very low if not negative. Certainly the 40+ million negroes in the United States today consume more than they produce and exert a political influence that is also negative. We can’t cut them loose as they will revolt more violently than they ever did as slaves. This is the real dilemma of using low quality people as slaves.
There was also a lack of incentive to innovate, in and of itself, when you could just own other people. Why bother to build something that can pump water when your slaves will do it?
Part of what entrenched slavery in the antebellum South was the cotton gin, so it isn’t true that technology defeated slavery, per se… but the pace of technological change did, because slavery was at its core, archaic. Long-term, the impact of that entrenchment was that the best and brightest of the South’s young well-to-do men were still incentivized to go into agriculture, rather than starting up a factory or a railroad as their counterparts further north would have. That was how you gained social prestige. But those factories and railroads mattered when the war came.
This was far from a US-only issue. The Crimean War no less showed how the traditional human model based off a bonded or semi-free agrarian labor class wasn’t going to be able to keep up with the revolutionary industrial model: you’ll note that Russia ended up abolishing serfdom during the 1860s as part of its initial start to the haphazard, increasingly frantic (and not unsuccessful) attempts to modernize during the last half century of the autocracy.
Even within the handful of nations following the latter, how quickly and how creatively you could do it could overturn centuries of geopolitical norms, such as Prussia’s defeat of France. Or with countries joining the club later on: such as Japan’s defeat of China’s Beiyang Army: which nobody would have bet money on, let alone what happened with the Russians a decade later.
While pleased at the sinister outcome, not even shitlibs believe Fraudsident biden won.
81 million is the new six million.Replies: @WorkingClass
81 million is the new six million.
Agreed.
Jane Jacobs noted this about Rome and why it never developed the industrial revolution, though we know from the Archimedes Palimpsest that Archimedes’ book The Method was pretty close to Calculus. A slave society treats the labor of slaves as free, especially one like Rome whose slaves might be worked to death and replaced with war conquest slaves, obviating the need to care for or pay for elderly slaves who couldn’t work. Heron of Alexandria invented the steam turbine in 190BC, if I recall correctly, but why use a labor-saving device when human and animal muscle was free?
Worship the jivehovah.
I agree. I should have said at this late date the bill is still being paid…it appears it will never be paid in full.
Normie opinion is not important, because it's not even their opinion. And perhaps conservatives lose exactly because they try to appeal to normies. Normies flutter like the wind. Whatever they think or do not think, doesn't change anything. They will support Hitler one day and gay marriage the next.
You don't try to convince normies, you just grab the megaphone from those who are holding it. Once you have the megaphone, you'll be able to convince normies of whatever you want.Replies: @BlackFlag, @dfordoom
Among normies are potential non-normies. Look how everyone talks about their redpilling moment. You can’t tell apart so you have to reach the masses.
Why would you want to do that if they don’t matter? It’s similar to when people say democracy doesn’t work because voters are dumb and shortsighted while simultaneously decrying governments for not respecting the wishes of voters.
It would be interesting if media simply quit broadcasting. Maybe nothing would change.
I have never been so foolish as to think that it's possible to win over all normies, or even most normies. The best that can be hoped for is to win over a few nomies.
But when you're a tiny fringe political movement it helps if you can expand your support base just a little. And when you are a tiny fringe political movement then even winning over 2% of the normies could double your support base.
And winning over some normies is possible. There's an immense amount of political disillusionment out there. There are significant numbers of normies who know that something is badly wrong. They don't understand what is wrong, but they do know that something is wrong. Some of them really are reachable. As you say, most of us here were normies once, until we had that redpilling moment.
You need a multi-strand political strategy but winning over some of the normies should be a part of that strategy. Not the whole of it, but part of it.
“ where people of disparate beliefs and sensibilities congregate”
I have a blast trolling left and right! I need such places to do so however.
I’ve been banned so often over the years. Left wing sites are much less tolerant of dissent and have done most of the banning. Right wingers are more open to debate as long as you don’t go after the site sponsors. Just saying “I voted for Trump and think he did a fairly good job” gets you banned in moderated left wing sites.
We therefore see slavery is a selfishness not only with regard to the slave, but with regard to the master's own kind and posterity.
I'd make a joke about pulling the demand curve forward, but I'm not sure what that actually means.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Best line of the week.
I say:
Loosen up the Bollinger Band so you can let the Fibonacci Retracement get back to tracing the way it was accustomed to.
Stealing demand from the future and demographically attacking White Core Americans is Biden's Way.
True. Climate change, an elite preoccupation, has side-tracked what would've been the natural opposition to what you call the "Economic Right." Isn't neo-liberalism a more accurate term to describe economies dominated by the needs of the same elites pushing the Gaian religion?Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
I think so.
The political meaning of left and right have been much debated: has stated his interpretation which is probably as sound as most. Extension of the original definition still works best, though: in the French Revolutionary National Assembly of 1789, if you’d have felt at home seated among the deputies to the president’s left, you are a leftist; to the right, a rightist. Issues have since come and gone but the characters of men have not changed, so left and right still work as political descriptors.
My own preference is for Russell Kirk’s division of the party of progress from the party of permanence. Kirk’s division maps fairly neatly to the French Revolutionary National Assembly, but it is still just Kirk’s division. The historic composition of the Assembly itself must finally decides the question. Otherwise, left and right lose their anchors as metaphors.
I am unsure whether neo-liberalism belongs to the left or to the right. To the right, maybe, but not necessarily very far to the right. More likely, it is the issues of the day that decide where the neo-liberal sits. At the moment, the neo-liberals seem to be in coalition with the Jacobins of the far left, which clouds the question from the U.S. standpoint of 2021.
A leftist, which I am not, would of course disagree with me, demanding that ancient definitions be updated—but that is precisely why he is a leftist, isn’t it? Leftists in 1789 demanded the same.
My personal solution is to try to avoid using those terms unmodified. I try to use terms like Economic Left, Cultural Left, Economic Right, Cultural Right, etc. I also try to avoid using the term conservative and to use terms like social conservative instead. It's not an ideal solution but I think it's a bit clearer than just using the terms left and right.The problem with is that the Economic Right sees itself as the party of progress.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Maybe none of them are far right economically but they all put the interests of bankers and billionaires ahead of the interests of the rest of us. That makes them pretty far right economically in my book.
To me that's what neo-liberalism amounts to - looking after the interests of bankers and billionaires while using social left policies to distract us from the economic issues. With most neo-liberals the social policies (antiracism, LGBT nonsense, etc) are motivated by pure cynicism.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
The billionaire class using their foundations to fund BLM and the krazy kult kids of antifa.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Normie opinion is not important, because it's not even their opinion. And perhaps conservatives lose exactly because they try to appeal to normies. Normies flutter like the wind. Whatever they think or do not think, doesn't change anything. They will support Hitler one day and gay marriage the next.
You don't try to convince normies, you just grab the megaphone from those who are holding it. Once you have the megaphone, you'll be able to convince normies of whatever you want.Replies: @BlackFlag, @dfordoom
So explain to me just how exactly you propose to grab that megaphone.
Yep.
I have never been so foolish as to think that it’s possible to win over all normies, or even most normies. The best that can be hoped for is to win over a few nomies.
But when you’re a tiny fringe political movement it helps if you can expand your support base just a little. And when you are a tiny fringe political movement then even winning over 2% of the normies could double your support base.
And winning over some normies is possible. There’s an immense amount of political disillusionment out there. There are significant numbers of normies who know that something is badly wrong. They don’t understand what is wrong, but they do know that something is wrong. Some of them really are reachable. As you say, most of us here were normies once, until we had that redpilling moment.
You need a multi-strand political strategy but winning over some of the normies should be a part of that strategy. Not the whole of it, but part of it.
Only as long as there is a greater fool down the road to unload them onto. The surviving Madoffs can explain it for you.
If the US had been settled first on the Pacific Coast it is probable negroes would never have been used as slaves. The cheapest and most readily available pool of manpower would have been Asia not Africa. Britain led the campaign against slavery not just because John Newton got religion but because it had found another huge source of manpower with its control of India. It could send Indians to work the fields of its rapidly expanding empire and did so. We see the results today with large Indian communities in the Caribbean, Africa and the South Pacific.
Indians, being a civilized people, could be paid wages to gain their labor. Might not seem like a good deal to you or I, but to a penniless Indian working on a sugar plantation for wages might just earn them enough to pay a dowry or buy some item they could generate their own income with. In California it made no sense to import negroes across the continent when more capable Asians could be imported and paid wages instead.
Unfortunately, negroes were the only available source of agricultural labor during the settlement of the Western hemisphere. As soon as Indians and Chinese workers could be had the switch was made everywhere but the Western hemisphere. One might ask why Southern planters did not use mestizo labor as is done today. One problem with that was there just wasn't the surplus population in Mexico etc. in the 18th and 19th centuries as became available in the latter half of the 20th century.Replies: @Truth, @Reg Cæsar
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Twitter, Fakebook and the Lugenpresse are the )))echo chamber(((.
Gab, Infogalactic and others are the alternative to Ziomedia echoes.
Soon whole communities will unplug from the Ziomedia and their black and homo.
)))They((( won’t be able to give it away anymore.
The ratings for Ziomedia are now in the hundreds of thousands.
Laughable. Its all crumbling.
The House of Rothschild is burning down. The blacks will do it.
Just get )))them((( together with their rabid pit bulls.
The Jews are whiter than bleached flour.
Let them get a taste of their own Anti-White pogroms!
My own preference is for Russell Kirk's division of the party of progress from the party of permanence. Kirk's division maps fairly neatly to the French Revolutionary National Assembly, but it is still just Kirk's division. The historic composition of the Assembly itself must finally decides the question. Otherwise, left and right lose their anchors as metaphors.I am unsure whether neo-liberalism belongs to the left or to the right. To the right, maybe, but not necessarily very far to the right. More likely, it is the issues of the day that decide where the neo-liberal sits. At the moment, the neo-liberals seem to be in coalition with the Jacobins of the far left, which clouds the question from the U.S. standpoint of 2021.A leftist, which I am not, would of course disagree with me, demanding that ancient definitions be updated—but that is precisely why he is a leftist, isn't it? Leftists in 1789 demanded the same.Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @SunBakedSuburb
I don’t think it’s possible to persuade people not to think in terms of left and right.
My personal solution is to try to avoid using those terms unmodified. I try to use terms like Economic Left, Cultural Left, Economic Right, Cultural Right, etc. I also try to avoid using the term conservative and to use terms like social conservative instead. It’s not an ideal solution but I think it’s a bit clearer than just using the terms left and right.
The problem with is that the Economic Right sees itself as the party of progress.
My own preference is for Russell Kirk's division of the party of progress from the party of permanence. Kirk's division maps fairly neatly to the French Revolutionary National Assembly, but it is still just Kirk's division. The historic composition of the Assembly itself must finally decides the question. Otherwise, left and right lose their anchors as metaphors.I am unsure whether neo-liberalism belongs to the left or to the right. To the right, maybe, but not necessarily very far to the right. More likely, it is the issues of the day that decide where the neo-liberal sits. At the moment, the neo-liberals seem to be in coalition with the Jacobins of the far left, which clouds the question from the U.S. standpoint of 2021.A leftist, which I am not, would of course disagree with me, demanding that ancient definitions be updated—but that is precisely why he is a leftist, isn't it? Leftists in 1789 demanded the same.Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @SunBakedSuburb
It can be a bit tricky with neo-liberals. For example, where would you place Hillary Clinton on the political spectrum? I’d say she’s Cultural Left, but Economic Right. I’d say the same about Joe Biden.
Maybe none of them are far right economically but they all put the interests of bankers and billionaires ahead of the interests of the rest of us. That makes them pretty far right economically in my book.
To me that’s what neo-liberalism amounts to – looking after the interests of bankers and billionaires while using social left policies to distract us from the economic issues. With most neo-liberals the social policies (antiracism, LGBT nonsense, etc) are motivated by pure cynicism.
Might be helpful for you to look upon slaves as livestock not as a ponzi scheme if you want to understand the economics of the practice. Slaves, like livestock, are capital and once the investment is made it becomes sunken capital and its damned hard to write it all off and stay solvent.
If the US had been settled first on the Pacific Coast it is probable negroes would never have been used as slaves. The cheapest and most readily available pool of manpower would have been Asia not Africa. Britain led the campaign against slavery not just because John Newton got religion but because it had found another huge source of manpower with its control of India. It could send Indians to work the fields of its rapidly expanding empire and did so. We see the results today with large Indian communities in the Caribbean, Africa and the South Pacific.
Indians, being a civilized people, could be paid wages to gain their labor. Might not seem like a good deal to you or I, but to a penniless Indian working on a sugar plantation for wages might just earn them enough to pay a dowry or buy some item they could generate their own income with. In California it made no sense to import negroes across the continent when more capable Asians could be imported and paid wages instead.
Unfortunately, negroes were the only available source of agricultural labor during the settlement of the Western hemisphere. As soon as Indians and Chinese workers could be had the switch was made everywhere but the Western hemisphere. One might ask why Southern planters did not use mestizo labor as is done today. One problem with that was there just wasn’t the surplus population in Mexico etc. in the 18th and 19th centuries as became available in the latter half of the 20th century.
My personal solution is to try to avoid using those terms unmodified. I try to use terms like Economic Left, Cultural Left, Economic Right, Cultural Right, etc. I also try to avoid using the term conservative and to use terms like social conservative instead. It's not an ideal solution but I think it's a bit clearer than just using the terms left and right.The problem with is that the Economic Right sees itself as the party of progress.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Then it sees itself, by Kirk’s rule, as the Economic Left—except to the extent to which it offers moderate, measured, limited, iterative progress to forestall radical, imaginative, planned, utopian progress.
The Economic Right by the late 1970s was in fact the party of radical change, intending to tear down the entire postwar political consensus and drastically remake society in a way that would benefit bankers and the corporate sector.
Another example is that the Economic Right pushed for the massive expansion in consumer credit which, in my view, has had disastrous social consequences. It turbocharged consumerism to the point where it became dangerous to the social fabric. And, in my perhaps eccentric view, that massive expansion in consumer credit undermined the moral fabric of society. It encouraged people to think short-term (buy all these shiny consumer goods right now and pay whenever) rather than saving and planning for the future. I think that this has been very damaging to the family.
The Economic Right also aggressively pushed the idea that job security was a silly outmoded idea. Employees were to be thought of as disposable. Use them up, then get rid of them. Again, horribly damaging to the family.
And of course the Economic Right has pushed immigration very hard, with results that I'm sure you agree have been devastating to society.
So in some ways, using the party of progress vs the party of permanence model, the Economic Right could be seen as the revolutionary far left faction! Ruthlessly trashing society and the family in the quest for profit.
And Economic Leftists like myself are actually now the conservatives, or even the reactionaries. We want to return to the stability of the postwar consensus under which ordinary people could get married, buy a house and raise kids.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Maybe none of them are far right economically but they all put the interests of bankers and billionaires ahead of the interests of the rest of us. That makes them pretty far right economically in my book.
To me that's what neo-liberalism amounts to - looking after the interests of bankers and billionaires while using social left policies to distract us from the economic issues. With most neo-liberals the social policies (antiracism, LGBT nonsense, etc) are motivated by pure cynicism.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
I suspect that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden see socialism through the Cold War prism of their generation and, thus, are sincere in their regard for capitalism as they understand it. They are also sincere in their desire that capitalists repay that regard with campaign cash and other favors. (If the CEO gets to retire with a net worth of $300 million, then what’s a mere $30 million for a good friend?)
Yes, that is about the shape of it; and yet, as you yourself might advise me, whether cynical or not, Clinton and Biden are far from wholly wrong. I happen to dislike Clinton’s and Biden’s market socialism for more or less the same reasons a reader like Mark G. would dislike it, but cannot deny that, empirically, it works moderately well on its own terms.
Like you, I would be happier if they divorced the market socialism from immigration, feminism and sodomy. I would also be happier if they put politically connected, Treasury-devouring pigs like Marine Midland, Goldman Sachs and Blackrock on a diet, and if they thus were satisfied to retire on a smaller, more modestly corrupt political payoff.
Fortunately, a political realignment that slightly loosens market socialism from immigration, feminism and sodomy does seem to be underway.
If the US had been settled first on the Pacific Coast it is probable negroes would never have been used as slaves. The cheapest and most readily available pool of manpower would have been Asia not Africa. Britain led the campaign against slavery not just because John Newton got religion but because it had found another huge source of manpower with its control of India. It could send Indians to work the fields of its rapidly expanding empire and did so. We see the results today with large Indian communities in the Caribbean, Africa and the South Pacific.
Indians, being a civilized people, could be paid wages to gain their labor. Might not seem like a good deal to you or I, but to a penniless Indian working on a sugar plantation for wages might just earn them enough to pay a dowry or buy some item they could generate their own income with. In California it made no sense to import negroes across the continent when more capable Asians could be imported and paid wages instead.
Unfortunately, negroes were the only available source of agricultural labor during the settlement of the Western hemisphere. As soon as Indians and Chinese workers could be had the switch was made everywhere but the Western hemisphere. One might ask why Southern planters did not use mestizo labor as is done today. One problem with that was there just wasn't the surplus population in Mexico etc. in the 18th and 19th centuries as became available in the latter half of the 20th century.Replies: @Truth, @Reg Cæsar
IF my aunt had gonads, she would have been “my uncle.”
In a weird kind of way, yeah. Except that the Economic Right often offers “progress” that isn’t exactly moderate or measured. Thatcher being an example.
The Economic Right by the late 1970s was in fact the party of radical change, intending to tear down the entire postwar political consensus and drastically remake society in a way that would benefit bankers and the corporate sector.
Another example is that the Economic Right pushed for the massive expansion in consumer credit which, in my view, has had disastrous social consequences. It turbocharged consumerism to the point where it became dangerous to the social fabric. And, in my perhaps eccentric view, that massive expansion in consumer credit undermined the moral fabric of society. It encouraged people to think short-term (buy all these shiny consumer goods right now and pay whenever) rather than saving and planning for the future. I think that this has been very damaging to the family.
The Economic Right also aggressively pushed the idea that job security was a silly outmoded idea. Employees were to be thought of as disposable. Use them up, then get rid of them. Again, horribly damaging to the family.
And of course the Economic Right has pushed immigration very hard, with results that I’m sure you agree have been devastating to society.
So in some ways, using the party of progress vs the party of permanence model, the Economic Right could be seen as the revolutionary far left faction! Ruthlessly trashing society and the family in the quest for profit.
And Economic Leftists like myself are actually now the conservatives, or even the reactionaries. We want to return to the stability of the postwar consensus under which ordinary people could get married, buy a house and raise kids.
I’d go along with that.
Again I agree.
That’s what I’m pinning my hopes on. I guess you could call it a populist version of market socialism, if it happens.
Made me conjure up John Wayne in The Green Berets for a second.
Anyway, Class, here is your lesson for the day, discuss amongst yourselves...
https://historyofyesterday.com/how-slavery-fueled-the-industrial-revolution-a0190a9b48a1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0&t=4sReplies: @SunBakedSuburb, @ChrisZ
Thanks Truth.
Would you mind saying that John Wayne bit louder so my wife and sons can hear?
My own preference is for Russell Kirk's division of the party of progress from the party of permanence. Kirk's division maps fairly neatly to the French Revolutionary National Assembly, but it is still just Kirk's division. The historic composition of the Assembly itself must finally decides the question. Otherwise, left and right lose their anchors as metaphors.I am unsure whether neo-liberalism belongs to the left or to the right. To the right, maybe, but not necessarily very far to the right. More likely, it is the issues of the day that decide where the neo-liberal sits. At the moment, the neo-liberals seem to be in coalition with the Jacobins of the far left, which clouds the question from the U.S. standpoint of 2021.A leftist, which I am not, would of course disagree with me, demanding that ancient definitions be updated—but that is precisely why he is a leftist, isn't it? Leftists in 1789 demanded the same.Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom, @SunBakedSuburb
“At the moment, the neo-liberals seem to be in coalition with the Jacobins of the far left”
The billionaire class using their foundations to fund BLM and the krazy kult kids of antifa.
I think that the billionaire class has made a mistake. I believe it will cost them.Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Reg Cæsar
Would you mind saying that John Wayne bit louder so my wife and sons can hear?Replies: @Truth
I’m sorry bro. I’m dumb, I don’t get it.
I just wanted my kids to “hear” that their slightly-past-his-prime old man could still be compared to John Wayne once in a while. Thanks.Replies: @Truth
The billionaire class using their foundations to fund BLM and the krazy kult kids of antifa.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Indeed.
I think that the billionaire class has made a mistake. I believe it will cost them.
I say:
Bill Gates went too far with the Weinstein stuff and the NY Times for some reason is going after him and he and Bezos need to have their political power reduced and Laureen Powell Jobs should be put in there too with the other internet billionaires because they all push mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens.
Mogul skiing woman Laureen Powell Jobs has a pretty face but that don't mean no pretty heart. Laureen Powell Jobs pushes wage-reducing, nation-wrecking mass immigration, jut like Israel First Fop Teddy Cruz.
https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2020/3/11/47572571-15839540873520453_origin.png
dfordoom:
This is disingenuous milquetoast liberal boilerplate with a side of demoralization psy ops. AKA it’s a lie. Dissidents join Gab because they have been censored by and kicked off synagogue media and threatened with impoverishment by doxxing mobs of leftoids. “Echo chamber” has nothing to do with it, and as I have commented before it’s more likely that homogeneous arenas of discourse provide more fertile ground for civil disagreement and genuine learning and refinement of opinion than do supposedly open-minded thunderdomes of clashing diverse tribes.
Quake not. Normies are being reached. Gab is having an impact beyond its modest reach.
I’d make a joke about pulling the demand curve forward, but I’m not sure what that actually means.
I say:
Loosen up the Bollinger Band so you can let the Fibonacci Retracement get back to tracing the way it was accustomed to.
Stealing demand from the future and demographically attacking White Core Americans is Biden’s Way.
I think that the billionaire class has made a mistake. I believe it will cost them.Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Reg Cæsar
I think that the billionaire class has made a mistake. I believe it will cost them.
I say:
Bill Gates went too far with the Weinstein stuff and the NY Times for some reason is going after him and he and Bezos need to have their political power reduced and Laureen Powell Jobs should be put in there too with the other internet billionaires because they all push mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens.
Mogul skiing woman Laureen Powell Jobs has a pretty face but that don’t mean no pretty heart. Laureen Powell Jobs pushes wage-reducing, nation-wrecking mass immigration, jut like Israel First Fop Teddy Cruz.
If the US had been settled first on the Pacific Coast it is probable negroes would never have been used as slaves. The cheapest and most readily available pool of manpower would have been Asia not Africa. Britain led the campaign against slavery not just because John Newton got religion but because it had found another huge source of manpower with its control of India. It could send Indians to work the fields of its rapidly expanding empire and did so. We see the results today with large Indian communities in the Caribbean, Africa and the South Pacific.
Indians, being a civilized people, could be paid wages to gain their labor. Might not seem like a good deal to you or I, but to a penniless Indian working on a sugar plantation for wages might just earn them enough to pay a dowry or buy some item they could generate their own income with. In California it made no sense to import negroes across the continent when more capable Asians could be imported and paid wages instead.
Unfortunately, negroes were the only available source of agricultural labor during the settlement of the Western hemisphere. As soon as Indians and Chinese workers could be had the switch was made everywhere but the Western hemisphere. One might ask why Southern planters did not use mestizo labor as is done today. One problem with that was there just wasn't the surplus population in Mexico etc. in the 18th and 19th centuries as became available in the latter half of the 20th century.Replies: @Truth, @Reg Cæsar
I have used that very term for them in several comments on Steve Sailer’s blog. It seems to annoy people, but nobody has bothered to contradict it.
???
All the English would have had to do was to follow their good Portuguese friends east. Despite what we are taught in school, Magellan apparently did circumnavigate the globe.
Just not on one voyage.
That is, at least, some people's opinion;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znqz8ZEVOKk&list=WL&index=26&t=3244s
I think that the billionaire class has made a mistake. I believe it will cost them.Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Reg Cæsar
Oh?
The Economic Right by the late 1970s was in fact the party of radical change, intending to tear down the entire postwar political consensus and drastically remake society in a way that would benefit bankers and the corporate sector.
Another example is that the Economic Right pushed for the massive expansion in consumer credit which, in my view, has had disastrous social consequences. It turbocharged consumerism to the point where it became dangerous to the social fabric. And, in my perhaps eccentric view, that massive expansion in consumer credit undermined the moral fabric of society. It encouraged people to think short-term (buy all these shiny consumer goods right now and pay whenever) rather than saving and planning for the future. I think that this has been very damaging to the family.
The Economic Right also aggressively pushed the idea that job security was a silly outmoded idea. Employees were to be thought of as disposable. Use them up, then get rid of them. Again, horribly damaging to the family.
And of course the Economic Right has pushed immigration very hard, with results that I'm sure you agree have been devastating to society.
So in some ways, using the party of progress vs the party of permanence model, the Economic Right could be seen as the revolutionary far left faction! Ruthlessly trashing society and the family in the quest for profit.
And Economic Leftists like myself are actually now the conservatives, or even the reactionaries. We want to return to the stability of the postwar consensus under which ordinary people could get married, buy a house and raise kids.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
I’d have disagreed at the time, but in retrospect you were right.
The leading principled men of U.S. Economic Right, like U.S. Rep. Jack Kemp (Republican of the state of New York and, later, 1996 Republican nominee for the vice presidency), thought during the late 1970s that they were rolling back Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society and even Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal to a mythical, conservative status quo ante. The 1980s and 1990s and 2000s eventually proved that the U.S. Economic Right overshot the mark, but during the late 1970s the overshot was not yet clear.
I cannot precisely define the term neoliberal, but it seems to fit.
You have said that the left-right paradigm leaves something to be desired as a political measure, and you have a point. The Economic Right to which you refer ably illustrates the point! Still, there is a point of character, is there not? Jack Kemp would never have dreamed of sitting with the Jacobins of 1789, despite persons that now agree with the Kemp of 1978 do indeed sit with the Jacobins today.
Issues shift, yet character remains. This, rather than mere sloppy thinking, may account for the endurance of left and right as political descriptors, however imprecise the descriptors might be with respect to the issues of the day.
Then I am an eccentric, too. As far as I am concerned, you are right.
The official story of everything that you have read of this country, before at least the Civil War, and more likely WWI is garbage, I mean as in total fiction.
That is, at least, some people’s opinion;
You’re not dumb, Truth.
I just wanted my kids to “hear” that their slightly-past-his-prime old man could still be compared to John Wayne once in a while. Thanks.
I just wanted my kids to “hear” that their slightly-past-his-prime old man could still be compared to John Wayne once in a while. Thanks.Replies: @Truth
No Problem, My Friend.
Like the negro slaves in antebellum South, the value of the Mediterranean slaves used in Rome is well overrated. Even if you tried to overwork them their pace was slow so that their main use was for domestic chores and various personal services such as toilet, washing… The bulk of the hard work done in and for the Roman Empire was done by legionaries, who could put in nearly mortal amounts of work while never complaining nor asking for pay raise. The efficiency of at which they could build whole new towns and roads in a few days is not reproducible nowadays, so as the Roman concrete the recipes of which have been lost forever. Actually they had quite perfected machines. Sometimes agriculture was entrusted to them and they used mechanical harvesters equipped with rotative cutters to accelerate the work upto speeds worthy of the early 20th century. They did use sometimes firepower to action pumps to elevate water for irrigation schemes as well as to action various apparatuses of luxury life in patrician houses : the main reason they did not use it more extensively was the very high price of combustibles in Mediterranean lands as well as the necessity for Roman legionaries to practice heavy muscular work so as to be ready when fighting would strike at the door. Slaves were definitely not at the level of those guys.
Your section on slavery reminded me that the houseplant now occupying the Oval Office once told Blacks in America that the White supreeeemacists like me wanted “to put you back in chains.”
It is one of the truly funny things this mewling Orc has ever said. Imagine having a bunch of Black slaves around. All the time. All the time. Having to manage them, deal with them. All the time. Never being able to get away from them.
A depiction of White Hell.
…Suckers.
https://i.imgur.com/z9pVfh4.png
Maybe not necessarily:
Quake not. Normies are being reached. Gab is having an impact beyond its modest reach.Replies: @dfordoom
You’ve been at the copium pipe again.
Can relate.
No problem.Replies: @Supply and Demand, @Audacious Epigone
Slavery is morally bad because it denies innocent people ownership of themselves. Slavery is economically bad because necessity is the mother of invention. The cost to get rid of what would’ve crumbled on its own may or may not have been worth it, but the country benefited from it going away.