The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Blocking Those Who Think Differently
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Rosie on the populist $100 bill lying on the sidewalk:

The voters want economic progressivism and social conservatism. The donor plutocracy wants fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (the opposite). The plutocrats use the Republicans to advance their economic agenda and they use the Democrats to advance their social agenda, creating the illusion that people have a choice. Of course, in fact we have a bicephalous tyrant that governs according to the Golden Rule: Them that’s got the gold make the rules.

That’s being charitable to the donor plutocracy. Wokeism is a bastardized form of social progressivism and corporatist easy money crony capitalism is a bastardized version of fiscal conservatism. The voters don’t even get a clean version of what they don’t want. What’s one benjamin when the donor class will fill your trunk with cash if you dance to their tune, though?

The DNC didn’t take Bernie Sanders out at the knees because of his social progressivism. He is less enthralled by Wokeism than the average Democrat pol. It’s his support for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage law and a government jobs guarantee program that are deemed intolerable. That, and his unreliability on funding the war machine. Donald Trump successfully ran on a paleoconservative platform yet his biggest legislative accomplishment was a corporate tax cut. He came in criticizing the Fed for keeping rates too low; he’ll go out criticizing the Fed for keeping rates too high.

Twinkie riffing on the same:

Where there is a broad consensus is the idea that corporatism has run amok in the system, whereby a master plumber or an owner of a modest HVAC business who make above the top tax bracket bear the tax burden of being “the rich” to be looted by the system (not to mention bearing the vagaries of the market forces), but large, increasingly transnational firms benefit enormously from subsidies and tax breaks originating from tax laws and policies crafted by an army of lobbyists. Indeed, both the right and the left condemn the fact that many large businesses – such as banking and financial services giants as well as insurance companies and union-dominated Detroit automakers (okay, maybe not so much the automakers) – are now deemed “too big to fail” and successfully have managed to “privatized profits and socialize risks/costs.” An outstanding example of his phenomenon was TARP through which executives of failing firms gave themselves millions in bonuses while the firms were rescued by the public money – in the mean time, over 800,000 homeowners lost their homes through foreclosure.

So middle (and middle class) America is not demanding that successful neighborhood business owners and well-paid wage slaves* be taxed even more highly, so that the former can benefit at the expense of the latter (which is really an amazingly selfless phenomenon, to the credit of ordinary Americans) – they simply want corporatist abuses and raiding of the public money to stop. In other words, they want Wall Street and Silicon Valley to pay more to keep up the country, not their dentist neighbor with a bigger house.

It’s not just that the banking and financial services giants are implicitly protected on account of being too big to fail and explicitly protected by the FDIC, it’s that they get the ‘product’ they sell–money–preferentially given to them at cost from the machinations of the TreasureFed and then they lend it out at interest to the public. Ron Paul never stopped being right that as long as the Federal Reserve sits at the center of the global financial system, nothing can fundamentally change.

Twinkie again, this time on something the actuarial tables make obvious but hadn’t crossed this writer’s mind until hie pointed it out, to be stored in the Knowledge is Good Faber file:

There are OCO (overseas contingency operations) deaths and non-OCO deaths (from accidents, self-inflicted wounds, and illnesses). Since 2006, 74% of military deaths have been non-OCO deaths, 93% of which occurred in the U.S. During the same period about 2,000 military personnel died in Afghanistan and 2200 in Iraq, of whom 81-84% were from hostile action. In contrast, over 13,000 died from non-OCO causes, of which nearly 2,000 were from vehicle accidents. In other words, military personnel are far more likely to die from ordinary causes stateside than they are likely to die from combat overseas (one of the main reasons for this is that combat is usually borne by a tiny sliver of high-tempo, high-readiness combat units and its personnel in the US military which has a GIGANTIC logistical and administrative tail).

Pithy profundity from nebulafox:

The fetishization of those who look differently is a great way of blocking those who think differently.

The invaluable vulpine also offers a triple check on optics, morality, and pragmatism:

The Nazis were the biggest, most destructive losers in history. They achieved the absolute opposite of everything they set out to achieve. Communism brought to the heart of Europe. Independent Jewish state. Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good. Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever. Why the hell would you want to imitate that, from a purely practical perspective as much as a moral one?

RoatanBill raises eminently reasonable questions concerning mandatory vaccinations:

If you take the vaccine and I don’t, you are supposedly protected and I’m not. Where is your harm if I don’t take the vaccine?

Where is informed consent in the vaccine push for everyone to get vaccinated?

Why are the vaccine takers so eager to force everyone to be vaccinated if the vaccine they accepted is protecting them?

As Michelle Malkin has documented here, many members of the corporate media are eager to boost Big Pharma’s efforts to secure another lucrative income stream–er, enthusiastically support efforts to keep us safe from a virus so deadly the vast majority of us need a test to know if we’ve contracted it.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Economics, Foreign Policy, Ideology, Science • Tags: COTW 
Hide 138 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. AE, I love you, but you really gotta vet your comments next time before broadcasting this absolute shit:

    The Nazis were the biggest, most destructive losers in history. They achieved the absolute opposite of everything they set out to achieve. Communism brought to the heart of Europe. Independent Jewish state. Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good. Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever. Why the hell would you want to imitate that, from a purely practical perspective as much as a moral one?

    I’ll just break it down piece by piece:

    Communism brought to the heart of Europe.

    Define “heart of Europe”. Communism existed mainly in Eastern Europe and Slavic/Hungarian speaking central Europe. These areas were historically multithnic fringe campsites, and the origins of the Slavs and Hungarians, the newest ethnic groups in Europe, are obscure at best. Communism existed in Russia before the Third Reich, so it would be a hasty assumption that its spread wasn’t inevitable. In any case, there is nothing wrong with Communism.

    For me, the heart of modern Europe lies in southwestern Europe, Greece and western Germanic countries. Only eastern Germany was ever communist, and they’re actually just Germanicized Slavs. Slavs had not done much throughout their short history in Europe besides camping and cooking in cast iron pots. Virtually all of their impressive achievements took place under Communism.

    Independent Jewish state.

    The Nazis were Zionists. An independent Jewish state was an objective of theirs.

    Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good

    How “Old” was it? You could literally go back in time 2500 years and say the same thing for every 500 year increment of your journey. “Mitteleuropa” is a cute word for multi-kulti and rapid linguistic/demographic replacement.

    Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever.

    Actually it was more like 8 million, tops. Looks like we can add histrionic to your expanding list of mental deficiencies.

    Anyway, here’s an excellent article for US and European readers about the Nazi army:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/

    • Agree: Sebastian Max
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @anonymous
    @JohnPlywood


    The Nazis were Zionists. An independent Jewish state was an objective of theirs.
     
    Nope. Here is one of several sections in Hitler's writings where he specifically comes out against Zionism, viewing it as a charade and impossibility:
    https://twitter.com/elderofziyon/status/1319292230658478085

    Replies: @JohnPlywood

    , @Mr. XYZ
    @JohnPlywood


    The Nazis were Zionists. An independent Jewish state was an objective of theirs.
     
    Yep, both Nazis/far-right European nationalists and Zionists both want Jews out of Europe and into Palestine/Israel.
    , @dan
    @JohnPlywood

    Actually, the comment was spot-on. The Nazis were the biggest failures -- achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted.

    And NeoNazi LARPers F-'ed up Trump's presidency too. Because of their retarded role-playing in Charlottesville in 2017, Trump spent the rest of his Presidency playing defense on race.

    The media was looking for a comical villain to smear Trump with and the LARPers played the part perfectly. The media smeared Trump with those LARPers right up through the 2020 debates, damaging him badly for the election.

    Did these LARPers hand Biden the win? Trump could never shake their stench. And to boot, retard-in-chief Richard Spencer backed Biden, and I assume his 2-digit-IQ followers did the same.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @fnn

  2. For a moment, let’s call fiscally conservative and socially liberal people “libertarians” and the opposite “populists” and consider what would happen. The populists would like both major parties to become populist but that is not likely to happen. Libertarians and conservatives are fiscally conservative and libertarians and liberals are socially liberal and rather than two populist parties you would be likely to end up with a more populist party for populists and another more libertarian party for everyone who is libertarian, with an equal split of conservatives and liberals between the two parties.

    There are more populists but their demographics are they have less education and lower incomes. See the book Beyond Liberal and Conservative by Maddox and Lilie. People with those demographics are less likely to vote and, since they have lower incomes, have less money for political donations so a more Libertarian party would be competitive. Another problem is that many populists are nonwhite, many white populists are white racialists who don’t like nonwhites and don’t want to share welfare money with them so it would be hard to hold a populist party together. The more libertarian party would be mostly white and would welcome any nonwhites as long as they had the same political philosophy.

    Another problem for populists is they have trouble pointing to successful examples of populist countries. Nazi Germany would be in this category but the German economy was faltering right before World War II and the weakening economy led them to be unable to fight a war against the then more capitalist and libertarian U.S. Populists often say there are no purely libertarian countries but there are some countries that are more libertarian than others and the more libertarian countries have higher living standards. A number of think tanks like Cato, Fraser, and Heritage release country rankings showing this. Where are the populist think tanks producing studies showing the opposite?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mark G.


    [T]he German economy was faltering right before World War II....
     
    It was? I didn't know that.

    A quick search-engine query turns nothing up. To do my homework is not your job, but if there is a source at which you would like to point me, I would be interested.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  3. What does socially conservative even mean anymore? I get what it means for a sunni or an orthodox, but for an american? WEIRD cultures and protestantism have been constantly mutating for 500 years now.

  4. The correct “brand” of populism could bring in many more nonwhites from the lower and lower middle classes. The educated middle middle and upper middle will not respond to populism; they will support the status quo unless conditions appear on the horizon that threaten their socio-economic position. If you want to expand your brand to the lower classes without regard to race, you have to have economic policies and proposals that are aimed at their benefit. (And I’m not talking about abstract tinkle on down ideas.) Said policies and proposals will repel the educated suburban faction because they know that: 1) it will be their taxes that will increase to pay for the proposals, and 2) quite a few educated people are coming around to understanding that we have had a war on poverty for the last 50 years, and while we seem to have won a few battles, we lost that war. Reality demands different ideas to combat the economic and social problems in America, that is, if that’s what you want to do, and many don’t. The assumption that economic solutions will transfer and deliver 100% on social problems is not valid. You have to be willing to take a half of a loaf with economic policies and pray that some supernatural force will help you deal with the social problems.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    You say nothing with which I can explicitly disagree, but I believe that the thrust is wrong.


    The correct “brand” of populism could bring in many more nonwhites from the lower and lower middle classes.
     
    Brands are overrated. Despite assertions to the contrary, few U.S. voters except some blacks are or ever have been that stupid. Those voters have an amazing variety of reasons for voting as they do—sometimes reasons they cannot or will not articulate—but usually know when they are being pandered to.

    The trap into which Republicans born before about 1975 keep falling is to look to right-of-center nonwhites for moral affirmation. The preposterous Candace Owens phenomenon (please note that I did not write, ”the preposterous Candace Owens”) is a prime example—and I don't mean to slight Owens by noticing this.

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    Replies: @Wyatt, @Rosie, @iffen

  5. Regarding vaccines, the rationale for having as many as possible take it is that some minority will probably be unable to take it for medical reasons and they will be vulnerable to the virus unless a sufficient majority of the rest of the population takes it. Honestly makes sense to me. I’d support political secession for those who refuse the vaccine for no good reason, on understanding that we can keep them out of our country.

    I’m wondering about your explanation for the DNCs scuttling of Bernies campaign. I agree the corporate elite probably do not want those expensive programs just yet (though Amazon supports $15 as it will eliminate poorer competitors). But I think enough voters also reject those policies that the DNC could plausibly think Bernie would be unelectable. Are you saying if they wanted to the plutocracy could engineer the support they needed for any policy?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Jtgw

    I think enough voters also reject those policies that the DNC could plausibly think Bernie would be unelectable. Are you saying if they wanted to the plutocracy could engineer the support they needed for any policy?

    They get their bailouts, first dibs on new money, and their wars, so yes, pretty close.

  6. Let’s go back to my appearance at COTW back in July, and see how it stacks up:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/eight-years-hate/

    Gridlock in the Senate seems the most likely outcome, and a reduced Dem presence in the House allows the conservative block of Democrats to counter the AOC/Bernie wing. I think America’s elites got the result they wanted.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  7. I’d support political secession for those who refuse the vaccine for no good reason, on understanding that we can keep them out of our country.

    Are you suggesting that people who refuse to take the vaccine should be corralled in another geographic region than those who take the vaccine? Forcibly expelled?

  8. “If you take the vaccine and I don’t, you are supposedly protected and I’m not. Where is your harm if I don’t take the vaccine?”

    The above comment would be true if the vaccines were %100 percent effective. But they’re not, they’re only 90% effective. I can still get sick even if I take the vaccine. To truly eradicate the virus a large percentage of people have to have immunity. Reasonable people who take the vaccine can want others to also take it.

    It is possible for one to be against immunizations being mandatory, but also recognize that there are benefits to mass scale immunization.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Albert2

    The above comment would be true if the vaccines were %100 percent effective. But they’re not, they’re only 90% effective. I can still get sick even if I take the vaccine.

    So:

    You have X% chance of getting the disease * about a less than 1% chance of dying, depending on your risk group * a 10% chance of vaccine failure. The resulting number's getting pretty small. Maybe 0.05% if you call your chance of getting the disease sans vaccine a coin flip and you are high risk. Question for supporters of mandatory vaccination. How small does a risk have to get before it no longer justifies using force to protect you?

    You already have a 10 times greater chance of dying from something else other than COVID, no matter your age.

    , @dan
    @Albert2

    "The above comment would be true if the vaccines were %100 percent effective. But they’re not, they’re only 90% effective. I can still get sick even if I take the vaccine."

    If you get sick of COVID after the vaccine, it will be a very mild case. In the trials, none of the severe cases of COVID were in the vaccinated group. In that sense, the 'ineffective' 10% group may actually have life saving partial immunity.

    I am completely against forced vaccinations. People are legally allowed to get euthanized and do cocaine and heroin in Oregon, but you have to get vaccinated? GTFO

    And it is also impractical. If 40% of the population doesn't want it, what is the plan to round up 130 million people? We couldn't even achieve contact tracing in the US.

    Replies: @anon

  9. @iffen
    The correct “brand” of populism could bring in many more nonwhites from the lower and lower middle classes. The educated middle middle and upper middle will not respond to populism; they will support the status quo unless conditions appear on the horizon that threaten their socio-economic position. If you want to expand your brand to the lower classes without regard to race, you have to have economic policies and proposals that are aimed at their benefit. (And I'm not talking about abstract tinkle on down ideas.) Said policies and proposals will repel the educated suburban faction because they know that: 1) it will be their taxes that will increase to pay for the proposals, and 2) quite a few educated people are coming around to understanding that we have had a war on poverty for the last 50 years, and while we seem to have won a few battles, we lost that war. Reality demands different ideas to combat the economic and social problems in America, that is, if that’s what you want to do, and many don’t. The assumption that economic solutions will transfer and deliver 100% on social problems is not valid. You have to be willing to take a half of a loaf with economic policies and pray that some supernatural force will help you deal with the social problems.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    You say nothing with which I can explicitly disagree, but I believe that the thrust is wrong.

    The correct “brand” of populism could bring in many more nonwhites from the lower and lower middle classes.

    Brands are overrated. Despite assertions to the contrary, few U.S. voters except some blacks are or ever have been that stupid. Those voters have an amazing variety of reasons for voting as they do—sometimes reasons they cannot or will not articulate—but usually know when they are being pandered to.

    The trap into which Republicans born before about 1975 keep falling is to look to right-of-center nonwhites for moral affirmation. The preposterous Candace Owens phenomenon (please note that I did not write, ”the preposterous Candace Owens”) is a prime example—and I don’t mean to slight Owens by noticing this.

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Wyatt
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Despite this, it is absolutely delightful to see someone make an offensive action into Black America. Candace Owens is just one woman, but the sheer butthurt she's incurred amongst blacks puts a smile on my face every time I see her. It's really like putting a deep tan on a moderately competent conservative white woman and letting her run roughshod over the "best" blacks have to offer. She was on a panel with Killer Mike and some other black leaders and despite being outnumbered like 4:1, she shit on those negros like she had eaten Indian the night before. With just a few basic talking points, Candace Owens did what no white person ever could: tell blacks the truth and make them recoil like a jew in a cathedral.

    This last half decade was worth it just for the salt.

    , @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.
     
    Agree, and I think Mark G. is wrong about downscale Whites rejecting support from non-Whites.

    The welfare question is no longer as racial as it once was. Globalization completely changed that. In the past, it was true that people who needed long-term welfare were just not trying hard enough. My mother was on welfare, as I have said before, but she was very much the model of what would be expected of a person receiving public assistance. She didn't have any more kids, and she got a job and started working as soon as practicable.

    Nowadays, the situation is completely different. Resistance to UBI doesn't really even make sense anymore, because even skilled people are going to be living hand to mouth in the gig economy.
    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    A better choice of words would have been flavor instead of brand. The MSM, with an assist from Trump's "style," was able to portray him as a racist neo-Nazi for four years and they swayed many; more than enough to cost him the election. A better "flavor" of populism would have held more educated whites while at the same time adding non-whites.

    The trap into which Republicans born before about 1975 keep falling is to look to right-of-center nonwhites for moral affirmation.

    I don't want their affirmation; I want their votes and their political allegiance. Anyway, the signaling that you are describing is demanded by woke whites from the Deplorables; nonwhites hardly have anything to do with it.

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    No, not the kind that I think you have in mind. Yes they do. Definitely not, not only are there no votes there; only loss of votes.

    Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund

  10. The donor plutocracy wants fiscal conservatism

    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Magic Dirt Resident


    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.
     
    Indeed, that is exactly why I wrote the following in response:

    The so-called fiscal conservatism you attribute to the donor class is not fiscal conservatism at all – it’s robbing the top segment of the middle to pay the bottom and the tiny corporatist slice on top, a fiscal Caesarism, if anything.
     
    , @Rosie
    @Magic Dirt Resident


    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.
     
    I hate semantic arg, but I'm more than happy to concede AE's much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants "crony capitalism" rather than "fiscal conservatism."

    My main point was what they do NOT want: corporations being made to pay their share.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

  11. @JohnPlywood
    AE, I love you, but you really gotta vet your comments next time before broadcasting this absolute shit:

    The Nazis were the biggest, most destructive losers in history. They achieved the absolute opposite of everything they set out to achieve. Communism brought to the heart of Europe. Independent Jewish state. Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good. Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever. Why the hell would you want to imitate that, from a purely practical perspective as much as a moral one?
     
    I'll just break it down piece by piece:

    Communism brought to the heart of Europe.
     
    Define "heart of Europe". Communism existed mainly in Eastern Europe and Slavic/Hungarian speaking central Europe. These areas were historically multithnic fringe campsites, and the origins of the Slavs and Hungarians, the newest ethnic groups in Europe, are obscure at best. Communism existed in Russia before the Third Reich, so it would be a hasty assumption that its spread wasn't inevitable. In any case, there is nothing wrong with Communism.


    For me, the heart of modern Europe lies in southwestern Europe, Greece and western Germanic countries. Only eastern Germany was ever communist, and they're actually just Germanicized Slavs. Slavs had not done much throughout their short history in Europe besides camping and cooking in cast iron pots. Virtually all of their impressive achievements took place under Communism.


    Independent Jewish state.
     
    The Nazis were Zionists. An independent Jewish state was an objective of theirs.

    Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good
     
    How "Old" was it? You could literally go back in time 2500 years and say the same thing for every 500 year increment of your journey. "Mitteleuropa" is a cute word for multi-kulti and rapid linguistic/demographic replacement.

    Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever.
     
    Actually it was more like 8 million, tops. Looks like we can add histrionic to your expanding list of mental deficiencies.

    Anyway, here's an excellent article for US and European readers about the Nazi army:


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/

    Replies: @anonymous, @Mr. XYZ, @dan

    The Nazis were Zionists. An independent Jewish state was an objective of theirs.

    Nope. Here is one of several sections in Hitler’s writings where he specifically comes out against Zionism, viewing it as a charade and impossibility:

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @anonymous

    Hey look, a Tweet with a fake Hitler diary quote from the 1920s! JohnPlywood debunked, y'all!!!

    Now time for some actual reality:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement


    The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הֶסְכֵּם הַעֲבָרָה‎ Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: "transfer agreement") was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939.[1]
     
  12. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    You say nothing with which I can explicitly disagree, but I believe that the thrust is wrong.


    The correct “brand” of populism could bring in many more nonwhites from the lower and lower middle classes.
     
    Brands are overrated. Despite assertions to the contrary, few U.S. voters except some blacks are or ever have been that stupid. Those voters have an amazing variety of reasons for voting as they do—sometimes reasons they cannot or will not articulate—but usually know when they are being pandered to.

    The trap into which Republicans born before about 1975 keep falling is to look to right-of-center nonwhites for moral affirmation. The preposterous Candace Owens phenomenon (please note that I did not write, ”the preposterous Candace Owens”) is a prime example—and I don't mean to slight Owens by noticing this.

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    Replies: @Wyatt, @Rosie, @iffen

    Despite this, it is absolutely delightful to see someone make an offensive action into Black America. Candace Owens is just one woman, but the sheer butthurt she’s incurred amongst blacks puts a smile on my face every time I see her. It’s really like putting a deep tan on a moderately competent conservative white woman and letting her run roughshod over the “best” blacks have to offer. She was on a panel with Killer Mike and some other black leaders and despite being outnumbered like 4:1, she shit on those negros like she had eaten Indian the night before. With just a few basic talking points, Candace Owens did what no white person ever could: tell blacks the truth and make them recoil like a jew in a cathedral.

    This last half decade was worth it just for the salt.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  13. @Magic Dirt Resident

    The donor plutocracy wants fiscal conservatism
     
    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the "donor plutocracy" favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It's no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don't even know basic terminology.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Rosie

    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.

    Indeed, that is exactly why I wrote the following in response:

    The so-called fiscal conservatism you attribute to the donor class is not fiscal conservatism at all – it’s robbing the top segment of the middle to pay the bottom and the tiny corporatist slice on top, a fiscal Caesarism, if anything.

  14. @JohnPlywood
    AE, I love you, but you really gotta vet your comments next time before broadcasting this absolute shit:

    The Nazis were the biggest, most destructive losers in history. They achieved the absolute opposite of everything they set out to achieve. Communism brought to the heart of Europe. Independent Jewish state. Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good. Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever. Why the hell would you want to imitate that, from a purely practical perspective as much as a moral one?
     
    I'll just break it down piece by piece:

    Communism brought to the heart of Europe.
     
    Define "heart of Europe". Communism existed mainly in Eastern Europe and Slavic/Hungarian speaking central Europe. These areas were historically multithnic fringe campsites, and the origins of the Slavs and Hungarians, the newest ethnic groups in Europe, are obscure at best. Communism existed in Russia before the Third Reich, so it would be a hasty assumption that its spread wasn't inevitable. In any case, there is nothing wrong with Communism.


    For me, the heart of modern Europe lies in southwestern Europe, Greece and western Germanic countries. Only eastern Germany was ever communist, and they're actually just Germanicized Slavs. Slavs had not done much throughout their short history in Europe besides camping and cooking in cast iron pots. Virtually all of their impressive achievements took place under Communism.


    Independent Jewish state.
     
    The Nazis were Zionists. An independent Jewish state was an objective of theirs.

    Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good
     
    How "Old" was it? You could literally go back in time 2500 years and say the same thing for every 500 year increment of your journey. "Mitteleuropa" is a cute word for multi-kulti and rapid linguistic/demographic replacement.

    Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever.
     
    Actually it was more like 8 million, tops. Looks like we can add histrionic to your expanding list of mental deficiencies.

    Anyway, here's an excellent article for US and European readers about the Nazi army:


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/

    Replies: @anonymous, @Mr. XYZ, @dan

    The Nazis were Zionists. An independent Jewish state was an objective of theirs.

    Yep, both Nazis/far-right European nationalists and Zionists both want Jews out of Europe and into Palestine/Israel.

  15. @Magic Dirt Resident

    The donor plutocracy wants fiscal conservatism
     
    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the "donor plutocracy" favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It's no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don't even know basic terminology.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Rosie

    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.

    I hate semantic arg, but I’m more than happy to concede AE’s much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants “crony capitalism” rather than “fiscal conservatism.”

    My main point was what they do NOT want: corporations being made to pay their share.

    • Thanks: Magic Dirt Resident
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    @Rosie

    The GOP are only deficit hawks when the Democrats are in power.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Rosie


    I hate semantic arg....
     
    I too.
    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    I hate semantic arg, but I’m more than happy to concede AE’s much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants “crony capitalism” rather than “fiscal conservatism.”
     
    Crony capitalism is capitalism. It's how capitalism ends up working in practice.

    People who resort to arguments that crony capitalism isn't real capitalism are very much like people who say that the problem with communism is that it just hasn't been done properly.

    Capitalism will become crony capitalism unless there are forces in society strong enough to prevent that from happening. That's why libertarianism is unworkable la-la land nonsense. Libertarians rely on wishful thinking to keep capitalism on the straight and narrow.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    I’m more than happy to concede AE’s much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants “crony capitalism” rather than “fiscal conservatism.”
     
    Do you no longer resent the dentist who has a bigger house than you? ;)

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    I knew what you meant, and I suspect most others did as well. The corptocracy wants privatized profits and socialized costs.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  16. Independent Jewish state.

    But its existence allowed Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to eventually become–if not Judenrein–then at least something close to it. The surviving Jewish population in Eastern Europe has extremely massively fallen since 1945 due to mass intermarriage, assimilation, and low birth/fertility rates.

    Though the Nazis did fail in making Germany permanently Judenrein due to Germany importing a couple hundred thousand Soviet Jews (including patrilineal Jews). But of course a lot of these Jews are elderly, so Germany’s Jewish population could significantly decrease in the decades ahead.

  17. @Rosie
    @Magic Dirt Resident


    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.
     
    I hate semantic arg, but I'm more than happy to concede AE's much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants "crony capitalism" rather than "fiscal conservatism."

    My main point was what they do NOT want: corporations being made to pay their share.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    The GOP are only deficit hawks when the Democrats are in power.

  18. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    You say nothing with which I can explicitly disagree, but I believe that the thrust is wrong.


    The correct “brand” of populism could bring in many more nonwhites from the lower and lower middle classes.
     
    Brands are overrated. Despite assertions to the contrary, few U.S. voters except some blacks are or ever have been that stupid. Those voters have an amazing variety of reasons for voting as they do—sometimes reasons they cannot or will not articulate—but usually know when they are being pandered to.

    The trap into which Republicans born before about 1975 keep falling is to look to right-of-center nonwhites for moral affirmation. The preposterous Candace Owens phenomenon (please note that I did not write, ”the preposterous Candace Owens”) is a prime example—and I don't mean to slight Owens by noticing this.

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    Replies: @Wyatt, @Rosie, @iffen

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    Agree, and I think Mark G. is wrong about downscale Whites rejecting support from non-Whites.

    The welfare question is no longer as racial as it once was. Globalization completely changed that. In the past, it was true that people who needed long-term welfare were just not trying hard enough. My mother was on welfare, as I have said before, but she was very much the model of what would be expected of a person receiving public assistance. She didn’t have any more kids, and she got a job and started working as soon as practicable.

    Nowadays, the situation is completely different. Resistance to UBI doesn’t really even make sense anymore, because even skilled people are going to be living hand to mouth in the gig economy.

  19. @Rosie
    @Magic Dirt Resident


    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.
     
    I hate semantic arg, but I'm more than happy to concede AE's much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants "crony capitalism" rather than "fiscal conservatism."

    My main point was what they do NOT want: corporations being made to pay their share.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    I hate semantic arg….

    I too.

  20. @JohnPlywood
    AE, I love you, but you really gotta vet your comments next time before broadcasting this absolute shit:

    The Nazis were the biggest, most destructive losers in history. They achieved the absolute opposite of everything they set out to achieve. Communism brought to the heart of Europe. Independent Jewish state. Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good. Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever. Why the hell would you want to imitate that, from a purely practical perspective as much as a moral one?
     
    I'll just break it down piece by piece:

    Communism brought to the heart of Europe.
     
    Define "heart of Europe". Communism existed mainly in Eastern Europe and Slavic/Hungarian speaking central Europe. These areas were historically multithnic fringe campsites, and the origins of the Slavs and Hungarians, the newest ethnic groups in Europe, are obscure at best. Communism existed in Russia before the Third Reich, so it would be a hasty assumption that its spread wasn't inevitable. In any case, there is nothing wrong with Communism.


    For me, the heart of modern Europe lies in southwestern Europe, Greece and western Germanic countries. Only eastern Germany was ever communist, and they're actually just Germanicized Slavs. Slavs had not done much throughout their short history in Europe besides camping and cooking in cast iron pots. Virtually all of their impressive achievements took place under Communism.


    Independent Jewish state.
     
    The Nazis were Zionists. An independent Jewish state was an objective of theirs.

    Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good
     
    How "Old" was it? You could literally go back in time 2500 years and say the same thing for every 500 year increment of your journey. "Mitteleuropa" is a cute word for multi-kulti and rapid linguistic/demographic replacement.

    Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever.
     
    Actually it was more like 8 million, tops. Looks like we can add histrionic to your expanding list of mental deficiencies.

    Anyway, here's an excellent article for US and European readers about the Nazi army:


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1985/05/05/their-wehrmacht-was-better-than-our-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/

    Replies: @anonymous, @Mr. XYZ, @dan

    Actually, the comment was spot-on. The Nazis were the biggest failures — achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted.

    And NeoNazi LARPers F-‘ed up Trump’s presidency too. Because of their retarded role-playing in Charlottesville in 2017, Trump spent the rest of his Presidency playing defense on race.

    The media was looking for a comical villain to smear Trump with and the LARPers played the part perfectly. The media smeared Trump with those LARPers right up through the 2020 debates, damaging him badly for the election.

    Did these LARPers hand Biden the win? Trump could never shake their stench. And to boot, retard-in-chief Richard Spencer backed Biden, and I assume his 2-digit-IQ followers did the same.

    • Disagree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @dan

    What are you babbling about? Donald Trump was a disgrace from the very beginning. Richard Spencer and his followers were the only intelligent people in the room on election night; I personally voted for Biden. Voting for Trump in 2020 was a great way to signal that you are not a sober white person.

    The Nazis put up the most impressive display of any country in the 20th century, that's for sure. The fact that the entire world combined their resources against them out of a fear of submission to their rule does not change that, and it won't change the fact that for every German killed, roughly 3 Soviets, 2 Brits and 1.8 American soldiers had to die. And today you still have try to convince people to stop liking Nazis, because everyone still secretly admires them and detests their own culture.

    Replies: @Dan, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @fnn
    @dan

    Anglo-American liberalism is reaching its terminal phase and those who are not brain dead are searching for an alternative. The goal of the FBI/CIA/ADL controlled forces (Antfia, BLM and the like) at Cyille and numerous other places is to prevent any alternative from arising IRL.
    The Antifa and its allies started the violence at Cville and the local police (in collusion with the VSP and Governor's office) "stood down" so the resulting disorder would provide an excuse to prevent the legal protest from taking place. In addition, the provocative name for the event ("Unite the Right") sounds like it came directly from the ADL/SPLC playbook, and must have been concocted by a federal informant. The obvious name to use would have been along the lines of "Defend the Statues" and/or "Stop the American Taliban."

    The official yet independent Heaphy Report on the incident:
    https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Charlottesville-Critical-Incident-Review-2017.pdf

  21. @Albert2
    "If you take the vaccine and I don’t, you are supposedly protected and I’m not. Where is your harm if I don’t take the vaccine?"

    The above comment would be true if the vaccines were %100 percent effective. But they're not, they're only 90% effective. I can still get sick even if I take the vaccine. To truly eradicate the virus a large percentage of people have to have immunity. Reasonable people who take the vaccine can want others to also take it.

    It is possible for one to be against immunizations being mandatory, but also recognize that there are benefits to mass scale immunization.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @dan

    The above comment would be true if the vaccines were %100 percent effective. But they’re not, they’re only 90% effective. I can still get sick even if I take the vaccine.

    So:

    You have X% chance of getting the disease * about a less than 1% chance of dying, depending on your risk group * a 10% chance of vaccine failure. The resulting number’s getting pretty small. Maybe 0.05% if you call your chance of getting the disease sans vaccine a coin flip and you are high risk. Question for supporters of mandatory vaccination. How small does a risk have to get before it no longer justifies using force to protect you?

    You already have a 10 times greater chance of dying from something else other than COVID, no matter your age.

  22. The invaluable vulpine also offers a triple check on optics, morality, and pragmatism:
    “The Nazis…”

    You know, I have to admit – as far as aesthetics…those guys had a keen eye for optics. Everything from the uniforms to the use of heraldry, the color schemes were quite nice. Some of their architecture was inspirational, for a modern design anyway. At least in my opinion.

    But alas, you have to be careful about saying that these days…
    “When it comes to praising Nazi art, architecture and design, the lines are still clearly drawn, and no quarter given. Albert Speer was a lousy architect, by definition, because he was a Nazi. Leni Riefenstahl was a third-rate film-maker because she was the darling of the Third Reich. These assertions might be debatable, but no one must ever say that Speer was anything like a fine architect or Riefenstahl an impressive film-maker. Anyone making such claims will automatically be dubbed anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi and, more realistically, insensitive, or plain wrong.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/artblog/2007/apr/18/whynaziartisadangerous

    It’s like someone saying that if you are impressed by the feats of horse archery attributed to the Mongol Hordes or (gasp) buy a Mongol bow for practicing archery, it means you like burning and pillaging also. Oh well…

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Talha


    You know, I have to admit – as far as aesthetics…those guys had a keen eye for optics.
     
    That's true. One of the reasons the Nazis were initially successful in gaining widespread support, and one of the reasons some idiots still admire them, is that they had a sense of style and they knew how to use it to their advantage. They looked cool. They looked cooler than the communists. They also looked a whole lot cooler than liberals.

    When it comes to praising Nazi art, architecture and design, the lines are still clearly drawn, and no quarter given. Albert Speer was a lousy architect, by definition, because he was a Nazi. Leni Riefenstahl was a third-rate film-maker because she was the darling of the Third Reich.
     
    Leni Riefenstahl was unquestionably a genius. In purely visual terms one of the greatest film-makers of all time. Check out one of her early efforts as a director, the superb "mountain film" The Blue Light. It's almost unbearably beautiful. It's also a very entertaining adventure/romance. Olympia is ravishing. I detest sport but even I was impressed. Nobody understood light the way the way Leni Riefenstahl did.

    The idea that evil leads to bad art and architecture is, unfortunately, incorrect. Even more unfortunately good often leads to bad art and architecture.

    While the Italian fascists were not evil they also had more style than liberals. Italian fascist architecture is quite good.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  23. @Albert2
    "If you take the vaccine and I don’t, you are supposedly protected and I’m not. Where is your harm if I don’t take the vaccine?"

    The above comment would be true if the vaccines were %100 percent effective. But they're not, they're only 90% effective. I can still get sick even if I take the vaccine. To truly eradicate the virus a large percentage of people have to have immunity. Reasonable people who take the vaccine can want others to also take it.

    It is possible for one to be against immunizations being mandatory, but also recognize that there are benefits to mass scale immunization.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster, @dan

    “The above comment would be true if the vaccines were %100 percent effective. But they’re not, they’re only 90% effective. I can still get sick even if I take the vaccine.”

    If you get sick of COVID after the vaccine, it will be a very mild case. In the trials, none of the severe cases of COVID were in the vaccinated group. In that sense, the ‘ineffective’ 10% group may actually have life saving partial immunity.

    I am completely against forced vaccinations. People are legally allowed to get euthanized and do cocaine and heroin in Oregon, but you have to get vaccinated? GTFO

    And it is also impractical. If 40% of the population doesn’t want it, what is the plan to round up 130 million people? We couldn’t even achieve contact tracing in the US.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dan

    If you get sick of COVID after the vaccine,

    I've been sick of COVID for months. Sick and tired...

  24. @anonymous
    @JohnPlywood


    The Nazis were Zionists. An independent Jewish state was an objective of theirs.
     
    Nope. Here is one of several sections in Hitler's writings where he specifically comes out against Zionism, viewing it as a charade and impossibility:
    https://twitter.com/elderofziyon/status/1319292230658478085

    Replies: @JohnPlywood

    Hey look, a Tweet with a fake Hitler diary quote from the 1920s! JohnPlywood debunked, y’all!!!

    Now time for some actual reality:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

    The Haavara Agreement (Hebrew: הֶסְכֵּם הַעֲבָרָה‎ Translit.: heskem haavara Translated: “transfer agreement”) was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939.[1]

  25. @dan
    @JohnPlywood

    Actually, the comment was spot-on. The Nazis were the biggest failures -- achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted.

    And NeoNazi LARPers F-'ed up Trump's presidency too. Because of their retarded role-playing in Charlottesville in 2017, Trump spent the rest of his Presidency playing defense on race.

    The media was looking for a comical villain to smear Trump with and the LARPers played the part perfectly. The media smeared Trump with those LARPers right up through the 2020 debates, damaging him badly for the election.

    Did these LARPers hand Biden the win? Trump could never shake their stench. And to boot, retard-in-chief Richard Spencer backed Biden, and I assume his 2-digit-IQ followers did the same.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @fnn

    What are you babbling about? Donald Trump was a disgrace from the very beginning. Richard Spencer and his followers were the only intelligent people in the room on election night; I personally voted for Biden. Voting for Trump in 2020 was a great way to signal that you are not a sober white person.

    The Nazis put up the most impressive display of any country in the 20th century, that’s for sure. The fact that the entire world combined their resources against them out of a fear of submission to their rule does not change that, and it won’t change the fact that for every German killed, roughly 3 Soviets, 2 Brits and 1.8 American soldiers had to die. And today you still have try to convince people to stop liking Nazis, because everyone still secretly admires them and detests their own culture.

    • Disagree: Jay Fink, Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Dan
    @JohnPlywood

    " it won’t change the fact that for every German killed, roughly 3 Soviets, 2 Brits and 1.8 American soldiers had to die."

    I am afraid I will get dumber just by interacting with you, but here goes:

    The Wehrmacht had 4.5 million military casualties to America's 400 thousand. Your ability to do basic arithmetic is much less than what my eight year old could do when she was six.

    Germany succeeded in getting their cities firebombed and their country flattened. Germany never touched US, and became an American charity case after the war.

    Ever since the war people have made a hobby of locating old former Nazis in hiding and putting them on trial, to humiliate and kick them around some more. Such winning.

    Everyone idolizes the Nazis? Your social circle must consist mainly of Internet 'friends' if you think that, because this is what, 2% of the population? One suspects your dear Internet friends are Feds.

    Was Biden about a welfare check so Spencer doesn't have to depend on his mommy?

    Hey genius, you can't get much welfare when Biden needs to take care of 11 million amnestied illegals.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @fnn, @JohnPlywood

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @JohnPlywood

    I would just hit the agree button, but it doesn't do it justice and is apt to be misunderstood.


    The Nazis put up the most impressive display of any country in the 20th century, that’s for sure.
     
    Readers, you've got to break your minds free of the matrix, or it'll be the death of us all. @JohnPlywood is right.

    The notion that FDR and Churchill were the heroes of the 20th century just doesn't hold up. Insults regarding Hitler fanboys are empty. We've got a real civilizational crisis on our hands and some new thinking is required.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

  26. @dan
    @Albert2

    "The above comment would be true if the vaccines were %100 percent effective. But they’re not, they’re only 90% effective. I can still get sick even if I take the vaccine."

    If you get sick of COVID after the vaccine, it will be a very mild case. In the trials, none of the severe cases of COVID were in the vaccinated group. In that sense, the 'ineffective' 10% group may actually have life saving partial immunity.

    I am completely against forced vaccinations. People are legally allowed to get euthanized and do cocaine and heroin in Oregon, but you have to get vaccinated? GTFO

    And it is also impractical. If 40% of the population doesn't want it, what is the plan to round up 130 million people? We couldn't even achieve contact tracing in the US.

    Replies: @anon

    If you get sick of COVID after the vaccine,

    I’ve been sick of COVID for months. Sick and tired…

  27. @Rosie
    @Magic Dirt Resident


    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.
     
    I hate semantic arg, but I'm more than happy to concede AE's much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants "crony capitalism" rather than "fiscal conservatism."

    My main point was what they do NOT want: corporations being made to pay their share.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    I hate semantic arg, but I’m more than happy to concede AE’s much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants “crony capitalism” rather than “fiscal conservatism.”

    Crony capitalism is capitalism. It’s how capitalism ends up working in practice.

    People who resort to arguments that crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism are very much like people who say that the problem with communism is that it just hasn’t been done properly.

    Capitalism will become crony capitalism unless there are forces in society strong enough to prevent that from happening. That’s why libertarianism is unworkable la-la land nonsense. Libertarians rely on wishful thinking to keep capitalism on the straight and narrow.

    • Agree: Nodwink
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Crony capitalism is capitalism. It’s how capitalism ends up working in practice.

    People who resort to arguments that crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism are very much like people who say that the problem with communism is that it just hasn’t been done properly.
     
    I dunno. I suspect that communism wasn't nearly as bad as we've been led to believe. If I'm not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people's sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.

    On the other hand, I think capitalism in one country can work fine, too. The key is you have to have the right people running the country. That's easier said than done, I know, but it's clearly possible. The Chinese Communist Party isn't trying to humiliate and replace their own population.

    One thing I think we can decisively reject is the idea that only the government poses a threat of tyranny, but then we already knew that, or at least we should have.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

  28. @Talha

    The invaluable vulpine also offers a triple check on optics, morality, and pragmatism:
    "The Nazis..."
     
    You know, I have to admit - as far as aesthetics...those guys had a keen eye for optics. Everything from the uniforms to the use of heraldry, the color schemes were quite nice. Some of their architecture was inspirational, for a modern design anyway. At least in my opinion.

    But alas, you have to be careful about saying that these days...
    "When it comes to praising Nazi art, architecture and design, the lines are still clearly drawn, and no quarter given. Albert Speer was a lousy architect, by definition, because he was a Nazi. Leni Riefenstahl was a third-rate film-maker because she was the darling of the Third Reich. These assertions might be debatable, but no one must ever say that Speer was anything like a fine architect or Riefenstahl an impressive film-maker. Anyone making such claims will automatically be dubbed anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi and, more realistically, insensitive, or plain wrong."
    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/artblog/2007/apr/18/whynaziartisadangerous

    It's like someone saying that if you are impressed by the feats of horse archery attributed to the Mongol Hordes or (gasp) buy a Mongol bow for practicing archery, it means you like burning and pillaging also. Oh well...

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You know, I have to admit – as far as aesthetics…those guys had a keen eye for optics.

    That’s true. One of the reasons the Nazis were initially successful in gaining widespread support, and one of the reasons some idiots still admire them, is that they had a sense of style and they knew how to use it to their advantage. They looked cool. They looked cooler than the communists. They also looked a whole lot cooler than liberals.

    When it comes to praising Nazi art, architecture and design, the lines are still clearly drawn, and no quarter given. Albert Speer was a lousy architect, by definition, because he was a Nazi. Leni Riefenstahl was a third-rate film-maker because she was the darling of the Third Reich.

    Leni Riefenstahl was unquestionably a genius. In purely visual terms one of the greatest film-makers of all time. Check out one of her early efforts as a director, the superb “mountain film” The Blue Light. It’s almost unbearably beautiful. It’s also a very entertaining adventure/romance. Olympia is ravishing. I detest sport but even I was impressed. Nobody understood light the way the way Leni Riefenstahl did.

    The idea that evil leads to bad art and architecture is, unfortunately, incorrect. Even more unfortunately good often leads to bad art and architecture.

    While the Italian fascists were not evil they also had more style than liberals. Italian fascist architecture is quite good.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    I detest sport
     
    I get it now.
  29. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    I hate semantic arg, but I’m more than happy to concede AE’s much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants “crony capitalism” rather than “fiscal conservatism.”
     
    Crony capitalism is capitalism. It's how capitalism ends up working in practice.

    People who resort to arguments that crony capitalism isn't real capitalism are very much like people who say that the problem with communism is that it just hasn't been done properly.

    Capitalism will become crony capitalism unless there are forces in society strong enough to prevent that from happening. That's why libertarianism is unworkable la-la land nonsense. Libertarians rely on wishful thinking to keep capitalism on the straight and narrow.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Crony capitalism is capitalism. It’s how capitalism ends up working in practice.

    People who resort to arguments that crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism are very much like people who say that the problem with communism is that it just hasn’t been done properly.

    I dunno. I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe. If I’m not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.

    On the other hand, I think capitalism in one country can work fine, too. The key is you have to have the right people running the country. That’s easier said than done, I know, but it’s clearly possible. The Chinese Communist Party isn’t trying to humiliate and replace their own population.

    One thing I think we can decisively reject is the idea that only the government poses a threat of tyranny, but then we already knew that, or at least we should have.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe. If I’m not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.
     
    North Korea has a higher birth rate than South Korea. I guess, by your logic, North Koreans have a higher sense of well-being and greater confidence in the future than South Koreans do.

    https://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/North-Korea-GDP.png

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Rosie


    I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe.
     
    Authoritarianism may bring its advantages, but totalitarianism is worse than death.

    Communism is totalitarian. I'd rather take a bullet.


    The Chinese Communist Party isn’t trying to humiliate and replace their own population.
     
    You've got a point.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Twinkie
    @Rosie

    Now that we got that out of the way (it's always "tone" with you), let's address the substance of the matter in greater detail. You wrote:


    I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe. If I’m not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future
     
    I will be using the data from here: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/birth-rate

    Here are the Russian birth rates by years:

    1950: 27.656 per 1,000 women.
    1960: 23.872
    1970: 15.132
    1980: 16.157
    1990: 14.048
    2000: 9.272
    2010: 12.044
    2020: 12.194

    As with other industrialized/industrializing countries, the overall post-war trend is downward in fertility. The greatest period of decline was between 1950-1970 when Russia enjoyed post-war reconstruction and growth. Without looking at the specifics, I can guess several different variables here such as growth in income, rise in education level (esp. for women), improvements in healthcare, etc. The decline could also be due to the great reduction in the number of young men in the immediately preceding war period, but I do not think this is much of a factor, given that the U.S. (without such great losses in young men) also experienced a similarly large decline in fertility in the same period.

    Russia enjoyed a small rebound in fertility in the 70's and 80's. Interestingly enough, so did the U.S. during the roughly same period (1978-1988). But the growths in fertility in both countries during this time paled in comparison to the reductions in the preceding three decades.

    Russia also had a significant decline in fertility in the 1990's, no doubt due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the consequent social and economic chaos. The nadir was in 1998 (8.912 births per 1,000). Since then, Russia's fertility has grown moderately until 2013 (12.981), but is slowly declining again and is, as of 2020, 12.194 births per 1,000 women.

    So both your use of the late Soviet and post-Soviet fertility rates as a measure of national wellbeing and implying that "communism wasn't nearly as bad" using such a comparison are unwarranted, to say the least.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  30. Following on from my earlier comment, fascism in general has a certain amount of style. I suspect that might be because fascism is to some extent aesthetically and emotionally driven. In Italy fascism attracted a lot of writers and artists. They seemed to see a certain poetry in fascism.

    It has to be admitted that liberalism and democracy are not very poetic. They also don’t appeal to the emotions in the same way.

    Fair play and niceness are not the basis of great art.

    Of course it has to be pointed out that Italian fascism was not especially evil. So the secret is not the aesthetic attraction of evil. The aesthetic attraction of fascism seems to be based on something else.

  31. Not all RoatanBill questions are “reasonable”.

    1. “If you take the vaccine and I don’t, you are supposedly protected and I’m not. Where is your harm if I don’t take the vaccine?

    Typical deep, crass ignorance. The real big bump in median human life expectancy was due to the widespread vaccinations following Pasteur’s work (and the preceding, hugely successful experiment by Jenner on smallpox.) It worked not by protecting the single vaccinated subjects, but protecting entire societies thanks to general immunization, which decreased the contagion possibilities. Not an exact analogy but will do: if you fireproofed most of the trees in a forest — a fire started in one place would have nowhere to jump to, whereas with optional (and loose) fireproofing the whole forest will burn. It takes more than a couple minutes of newspaper reading to understand the basics of epidemiology at all.

    2. “Why are the vaccine takers so eager to force everyone to be vaccinated if the vaccine they accepted is protecting them?”
    Because… look above. The protection is slight to non-existent if the proportion of vaccinated members of the group remains under a critical mass.

    That said, to 3. “Where is informed consent in the vaccine push for everyone to get vaccinated?”, which is a reasonable question, my not less reasonable answer is “I didn’t see you go to jail or get hanged for protesting laws about mobilization, war and the draft. Before you agree that anyone be sent to die in some war, or his house eminent-domained, etc., you should agree to compulsory vaccination (provided it is reasonably safe and proven effective.)

    But here’s the rub, none of “reasonably safe and proven effective” applies to the current state of Coronavirus vaccines. Effective… we don’t know really yet. Safe, the US vaccines are definitely not to be declared so at this stage and we’ll have to wait a very long time to know if the newfangled mRNA vaccines are safe for humans in the long term (of course they are a big success already for the aim they were designed for, i.e. to bring oodles of money to the industry, and raise very high the prices for what is essentially dirt cheap.) The Russian vaccine, by the way, doesn’t have that drawback, as it relies on tried and true “old-fashioned” vaccine production methods. But of course it will be prohibited in the US and its colonies.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @joe2.5

    Re: 1., is there a large population for which smallpox poses little to no threat, though? For healthy non-geriatrics, Covid isn't as bad as the flu, for many not even as bad as a cold. Won't they develop immunity without vaccination?

  32. @Rosie
    @Magic Dirt Resident


    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.
     
    I hate semantic arg, but I'm more than happy to concede AE's much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants "crony capitalism" rather than "fiscal conservatism."

    My main point was what they do NOT want: corporations being made to pay their share.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    I’m more than happy to concede AE’s much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants “crony capitalism” rather than “fiscal conservatism.”

    Do you no longer resent the dentist who has a bigger house than you? 😉

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Do you no longer resent the dentist who has a bigger house than you?
     
    Fuck off, Twinkles. You argue like a Jew. That's no surprise. Spiritually, you are one.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen, @nebulafox

  33. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Crony capitalism is capitalism. It’s how capitalism ends up working in practice.

    People who resort to arguments that crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism are very much like people who say that the problem with communism is that it just hasn’t been done properly.
     
    I dunno. I suspect that communism wasn't nearly as bad as we've been led to believe. If I'm not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people's sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.

    On the other hand, I think capitalism in one country can work fine, too. The key is you have to have the right people running the country. That's easier said than done, I know, but it's clearly possible. The Chinese Communist Party isn't trying to humiliate and replace their own population.

    One thing I think we can decisively reject is the idea that only the government poses a threat of tyranny, but then we already knew that, or at least we should have.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

    I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe. If I’m not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.

    North Korea has a higher birth rate than South Korea. I guess, by your logic, North Koreans have a higher sense of well-being and greater confidence in the future than South Koreans do.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    North Korea has a higher birth rate than South Korea. I guess, by your logic, North Koreans have a higher sense of well-being and greater confidence in the future than South Koreans do.
     
    It wouldn't surprise me in the least. I don't believe everything I see on the television set about how people in other countries feel about their government.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  34. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    You know, I have to admit – as far as aesthetics…those guys had a keen eye for optics.
     
    That's true. One of the reasons the Nazis were initially successful in gaining widespread support, and one of the reasons some idiots still admire them, is that they had a sense of style and they knew how to use it to their advantage. They looked cool. They looked cooler than the communists. They also looked a whole lot cooler than liberals.

    When it comes to praising Nazi art, architecture and design, the lines are still clearly drawn, and no quarter given. Albert Speer was a lousy architect, by definition, because he was a Nazi. Leni Riefenstahl was a third-rate film-maker because she was the darling of the Third Reich.
     
    Leni Riefenstahl was unquestionably a genius. In purely visual terms one of the greatest film-makers of all time. Check out one of her early efforts as a director, the superb "mountain film" The Blue Light. It's almost unbearably beautiful. It's also a very entertaining adventure/romance. Olympia is ravishing. I detest sport but even I was impressed. Nobody understood light the way the way Leni Riefenstahl did.

    The idea that evil leads to bad art and architecture is, unfortunately, incorrect. Even more unfortunately good often leads to bad art and architecture.

    While the Italian fascists were not evil they also had more style than liberals. Italian fascist architecture is quite good.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I detest sport

    I get it now.

  35. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    I’m more than happy to concede AE’s much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants “crony capitalism” rather than “fiscal conservatism.”
     
    Do you no longer resent the dentist who has a bigger house than you? ;)

    Replies: @Rosie

    Do you no longer resent the dentist who has a bigger house than you?

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You argue like a Jew. That’s no surprise. Spiritually, you are one.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    Fuck off, Twinkles. You argue like a Jew.
     
    How does “a Jew” argue? And which Jew - Jesus, Spinoza, or Dawn Eden Goldstein?*

    By the way, I highly recommend Goldstein’s book, to you in particular: https://www.amazon.com/Thrill-Chaste-Finding-Fulfillment-Keeping/dp/084991311X/

    Spiritually, you are one.
     
    Well, it’s been said that Catholics (or Christians in general) are spiritual Jews, so I guess you might be (unintentionally) right here.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @iffen
    @Rosie

    You argue like a Jew. That’s no surprise. Spiritually, you are one.

    Gasp! You are not supposed to say things like that. Oh, wait, this is TUR.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    , @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    Like Werner Heisenberg? Right out of an SS periodical is not a good look, Rosie.

    Funnily enough, the guy I relate to most in the Third Reich is Konrad Zuse: the desire to be left alone and do something interesting. I get the intuitive sense that the woke would impede that.

  36. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe. If I’m not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.
     
    North Korea has a higher birth rate than South Korea. I guess, by your logic, North Koreans have a higher sense of well-being and greater confidence in the future than South Koreans do.

    https://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/North-Korea-GDP.png

    Replies: @Rosie

    North Korea has a higher birth rate than South Korea. I guess, by your logic, North Koreans have a higher sense of well-being and greater confidence in the future than South Koreans do.

    It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I don’t believe everything I see on the television set about how people in other countries feel about their government.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    I don’t believe everything I see on the television set about how people in other countries feel about their government.
     
    You should watch less TV.
  37. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Do you no longer resent the dentist who has a bigger house than you?
     
    Fuck off, Twinkles. You argue like a Jew. That's no surprise. Spiritually, you are one.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen, @nebulafox

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You argue like a Jew.

    How does “a Jew” argue? And which Jew – Jesus, Spinoza, or Dawn Eden Goldstein?*

    By the way, I highly recommend Goldstein’s book, to you in particular: https://www.amazon.com/Thrill-Chaste-Finding-Fulfillment-Keeping/dp/084991311X/

    Spiritually, you are one.

    Well, it’s been said that Catholics (or Christians in general) are spiritual Jews, so I guess you might be (unintentionally) right here.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    How does “a Jew” argue?
     
    They use a particular variant of the genetic fallacy that involves psychoanalyzing and pathologizing people they hate and desire to discredit and/or humiliate. Arrogant bullies like you do this all the time.

    https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Culture_of_Critique.html?id=EwVap3KPbjUC

    Replies: @Twinkie

  38. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    North Korea has a higher birth rate than South Korea. I guess, by your logic, North Koreans have a higher sense of well-being and greater confidence in the future than South Koreans do.
     
    It wouldn't surprise me in the least. I don't believe everything I see on the television set about how people in other countries feel about their government.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I don’t believe everything I see on the television set about how people in other countries feel about their government.

    You should watch less TV.

  39. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    Fuck off, Twinkles. You argue like a Jew.
     
    How does “a Jew” argue? And which Jew - Jesus, Spinoza, or Dawn Eden Goldstein?*

    By the way, I highly recommend Goldstein’s book, to you in particular: https://www.amazon.com/Thrill-Chaste-Finding-Fulfillment-Keeping/dp/084991311X/

    Spiritually, you are one.
     
    Well, it’s been said that Catholics (or Christians in general) are spiritual Jews, so I guess you might be (unintentionally) right here.

    Replies: @Rosie

    How does “a Jew” argue?

    They use a particular variant of the genetic fallacy that involves psychoanalyzing and pathologizing people they hate and desire to discredit and/or humiliate. Arrogant bullies like you do this all the time.

    https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Culture_of_Critique.html?id=EwVap3KPbjUC

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    psychoanalyzing and pathologizing people they hate
     
    Isn’t this what you do with me? I can point to the very thread cited in AE’s post, in which I attempt to debate the substance of arguments (quite often with numeracy) while you use all kinds of personal attacks, ascribe (ill) motives, construct a straw man, etc.

    Arrogant bullies like you
     
    Is that a “non-Jewish” mode of argument or “psychoanalyzing and pathologizing people [you] hate” argumentation “like a Jew”?

    I don’t think I’m the one evincing hatred here.

    So does this mean you still resent the proverbial dentist next door with a bigger house than you, as in the quoted thread? ;)

    Replies: @Rosie

  40. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Do you no longer resent the dentist who has a bigger house than you?
     
    Fuck off, Twinkles. You argue like a Jew. That's no surprise. Spiritually, you are one.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen, @nebulafox

    You argue like a Jew. That’s no surprise. Spiritually, you are one.

    Gasp! You are not supposed to say things like that. Oh, wait, this is TUR.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iffen


    Oh, wait, this is TUR.
     
    Owned and operated by a Jew, whom I hold in high regard despite our disagreements on a number of topics (but who has convinced me that the age-adjusted Hispanic crime rate is probably not too far from the white rate... though who has yet to convince me that Jews were drinking gentile blood or whatever that one article of his says). ;)
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @iffen

    TUR sounds like "turd". UR, though, UR is legendary! This is UR, not TUR.

    Replies: @iffen

  41. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    You say nothing with which I can explicitly disagree, but I believe that the thrust is wrong.


    The correct “brand” of populism could bring in many more nonwhites from the lower and lower middle classes.
     
    Brands are overrated. Despite assertions to the contrary, few U.S. voters except some blacks are or ever have been that stupid. Those voters have an amazing variety of reasons for voting as they do—sometimes reasons they cannot or will not articulate—but usually know when they are being pandered to.

    The trap into which Republicans born before about 1975 keep falling is to look to right-of-center nonwhites for moral affirmation. The preposterous Candace Owens phenomenon (please note that I did not write, ”the preposterous Candace Owens”) is a prime example—and I don't mean to slight Owens by noticing this.

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    Replies: @Wyatt, @Rosie, @iffen

    A better choice of words would have been flavor instead of brand. The MSM, with an assist from Trump’s “style,” was able to portray him as a racist neo-Nazi for four years and they swayed many; more than enough to cost him the election. A better “flavor” of populism would have held more educated whites while at the same time adding non-whites.

    The trap into which Republicans born before about 1975 keep falling is to look to right-of-center nonwhites for moral affirmation.

    I don’t want their affirmation; I want their votes and their political allegiance. Anyway, the signaling that you are describing is demanded by woke whites from the Deplorables; nonwhites hardly have anything to do with it.

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    No, not the kind that I think you have in mind. Yes they do. Definitely not, not only are there no votes there; only loss of votes.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    I want their votes and their political allegiance.
     
    Good luck with that. White America has been trying to coexist with minorities as equal citizens for decades and they have never given any indication whatsoever that they are willing to coexist with (rather than seek to subvert) a White majority.

    Anyway, the signaling that you are describing is demanded by woke whites from the Deplorables; nonwhites hardly have anything to do with it.
     
    How do you know this? Trump won a higher share of Whites in 2016 by pointedly refusing to engage in any such signalling.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    A better “flavor” of populism would have held more educated whites while at the same time adding non-whites.
     
    Maybe so.

    I suspect that someone will try it. Then we'll see.


    We will become a minority. That’s why we desperately need more Twinkies....
     
    This is where I believe that you err. @Twinkie is a good man. If I wanted to drive him away, I'd try the hamhanded outreach Republicans have been trying for decades. Maybe a better strategy would be: let him be.

    He'll do the right thing.

    But @Rosie also fails to make a crucial distinction between blacks, on the one hand, and nonblack nonwhites on the other.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Rosie

  42. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    A better choice of words would have been flavor instead of brand. The MSM, with an assist from Trump's "style," was able to portray him as a racist neo-Nazi for four years and they swayed many; more than enough to cost him the election. A better "flavor" of populism would have held more educated whites while at the same time adding non-whites.

    The trap into which Republicans born before about 1975 keep falling is to look to right-of-center nonwhites for moral affirmation.

    I don't want their affirmation; I want their votes and their political allegiance. Anyway, the signaling that you are describing is demanded by woke whites from the Deplorables; nonwhites hardly have anything to do with it.

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    No, not the kind that I think you have in mind. Yes they do. Definitely not, not only are there no votes there; only loss of votes.

    Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund

    I want their votes and their political allegiance.

    Good luck with that. White America has been trying to coexist with minorities as equal citizens for decades and they have never given any indication whatsoever that they are willing to coexist with (rather than seek to subvert) a White majority.

    Anyway, the signaling that you are describing is demanded by woke whites from the Deplorables; nonwhites hardly have anything to do with it.

    How do you know this? Trump won a higher share of Whites in 2016 by pointedly refusing to engage in any such signalling.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    (rather than seek to subvert) a White majority.


    We will become a minority. That's why we desperately need more Twinkies, Swiss Rolls and Oatmeal Pies.

    Trump won a higher share of Whites in 2016 by pointedly refusing to engage in any such signalling.

    Exactly.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

  43. @Rosie
    @iffen


    I want their votes and their political allegiance.
     
    Good luck with that. White America has been trying to coexist with minorities as equal citizens for decades and they have never given any indication whatsoever that they are willing to coexist with (rather than seek to subvert) a White majority.

    Anyway, the signaling that you are describing is demanded by woke whites from the Deplorables; nonwhites hardly have anything to do with it.
     
    How do you know this? Trump won a higher share of Whites in 2016 by pointedly refusing to engage in any such signalling.

    Replies: @iffen

    (rather than seek to subvert) a White majority.

    We will become a minority. That’s why we desperately need more Twinkies, Swiss Rolls and Oatmeal Pies.

    Trump won a higher share of Whites in 2016 by pointedly refusing to engage in any such signalling.

    Exactly.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    We will become a minority. That’s why we desperately need more Twinkies, Swiss Rolls and Oatmeal Pies.
     
    What do we need them for? To win elections? To what end? Prosperity for brown people?

    Replies: @iffen

    , @Twinkie
    @iffen


    We will become a minority.
     
    You will still be a plurality, and with some luck and smart politics, there will be a sizable number of white-mixed people and “white-adjacent” minorities (yes, like me) who will augment that plurality. Meanwhile, the left will continue to be a coalition of liberal whites, blacks, some Hispanics and Asians, and single women.

    And don’t forget that Trump had a lower share of the white vote in 2016 than Romney had in 2012. That trend became pronounced in 2020, but is not exactly new.

    Replies: @iffen

  44. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    How does “a Jew” argue?
     
    They use a particular variant of the genetic fallacy that involves psychoanalyzing and pathologizing people they hate and desire to discredit and/or humiliate. Arrogant bullies like you do this all the time.

    https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Culture_of_Critique.html?id=EwVap3KPbjUC

    Replies: @Twinkie

    psychoanalyzing and pathologizing people they hate

    Isn’t this what you do with me? I can point to the very thread cited in AE’s post, in which I attempt to debate the substance of arguments (quite often with numeracy) while you use all kinds of personal attacks, ascribe (ill) motives, construct a straw man, etc.

    Arrogant bullies like you

    Is that a “non-Jewish” mode of argument or “psychoanalyzing and pathologizing people [you] hate” argumentation “like a Jew”?

    I don’t think I’m the one evincing hatred here.

    So does this mean you still resent the proverbial dentist next door with a bigger house than you, as in the quoted thread? 😉

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Isn’t this what you do with me?
     
    No. I make it a point never to stop to such sophistry. Hence, when misogynists start thot-screeching, I never say they're sexually-frustrated losers who can't get laid, because it's irrelevant even if true. I use facts and logic, stats, graphs, charts, etc.

    Don't get me wrong. I don't think you're a good person, but that doesn't have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of your arguments.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  45. @iffen
    @Rosie

    (rather than seek to subvert) a White majority.


    We will become a minority. That's why we desperately need more Twinkies, Swiss Rolls and Oatmeal Pies.

    Trump won a higher share of Whites in 2016 by pointedly refusing to engage in any such signalling.

    Exactly.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

    We will become a minority. That’s why we desperately need more Twinkies, Swiss Rolls and Oatmeal Pies.

    What do we need them for? To win elections? To what end? Prosperity for brown people?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    What do we need them for? To win elections? To what end? Prosperity for brown people?

    For all Americans.


    All Base All the Time Fails to Deliver

    https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/all-base-all-time-fails-deliver

    Replies: @Rosie

  46. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    psychoanalyzing and pathologizing people they hate
     
    Isn’t this what you do with me? I can point to the very thread cited in AE’s post, in which I attempt to debate the substance of arguments (quite often with numeracy) while you use all kinds of personal attacks, ascribe (ill) motives, construct a straw man, etc.

    Arrogant bullies like you
     
    Is that a “non-Jewish” mode of argument or “psychoanalyzing and pathologizing people [you] hate” argumentation “like a Jew”?

    I don’t think I’m the one evincing hatred here.

    So does this mean you still resent the proverbial dentist next door with a bigger house than you, as in the quoted thread? ;)

    Replies: @Rosie

    Isn’t this what you do with me?

    No. I make it a point never to stop to such sophistry. Hence, when misogynists start thot-screeching, I never say they’re sexually-frustrated losers who can’t get laid, because it’s irrelevant even if true. I use facts and logic, stats, graphs, charts, etc.

    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think you’re a good person, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of your arguments.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    No. I make it a point never to stop to such sophistry.
     
    I think everyone can see that this is patently false.
  47. @iffen
    @Rosie

    (rather than seek to subvert) a White majority.


    We will become a minority. That's why we desperately need more Twinkies, Swiss Rolls and Oatmeal Pies.

    Trump won a higher share of Whites in 2016 by pointedly refusing to engage in any such signalling.

    Exactly.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

    We will become a minority.

    You will still be a plurality, and with some luck and smart politics, there will be a sizable number of white-mixed people and “white-adjacent” minorities (yes, like me) who will augment that plurality. Meanwhile, the left will continue to be a coalition of liberal whites, blacks, some Hispanics and Asians, and single women.

    And don’t forget that Trump had a lower share of the white vote in 2016 than Romney had in 2012. That trend became pronounced in 2020, but is not exactly new.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    And don’t forget that Trump had a lower share of the white vote in 2016 than Romney had in 2012. That trend became pronounced in 2020, but is not exactly new.

    Yes. Although, I would like to look at turnout and the share in the battleground states.

    Generalizing, I think that any Republican other than Trump would have lost to Clinton in 2016. Conversely, I think other Republicans would have had a good chance of defeating Biden.

  48. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Isn’t this what you do with me?
     
    No. I make it a point never to stop to such sophistry. Hence, when misogynists start thot-screeching, I never say they're sexually-frustrated losers who can't get laid, because it's irrelevant even if true. I use facts and logic, stats, graphs, charts, etc.

    Don't get me wrong. I don't think you're a good person, but that doesn't have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of your arguments.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    No. I make it a point never to stop to such sophistry.

    I think everyone can see that this is patently false.

    • LOL: Rosie
  49. @Rosie
    @iffen


    We will become a minority. That’s why we desperately need more Twinkies, Swiss Rolls and Oatmeal Pies.
     
    What do we need them for? To win elections? To what end? Prosperity for brown people?

    Replies: @iffen

    What do we need them for? To win elections? To what end? Prosperity for brown people?

    For all Americans.

    All Base All the Time Fails to Deliver

    https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/all-base-all-time-fails-deliver

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    For all Americans.
     
    Right, brown people.

    https://www.mic.com/p/national-geographic-determined-what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-its-beautiful-16166684

    As usual, White people owe the rest of the world a duty of solidarity with no expectation of reciprocity. While nonwhites form self-interested ethnic lobbies, you want us to reach out to our fellow Americans. No thanks.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  50. @Twinkie
    @iffen


    We will become a minority.
     
    You will still be a plurality, and with some luck and smart politics, there will be a sizable number of white-mixed people and “white-adjacent” minorities (yes, like me) who will augment that plurality. Meanwhile, the left will continue to be a coalition of liberal whites, blacks, some Hispanics and Asians, and single women.

    And don’t forget that Trump had a lower share of the white vote in 2016 than Romney had in 2012. That trend became pronounced in 2020, but is not exactly new.

    Replies: @iffen

    And don’t forget that Trump had a lower share of the white vote in 2016 than Romney had in 2012. That trend became pronounced in 2020, but is not exactly new.

    Yes. Although, I would like to look at turnout and the share in the battleground states.

    Generalizing, I think that any Republican other than Trump would have lost to Clinton in 2016. Conversely, I think other Republicans would have had a good chance of defeating Biden.

  51. @JohnPlywood
    @dan

    What are you babbling about? Donald Trump was a disgrace from the very beginning. Richard Spencer and his followers were the only intelligent people in the room on election night; I personally voted for Biden. Voting for Trump in 2020 was a great way to signal that you are not a sober white person.

    The Nazis put up the most impressive display of any country in the 20th century, that's for sure. The fact that the entire world combined their resources against them out of a fear of submission to their rule does not change that, and it won't change the fact that for every German killed, roughly 3 Soviets, 2 Brits and 1.8 American soldiers had to die. And today you still have try to convince people to stop liking Nazis, because everyone still secretly admires them and detests their own culture.

    Replies: @Dan, @V. K. Ovelund

    ” it won’t change the fact that for every German killed, roughly 3 Soviets, 2 Brits and 1.8 American soldiers had to die.”

    I am afraid I will get dumber just by interacting with you, but here goes:

    The Wehrmacht had 4.5 million military casualties to America’s 400 thousand. Your ability to do basic arithmetic is much less than what my eight year old could do when she was six.

    Germany succeeded in getting their cities firebombed and their country flattened. Germany never touched US, and became an American charity case after the war.

    Ever since the war people have made a hobby of locating old former Nazis in hiding and putting them on trial, to humiliate and kick them around some more. Such winning.

    Everyone idolizes the Nazis? Your social circle must consist mainly of Internet ‘friends’ if you think that, because this is what, 2% of the population? One suspects your dear Internet friends are Feds.

    Was Biden about a welfare check so Spencer doesn’t have to depend on his mommy?

    Hey genius, you can’t get much welfare when Biden needs to take care of 11 million amnestied illegals.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Dan


    Germany succeeded in getting their cities firebombed and their country flattened.
     
    Notwithstanding the undoubted nattiness of WW II German uniforms and, more seriously, the outstanding fighting power of the German military,* the fact remains that Hitler and the Nazis brought utter ruin to their country. That’s why I think Francoism is a far better model for dissident or “extreme” rightists. Franco outlived all his contemporaries - Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, and far more saliently, left his country in a much better state when he died than when he came to power.

    *Probably the best book written on the subject of comparative fighting power of the Germans is written by Martin van Creveld: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3990974-fighting-power

    Van Creveld is a noted Israeli military historian and theorist whom I hold in very high regard (and who once described diaspora Jews as “men without chests”). His “The Transformation of War” is the best book ever written on post-modern warfare. He also took a recent jab at feminism in “The Privileged Sex.”

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @fnn
    @Dan


    Ever since the war people have made a hobby of locating old former Nazis in hiding and putting them on trial, to humiliate and kick them around some more. Such winning.
     
    Effing idiot the Bundeswehr (and the DDR's NVA) was full of "old Nazis" during the Cold War and the German Generals who fought the Soviets regularly appeared at conferences at military bases in the US, while Stuka pilots like Rudel were consulted in the development of the A-10. All except a few high-profile war criminals were left unmolested during the Cold War and for some years thereafter. The current mania for hunting down former clerk-typists and auto mechanics is only about a decade old.

    Replies: @Dan

    , @JohnPlywood
    @Dan

    I'm aware that the USA lost fewer troops than the Wehrmacht, and most of those casualties were in the Pacific region. In battles in which USA forces engaged with Nazis, however, they did indeed suffer more casualties than than American troops, and in general.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(1935%E2%80%931945)


    Peter Turchin reports a study by American colonel Trevor Dupuy found that German combat efficiency was higher than both the British and American armies - if a combat efficiency of 1 was assigned to the British, then the Americans had a combat efficiency of 1.1 and the Germans of 1.45. This would mean British forces would need to commit 45% more troops (or arm existing troops more heavily to the same proportion) to have a even chance of winning the battle, while the Americans would need to commit 30% more to have an even chance.[18]&
     
    Sorry, but the Germans were better soldiers and they built your modern military and space program as well. There are other places on the doll where rhey touched you, as well. You're already "Germans".
  52. @iffen
    @Rosie

    What do we need them for? To win elections? To what end? Prosperity for brown people?

    For all Americans.


    All Base All the Time Fails to Deliver

    https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/all-base-all-time-fails-deliver

    Replies: @Rosie

    For all Americans.

    Right, brown people.

    https://www.mic.com/p/national-geographic-determined-what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-its-beautiful-16166684

    As usual, White people owe the rest of the world a duty of solidarity with no expectation of reciprocity. While nonwhites form self-interested ethnic lobbies, you want us to reach out to our fellow Americans. No thanks.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    White people owe the rest of the world a duty of solidarity with no expectation of reciprocity. While nonwhites form self-interested ethnic lobbies, you want us to reach out to our fellow Americans. No thanks.
     
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/republicans-are-happier-than-democrats/#comment-4311492

    About “my people.” I realize you are some sort of a cartoon Nazi. Nonetheless, you are my fellow American, so I consider you “my people” as well… Even though you appear to be unhinged and consider me your enemy of some sort. So I wish you and your family well – both out of principle (I care about my fellow Americans) and practicality (if families like yours do poorly, we all suffer sooner or later).
     

    Replies: @Rosie

  53. Not sure what people understand by “fiscal conservatism”. There are two kinds of fiscal conservatism:

    i.) reducing transfer payments to blacks which plays on racial resentment of whites and

    ii.) privatizing social security, medicare, and other entitlements to “balance the budget”.

    The Donor class doesn’t really care about fiscal conservatism i.) unless they are pandering for votes. They are very interested in “balancing the budget” in the sense that Wall Street wants investment money, backed by an implicit or explicit federal guarantee and the health care corporations want all those health care dollars without government price controls.

    The “budget” gets balanced by privatizing SS and Medicare, then shifting from payment to subsidy. Then WS blows up everyone’s money, and gets bailed out, and your health care costs bloat even more, but grandma can’t afford health care because we can’t increase her subsidy. Insert obligatory Ben Shapiro lecture on “personal responsibility” here. The Plutocracy very much wants to “balance the budget” in this manner, and will even use fiscal conservatism i.) to sell it. Further, this is “bipartisan”, the hacks in the Biden administration are all-in as well as the Paul Ryan types in the GOP.

    The next decade will be a fight over whether the last remnants of the New Deal will be destroyed and replaced with Neoliberal socialism, that is profit is privatized for the Oligarchs, and their risk is socialized, e.g. paid for by you. In exchange, every formerly decent government benefit becomes increasingly unaffordable, shitty and ultimately useless.

  54. @iffen
    @Rosie

    You argue like a Jew. That’s no surprise. Spiritually, you are one.

    Gasp! You are not supposed to say things like that. Oh, wait, this is TUR.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    Oh, wait, this is TUR.

    Owned and operated by a Jew, whom I hold in high regard despite our disagreements on a number of topics (but who has convinced me that the age-adjusted Hispanic crime rate is probably not too far from the white rate… though who has yet to convince me that Jews were drinking gentile blood or whatever that one article of his says). 😉

  55. @Dan
    @JohnPlywood

    " it won’t change the fact that for every German killed, roughly 3 Soviets, 2 Brits and 1.8 American soldiers had to die."

    I am afraid I will get dumber just by interacting with you, but here goes:

    The Wehrmacht had 4.5 million military casualties to America's 400 thousand. Your ability to do basic arithmetic is much less than what my eight year old could do when she was six.

    Germany succeeded in getting their cities firebombed and their country flattened. Germany never touched US, and became an American charity case after the war.

    Ever since the war people have made a hobby of locating old former Nazis in hiding and putting them on trial, to humiliate and kick them around some more. Such winning.

    Everyone idolizes the Nazis? Your social circle must consist mainly of Internet 'friends' if you think that, because this is what, 2% of the population? One suspects your dear Internet friends are Feds.

    Was Biden about a welfare check so Spencer doesn't have to depend on his mommy?

    Hey genius, you can't get much welfare when Biden needs to take care of 11 million amnestied illegals.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @fnn, @JohnPlywood

    Germany succeeded in getting their cities firebombed and their country flattened.

    Notwithstanding the undoubted nattiness of WW II German uniforms and, more seriously, the outstanding fighting power of the German military,* the fact remains that Hitler and the Nazis brought utter ruin to their country. That’s why I think Francoism is a far better model for dissident or “extreme” rightists. Franco outlived all his contemporaries – Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, and far more saliently, left his country in a much better state when he died than when he came to power.

    *Probably the best book written on the subject of comparative fighting power of the Germans is written by Martin van Creveld: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3990974-fighting-power

    Van Creveld is a noted Israeli military historian and theorist whom I hold in very high regard (and who once described diaspora Jews as “men without chests”). His “The Transformation of War” is the best book ever written on post-modern warfare. He also took a recent jab at feminism in “The Privileged Sex.”

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    He also wrote an entertaining novel of a realistic, non-cartoonish Hitler lucidly talking about his own spin on his life story from the afterlife. He's witty, glib, and often humorously sarcastic, as you would expect a successful political operator to be.

    My standard of governance, as distinguished from acknowledging political gifts, is simple: did the leader leave his country in better shape than he found it?

    Replies: @Talha

  56. @Rosie
    @iffen


    For all Americans.
     
    Right, brown people.

    https://www.mic.com/p/national-geographic-determined-what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-its-beautiful-16166684

    As usual, White people owe the rest of the world a duty of solidarity with no expectation of reciprocity. While nonwhites form self-interested ethnic lobbies, you want us to reach out to our fellow Americans. No thanks.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    White people owe the rest of the world a duty of solidarity with no expectation of reciprocity. While nonwhites form self-interested ethnic lobbies, you want us to reach out to our fellow Americans. No thanks.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/republicans-are-happier-than-democrats/#comment-4311492

    About “my people.” I realize you are some sort of a cartoon Nazi. Nonetheless, you are my fellow American, so I consider you “my people” as well… Even though you appear to be unhinged and consider me your enemy of some sort. So I wish you and your family well – both out of principle (I care about my fellow Americans) and practicality (if families like yours do poorly, we all suffer sooner or later).

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    About “my people.” I realize you are some sort of a cartoon Nazi.
     
    Blah, blah, blah.

    Twink
    es, my opinion on the National Question is precisely the same as any random Chinese, Korean, or Japanese. Are those people all "cartoon nazis," too? Or is "nazi" just your hate slur for White people who want White people to continue existing?

    Non-whites to White people: What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  57. @JohnPlywood
    @dan

    What are you babbling about? Donald Trump was a disgrace from the very beginning. Richard Spencer and his followers were the only intelligent people in the room on election night; I personally voted for Biden. Voting for Trump in 2020 was a great way to signal that you are not a sober white person.

    The Nazis put up the most impressive display of any country in the 20th century, that's for sure. The fact that the entire world combined their resources against them out of a fear of submission to their rule does not change that, and it won't change the fact that for every German killed, roughly 3 Soviets, 2 Brits and 1.8 American soldiers had to die. And today you still have try to convince people to stop liking Nazis, because everyone still secretly admires them and detests their own culture.

    Replies: @Dan, @V. K. Ovelund

    I would just hit the agree button, but it doesn’t do it justice and is apt to be misunderstood.

    The Nazis put up the most impressive display of any country in the 20th century, that’s for sure.

    Readers, you’ve got to break your minds free of the matrix, or it’ll be the death of us all. is right.

    The notion that FDR and Churchill were the heroes of the 20th century just doesn’t hold up. Insults regarding Hitler fanboys are empty. We’ve got a real civilizational crisis on our hands and some new thinking is required.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "We’ve got a real civilizational crisis on our hands and some new thinking is required"

    LOL, "new thinking" isn't lamely role-playing the most politically unpopular movement in the world from eighty years ago.

    Trying to win with that is like attempting to win a 100 meter race while giving your opponent a 2 mile head start. Obviously nobody actually thinks this could could win and its just role play. But hiding under the covers and playing kids games is no way to confront the challenges of civilization. It's like a homeless person waking up every day to their own little world where they are Queen of England because reality is too unbearable.

    Raising a homeschool family and maintaining faith is a way to start.

    Trump won a presidency and nearly won another. These sad LARPers would lose a race for town dog catcher 100 times out of 100.

    Reality is what it is. And yet here they are!

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @fnn

  58. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Crony capitalism is capitalism. It’s how capitalism ends up working in practice.

    People who resort to arguments that crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism are very much like people who say that the problem with communism is that it just hasn’t been done properly.
     
    I dunno. I suspect that communism wasn't nearly as bad as we've been led to believe. If I'm not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people's sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.

    On the other hand, I think capitalism in one country can work fine, too. The key is you have to have the right people running the country. That's easier said than done, I know, but it's clearly possible. The Chinese Communist Party isn't trying to humiliate and replace their own population.

    One thing I think we can decisively reject is the idea that only the government poses a threat of tyranny, but then we already knew that, or at least we should have.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

    I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe.

    Authoritarianism may bring its advantages, but totalitarianism is worse than death.

    Communism is totalitarian. I’d rather take a bullet.

    The Chinese Communist Party isn’t trying to humiliate and replace their own population.

    You’ve got a point.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Communism is totalitarian. I’d rather take a bullet.
     
    I'd have said the same thing at one time, but now that we have transnational megacorporations censoring opinions they don't like, what difference does it make?

    Replies: @Twinkie

  59. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    A better choice of words would have been flavor instead of brand. The MSM, with an assist from Trump's "style," was able to portray him as a racist neo-Nazi for four years and they swayed many; more than enough to cost him the election. A better "flavor" of populism would have held more educated whites while at the same time adding non-whites.

    The trap into which Republicans born before about 1975 keep falling is to look to right-of-center nonwhites for moral affirmation.

    I don't want their affirmation; I want their votes and their political allegiance. Anyway, the signaling that you are describing is demanded by woke whites from the Deplorables; nonwhites hardly have anything to do with it.

    White people have interests. Neither party seems to want those votes; but that is, by far, where the greatest concentration of persuadable votes is.

    No, not the kind that I think you have in mind. Yes they do. Definitely not, not only are there no votes there; only loss of votes.

    Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund

    A better “flavor” of populism would have held more educated whites while at the same time adding non-whites.

    Maybe so.

    I suspect that someone will try it. Then we’ll see.

    We will become a minority. That’s why we desperately need more Twinkies….

    This is where I believe that you err. is a good man. If I wanted to drive him away, I’d try the hamhanded outreach Republicans have been trying for decades. Maybe a better strategy would be: let him be.

    He’ll do the right thing.

    But also fails to make a crucial distinction between blacks, on the one hand, and nonblack nonwhites on the other.

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    @Twinkie is a good man.
     
    Thanks for the kind words.

    If I wanted to drive him away, I’d try the hamhanded outreach Republicans have been trying for decades.
     
    I wouldn’t be driven away from my principles, but I am pretty annoyed by what you accurately described as “hamhanded [Republican] outreach.”

    I’d rather that the GOP appealed to (what should be) commonly-shared patriotism and sense of fair play rather than the bread & circus routine and the politics of resentment the left offers, but they seem determined to offer an inferior and less effective version of what the Democrats do.

    Then again, I’m for treating people like adults, not some indulgent children who are looking for free candy. So if you don’t offer me sugar-coating and instead talk to me like an adult, I’ll be more amenable.

    That said, I’m never ever going to support a political program that demonizes and disenfranchises white Americans and will fight to the death against those who espouse it. My wife is white, my children are half-white. My in-laws, whom I love dearly, are white. These are people who welcomed me into their family, protected me, nurtured me, and loved me as one of their very own. I still carry the lovely and moving letter my wife’s grandparents slipped to me at my wedding to their granddaughter - I will be found dead with it one day. Anyone who tries to harm these people of mine shall have made a mortal enemy of me.
    , @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    But @Rosie also fails to make a crucial distinction between blacks, on the one hand, and nonblack nonwhites on the other.
     
    I don't care about this distinction. I do not share the anti black animus that is common around here. My nationalism is not based on hatred or contempt of any group, but a desire for White continuity.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  60. @Twinkie
    @Dan


    Germany succeeded in getting their cities firebombed and their country flattened.
     
    Notwithstanding the undoubted nattiness of WW II German uniforms and, more seriously, the outstanding fighting power of the German military,* the fact remains that Hitler and the Nazis brought utter ruin to their country. That’s why I think Francoism is a far better model for dissident or “extreme” rightists. Franco outlived all his contemporaries - Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, and far more saliently, left his country in a much better state when he died than when he came to power.

    *Probably the best book written on the subject of comparative fighting power of the Germans is written by Martin van Creveld: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3990974-fighting-power

    Van Creveld is a noted Israeli military historian and theorist whom I hold in very high regard (and who once described diaspora Jews as “men without chests”). His “The Transformation of War” is the best book ever written on post-modern warfare. He also took a recent jab at feminism in “The Privileged Sex.”

    Replies: @nebulafox

    He also wrote an entertaining novel of a realistic, non-cartoonish Hitler lucidly talking about his own spin on his life story from the afterlife. He’s witty, glib, and often humorously sarcastic, as you would expect a successful political operator to be.

    My standard of governance, as distinguished from acknowledging political gifts, is simple: did the leader leave his country in better shape than he found it?

    • Replies: @Talha
    @nebulafox

    That’s not a bad criteria, though simple (and potentially subjectively assessed).

    Peace.

  61. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Do you no longer resent the dentist who has a bigger house than you?
     
    Fuck off, Twinkles. You argue like a Jew. That's no surprise. Spiritually, you are one.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen, @nebulafox

    Like Werner Heisenberg? Right out of an SS periodical is not a good look, Rosie.

    Funnily enough, the guy I relate to most in the Third Reich is Konrad Zuse: the desire to be left alone and do something interesting. I get the intuitive sense that the woke would impede that.

  62. @dan
    @JohnPlywood

    Actually, the comment was spot-on. The Nazis were the biggest failures -- achieving the exact opposite of what they wanted.

    And NeoNazi LARPers F-'ed up Trump's presidency too. Because of their retarded role-playing in Charlottesville in 2017, Trump spent the rest of his Presidency playing defense on race.

    The media was looking for a comical villain to smear Trump with and the LARPers played the part perfectly. The media smeared Trump with those LARPers right up through the 2020 debates, damaging him badly for the election.

    Did these LARPers hand Biden the win? Trump could never shake their stench. And to boot, retard-in-chief Richard Spencer backed Biden, and I assume his 2-digit-IQ followers did the same.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @fnn

    Anglo-American liberalism is reaching its terminal phase and those who are not brain dead are searching for an alternative. The goal of the FBI/CIA/ADL controlled forces (Antfia, BLM and the like) at Cyille and numerous other places is to prevent any alternative from arising IRL.
    The Antifa and its allies started the violence at Cville and the local police (in collusion with the VSP and Governor’s office) “stood down” so the resulting disorder would provide an excuse to prevent the legal protest from taking place. In addition, the provocative name for the event (“Unite the Right”) sounds like it came directly from the ADL/SPLC playbook, and must have been concocted by a federal informant. The obvious name to use would have been along the lines of “Defend the Statues” and/or “Stop the American Taliban.”

    The official yet independent Heaphy Report on the incident:
    https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Charlottesville-Critical-Incident-Review-2017.pdf

  63. I find today’s Democratic Party loathsome, but that party’s leaders are better listeners than the leaders of the Republicans are. Ironically, Democrats even listen to white people (whom they hate) better than Republicans do.

    Regarding nonwhites: Republicans keep trying to appeal to various nonwhites based, not on those people’s interests, but on what Republicans imagine that those people’s interests should be.

    I do not know (for example) what a Mexican’s interests are. Maybe I don’t care. But, if I did care and wanted to know, I would hardly ask a Republican. I’d ask a Mexican. (Last time I listened, I learned that many or most Mexicans see themselves as white. ¿Interesting, no?)

    Given space and time, some nonwhites will come around. Others won’t, but meanwhile deaf Republican pandering just makes everything worse.

    By the way, white people do have interests. Incessant, ridiculous, hamhanded, insulting Republican pandering to nonwhites is preventing Republicans from recognizing white interests. The Republicans truly are the Stupid Party.

  64. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    A better “flavor” of populism would have held more educated whites while at the same time adding non-whites.
     
    Maybe so.

    I suspect that someone will try it. Then we'll see.


    We will become a minority. That’s why we desperately need more Twinkies....
     
    This is where I believe that you err. @Twinkie is a good man. If I wanted to drive him away, I'd try the hamhanded outreach Republicans have been trying for decades. Maybe a better strategy would be: let him be.

    He'll do the right thing.

    But @Rosie also fails to make a crucial distinction between blacks, on the one hand, and nonblack nonwhites on the other.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Rosie

    is a good man.

    Thanks for the kind words.

    If I wanted to drive him away, I’d try the hamhanded outreach Republicans have been trying for decades.

    I wouldn’t be driven away from my principles, but I am pretty annoyed by what you accurately described as “hamhanded [Republican] outreach.”

    I’d rather that the GOP appealed to (what should be) commonly-shared patriotism and sense of fair play rather than the bread & circus routine and the politics of resentment the left offers, but they seem determined to offer an inferior and less effective version of what the Democrats do.

    Then again, I’m for treating people like adults, not some indulgent children who are looking for free candy. So if you don’t offer me sugar-coating and instead talk to me like an adult, I’ll be more amenable.

    That said, I’m never ever going to support a political program that demonizes and disenfranchises white Americans and will fight to the death against those who espouse it. My wife is white, my children are half-white. My in-laws, whom I love dearly, are white. These are people who welcomed me into their family, protected me, nurtured me, and loved me as one of their very own. I still carry the lovely and moving letter my wife’s grandparents slipped to me at my wedding to their granddaughter – I will be found dead with it one day. Anyone who tries to harm these people of mine shall have made a mortal enemy of me.

  65. @Dan
    @JohnPlywood

    " it won’t change the fact that for every German killed, roughly 3 Soviets, 2 Brits and 1.8 American soldiers had to die."

    I am afraid I will get dumber just by interacting with you, but here goes:

    The Wehrmacht had 4.5 million military casualties to America's 400 thousand. Your ability to do basic arithmetic is much less than what my eight year old could do when she was six.

    Germany succeeded in getting their cities firebombed and their country flattened. Germany never touched US, and became an American charity case after the war.

    Ever since the war people have made a hobby of locating old former Nazis in hiding and putting them on trial, to humiliate and kick them around some more. Such winning.

    Everyone idolizes the Nazis? Your social circle must consist mainly of Internet 'friends' if you think that, because this is what, 2% of the population? One suspects your dear Internet friends are Feds.

    Was Biden about a welfare check so Spencer doesn't have to depend on his mommy?

    Hey genius, you can't get much welfare when Biden needs to take care of 11 million amnestied illegals.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @fnn, @JohnPlywood

    Ever since the war people have made a hobby of locating old former Nazis in hiding and putting them on trial, to humiliate and kick them around some more. Such winning.

    Effing idiot the Bundeswehr (and the DDR’s NVA) was full of “old Nazis” during the Cold War and the German Generals who fought the Soviets regularly appeared at conferences at military bases in the US, while Stuka pilots like Rudel were consulted in the development of the A-10. All except a few high-profile war criminals were left unmolested during the Cold War and for some years thereafter. The current mania for hunting down former clerk-typists and auto mechanics is only about a decade old.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Dan
    @fnn

    "The current mania for hunting down former clerk-typists and auto mechanics is only about a decade old."

    Nope. Bro, the project started in 1947. By 10 years ago it was already basically over because most of the people involved were already dead.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Historical_Documentation_Centre

    "All except a few high-profile war criminals were left unmolested during the Cold War and for some years thereafter. "

    Nope.

    "According to the centre, about 40,000 Nazis have been tried for war crimes since the end of the war, and most were found guilty."

    Are any of these people even able to read? How do they manage to inhale through the right opening?

    Replies: @fnn

  66. @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    He also wrote an entertaining novel of a realistic, non-cartoonish Hitler lucidly talking about his own spin on his life story from the afterlife. He's witty, glib, and often humorously sarcastic, as you would expect a successful political operator to be.

    My standard of governance, as distinguished from acknowledging political gifts, is simple: did the leader leave his country in better shape than he found it?

    Replies: @Talha

    That’s not a bad criteria, though simple (and potentially subjectively assessed).

    Peace.

  67. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    White people owe the rest of the world a duty of solidarity with no expectation of reciprocity. While nonwhites form self-interested ethnic lobbies, you want us to reach out to our fellow Americans. No thanks.
     
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/republicans-are-happier-than-democrats/#comment-4311492

    About “my people.” I realize you are some sort of a cartoon Nazi. Nonetheless, you are my fellow American, so I consider you “my people” as well… Even though you appear to be unhinged and consider me your enemy of some sort. So I wish you and your family well – both out of principle (I care about my fellow Americans) and practicality (if families like yours do poorly, we all suffer sooner or later).
     

    Replies: @Rosie

    About “my people.” I realize you are some sort of a cartoon Nazi.

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Twink
    es, my opinion on the National Question is precisely the same as any random Chinese, Korean, or Japanese. Are those people all “cartoon nazis,” too? Or is “nazi” just your hate slur for White people who want White people to continue existing?

    Non-whites to White people: What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, too.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    Or is “nazi” just your hate slur for White people who want White people to continue existing?
     
    Ah, I see. You subscribe to the idea of “white genocide.”

    Nazi is my slur for those who subscribe to National Socialism, which you self-avowed on Unz.

    For the record, I also want “white people to continue existing.”

    Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie

  68. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    A better “flavor” of populism would have held more educated whites while at the same time adding non-whites.
     
    Maybe so.

    I suspect that someone will try it. Then we'll see.


    We will become a minority. That’s why we desperately need more Twinkies....
     
    This is where I believe that you err. @Twinkie is a good man. If I wanted to drive him away, I'd try the hamhanded outreach Republicans have been trying for decades. Maybe a better strategy would be: let him be.

    He'll do the right thing.

    But @Rosie also fails to make a crucial distinction between blacks, on the one hand, and nonblack nonwhites on the other.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Rosie

    But also fails to make a crucial distinction between blacks, on the one hand, and nonblack nonwhites on the other.

    I don’t care about this distinction. I do not share the anti black animus that is common around here. My nationalism is not based on hatred or contempt of any group, but a desire for White continuity.

    • Agree: Gordo, V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    not based on hatred or contempt of any group
     
    So, “argue like a Jew” was meant as a compliment?
  69. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Rosie


    I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe.
     
    Authoritarianism may bring its advantages, but totalitarianism is worse than death.

    Communism is totalitarian. I'd rather take a bullet.


    The Chinese Communist Party isn’t trying to humiliate and replace their own population.
     
    You've got a point.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Communism is totalitarian. I’d rather take a bullet.

    I’d have said the same thing at one time, but now that we have transnational megacorporations censoring opinions they don’t like, what difference does it make?

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    we have transnational megacorporations censoring opinions they don’t like, what difference does it make?
     
    There are many differences between an authoritarian society and a totalitarian one. China, for example, is no longer the latter, but the former.

    As bad as thing have become in the U.S., it is not a totalitarian country and you equating it to Woke corporatism shows ignorance as profound as suggesting that North Koreans are happier than South Koreans (because of higher fertility).
  70. @Mark G.
    For a moment, let's call fiscally conservative and socially liberal people "libertarians" and the opposite "populists" and consider what would happen. The populists would like both major parties to become populist but that is not likely to happen. Libertarians and conservatives are fiscally conservative and libertarians and liberals are socially liberal and rather than two populist parties you would be likely to end up with a more populist party for populists and another more libertarian party for everyone who is libertarian, with an equal split of conservatives and liberals between the two parties.

    There are more populists but their demographics are they have less education and lower incomes. See the book Beyond Liberal and Conservative by Maddox and Lilie. People with those demographics are less likely to vote and, since they have lower incomes, have less money for political donations so a more Libertarian party would be competitive. Another problem is that many populists are nonwhite, many white populists are white racialists who don't like nonwhites and don't want to share welfare money with them so it would be hard to hold a populist party together. The more libertarian party would be mostly white and would welcome any nonwhites as long as they had the same political philosophy.

    Another problem for populists is they have trouble pointing to successful examples of populist countries. Nazi Germany would be in this category but the German economy was faltering right before World War II and the weakening economy led them to be unable to fight a war against the then more capitalist and libertarian U.S. Populists often say there are no purely libertarian countries but there are some countries that are more libertarian than others and the more libertarian countries have higher living standards. A number of think tanks like Cato, Fraser, and Heritage release country rankings showing this. Where are the populist think tanks producing studies showing the opposite?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    [T]he German economy was faltering right before World War II….

    It was? I didn’t know that.

    A quick search-engine query turns nothing up. To do my homework is not your job, but if there is a source at which you would like to point me, I would be interested.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @V. K. Ovelund

    https://reason.com/1999/08/01/nazi-economics/

    https://www.libertynation.com/why-socialism-failed-nazi-germany/

    Both articles mention the unsustainable levels of deficit spending. The second one says Hitler went from 11.7 billion Reichsmarks of debt when he took office to 48.5 billion by 1939. FDR's economic policies were failing too with higher unemployment levels in 1938 than when he came into office six years earlier. They both may have started a war with each other to distract their subjects from their economic failures. That's what FDR biographer John T. Flynn thought.

    There are some parallels between thirties Germany with the U.S. in the sixties. Instead of picking guns or butter, LBJ tried to fund both the Vietnam war and the Great Society welfare programs at the same time. This started almost nonstop government deficits going up to the present. In addition to borrowing, the U.S. government started engaging in money printing to cover the deficits.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  71. @V. K. Ovelund
    @JohnPlywood

    I would just hit the agree button, but it doesn't do it justice and is apt to be misunderstood.


    The Nazis put up the most impressive display of any country in the 20th century, that’s for sure.
     
    Readers, you've got to break your minds free of the matrix, or it'll be the death of us all. @JohnPlywood is right.

    The notion that FDR and Churchill were the heroes of the 20th century just doesn't hold up. Insults regarding Hitler fanboys are empty. We've got a real civilizational crisis on our hands and some new thinking is required.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

    “We’ve got a real civilizational crisis on our hands and some new thinking is required”

    LOL, “new thinking” isn’t lamely role-playing the most politically unpopular movement in the world from eighty years ago.

    Trying to win with that is like attempting to win a 100 meter race while giving your opponent a 2 mile head start. Obviously nobody actually thinks this could could win and its just role play. But hiding under the covers and playing kids games is no way to confront the challenges of civilization. It’s like a homeless person waking up every day to their own little world where they are Queen of England because reality is too unbearable.

    Raising a homeschool family and maintaining faith is a way to start.

    Trump won a presidency and nearly won another. These sad LARPers would lose a race for town dog catcher 100 times out of 100.

    Reality is what it is. And yet here they are!

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @DanHessinMD

    Reflexive anti-Nazism is trite. One must do better than to argue that Nazis were unpopular, not least because they weren't.

    I find no fault in your comment otherwise.

    Replies: @Dan, @nebulafox

    , @fnn
    @DanHessinMD


    Raising a homeschool family and maintaining faith is a way to start.
     
    The Amish have been doing that in America for 300 years. The result: US is culturally less like the Amish than it has ever been.
  72. @DanHessinMD
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "We’ve got a real civilizational crisis on our hands and some new thinking is required"

    LOL, "new thinking" isn't lamely role-playing the most politically unpopular movement in the world from eighty years ago.

    Trying to win with that is like attempting to win a 100 meter race while giving your opponent a 2 mile head start. Obviously nobody actually thinks this could could win and its just role play. But hiding under the covers and playing kids games is no way to confront the challenges of civilization. It's like a homeless person waking up every day to their own little world where they are Queen of England because reality is too unbearable.

    Raising a homeschool family and maintaining faith is a way to start.

    Trump won a presidency and nearly won another. These sad LARPers would lose a race for town dog catcher 100 times out of 100.

    Reality is what it is. And yet here they are!

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @fnn

    Reflexive anti-Nazism is trite. One must do better than to argue that Nazis were unpopular, not least because they weren’t.

    I find no fault in your comment otherwise.

    • Replies: @Dan
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "One must do better than to argue that Nazis were unpopular, not least because they weren’t."

    Well they are the most unpopular thing in the world in 2020. Which is why trying to use them boost a political movement is like trying to use a boulder as a floatie in the swimming pool. Surely it must be role-play and not genuine, because nobody would actually try to win like that. It is really interesting that this crew can remain perpetually in 1937, as if nobody knows yet how things will out.

    AE, how common are these LARPers? Because you seem to have three commenting all at the same time, unless there are two sock puppets.

    Replies: @fnn, @Audacious Epigone

    , @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I do agree that to compulsively deny talents or skill (as so many do with Adolf Hitler) in the morally reprehensible is a sign of immaturity, not wisdom. But my overriding point about Nazism isn't that Hitler was stupid, or that the Third Reich was unpopular until the war started to go sour for Germany. My point is that Nazism as a phenomenon contained no redeeming, constructive features whatsoever, even for the people it purportedly was out to benefit: who seriously wanted to become a Wehrbauer out near the Urals? Damned few people. The closest modern analogue in terms of radicalism and nihilism was the Khmer Rouge, and they (thankfully) ruled a 3rd World backwater and could only do limited damage because of that.

    Moreover, it not only didn't achieve its goals, in many cases, it achieved the opposite of them. On top of that, it is lost on the white nationalist types who defend him that Hitler was not one of them. He was a German ultra-nationalist with German ultra-nationalist concerns at the time: it was Russians and Poles who were the looming Untermenschen in the Nazi regime's policies, not the Chinese or the Muslims. Had he had his way, he would have killed more whites in history while retaining positive relationships with Imperial Japan and the Islamic World.

    Being a hardliner on 1A and recognizing that having pictures of Hitler in the Kroll on the front page is a dumb idea are not mutually irreconcilable conclusions to draw.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  73. @fnn
    @Dan


    Ever since the war people have made a hobby of locating old former Nazis in hiding and putting them on trial, to humiliate and kick them around some more. Such winning.
     
    Effing idiot the Bundeswehr (and the DDR's NVA) was full of "old Nazis" during the Cold War and the German Generals who fought the Soviets regularly appeared at conferences at military bases in the US, while Stuka pilots like Rudel were consulted in the development of the A-10. All except a few high-profile war criminals were left unmolested during the Cold War and for some years thereafter. The current mania for hunting down former clerk-typists and auto mechanics is only about a decade old.

    Replies: @Dan

    “The current mania for hunting down former clerk-typists and auto mechanics is only about a decade old.”

    Nope. Bro, the project started in 1947. By 10 years ago it was already basically over because most of the people involved were already dead.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Historical_Documentation_Centre

    “All except a few high-profile war criminals were left unmolested during the Cold War and for some years thereafter. ”

    Nope.

    “According to the centre, about 40,000 Nazis have been tried for war crimes since the end of the war, and most were found guilty.”

    Are any of these people even able to read? How do they manage to inhale through the right opening?

    • Replies: @fnn
    @Dan

    40,000 is a small number out the ten million or so who served in the German armed forces in ww2. And what was the average sentence served by those 40,000? I think typically only a few years.

  74. @V. K. Ovelund
    @DanHessinMD

    Reflexive anti-Nazism is trite. One must do better than to argue that Nazis were unpopular, not least because they weren't.

    I find no fault in your comment otherwise.

    Replies: @Dan, @nebulafox

    “One must do better than to argue that Nazis were unpopular, not least because they weren’t.”

    Well they are the most unpopular thing in the world in 2020. Which is why trying to use them boost a political movement is like trying to use a boulder as a floatie in the swimming pool. Surely it must be role-play and not genuine, because nobody would actually try to win like that. It is really interesting that this crew can remain perpetually in 1937, as if nobody knows yet how things will out.

    AE, how common are these LARPers? Because you seem to have three commenting all at the same time, unless there are two sock puppets.

    • Replies: @fnn
    @Dan

    Hardly anybody has the anti-Nazi fetish in Latin America, Islamic world, Africa, India, China, Japan.
    Mexico may be the world capital of (mostly) non-ironic National Socialism:
    https://codoh.com/library/document/victory-in-baja-a-revisionist-dream-comes-true/en/

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/mexican-conference/

    https://jewlicious.com/2015/06/mexican-nazi-cheerleaders/

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Dan

    Good question on the broad pro/anti Nazi split. It's probably something like 10% pro/90% anti if we had to be dichotomous about it. These are three separate commenters though.

  75. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mark G.


    [T]he German economy was faltering right before World War II....
     
    It was? I didn't know that.

    A quick search-engine query turns nothing up. To do my homework is not your job, but if there is a source at which you would like to point me, I would be interested.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    https://reason.com/1999/08/01/nazi-economics/

    https://www.libertynation.com/why-socialism-failed-nazi-germany/

    Both articles mention the unsustainable levels of deficit spending. The second one says Hitler went from 11.7 billion Reichsmarks of debt when he took office to 48.5 billion by 1939. FDR’s economic policies were failing too with higher unemployment levels in 1938 than when he came into office six years earlier. They both may have started a war with each other to distract their subjects from their economic failures. That’s what FDR biographer John T. Flynn thought.

    There are some parallels between thirties Germany with the U.S. in the sixties. Instead of picking guns or butter, LBJ tried to fund both the Vietnam war and the Great Society welfare programs at the same time. This started almost nonstop government deficits going up to the present. In addition to borrowing, the U.S. government started engaging in money printing to cover the deficits.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Mark G.

    >They both may have started a war with each other to distract their subjects from their economic failures.

    You are right about the Third Reich's economic issues, but there's no indication that was ever a major motivating factor for Hitler personally. War was embedded in his entire ideology: and to an extent, his character structure. Without war, Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler.

    Major difference besides the different degree of latitude a President has compared to an absolute dictator is that the body politic in Germany was a lot less gung-ho on war in 1939 than the US public was in 1965. Even top-level Nazis were skeptical. Best encapsulating this was the conversation that Hermann Goering (no shrinking violet-the man who phlegmatically gone the annexation of Austria done by taking the initiative and pushing his vascillating, high-strung boss forward) had with Hitler prior to the invasion of Poland:

    "Mein Fuhrer, must we always go for broke?"

    "Goering, you know my entire life I've gone for broke."

    It speaks volumes about Hitler's compulsively militant nature that WWII happened how it did: his need for war overwhelmed everything, including his own previously demonstrated political gifts.

  76. Facing attacks from several directions at once can be fun. I’m game. Am glad that you’re using words rather than swords.

    Addressing this to all attackers generally: I think that you’re attacking a straw man. Why don’t you try engaging me? And cut the my-facts-are-ritually-cleaner-than-your-facts nonsense. The bereaved mothers of World War II’s combat dead are no longer with us: we need not bite our tongues any longer to spare their feelings. The war is history now. If you have some facts regarding the war and the regimes that fought it, then put them on the table, fair and square. No spin.

    By the way, Hitler isn’t really my topic. Someone else brought Hitler up. I believe that the someone made a stronger point than you did and I said so, but aren’t you embarrassed to respond by sniggering, “Hitler fanboy”? Is that the best you can do?

  77. @Mark G.
    @V. K. Ovelund

    https://reason.com/1999/08/01/nazi-economics/

    https://www.libertynation.com/why-socialism-failed-nazi-germany/

    Both articles mention the unsustainable levels of deficit spending. The second one says Hitler went from 11.7 billion Reichsmarks of debt when he took office to 48.5 billion by 1939. FDR's economic policies were failing too with higher unemployment levels in 1938 than when he came into office six years earlier. They both may have started a war with each other to distract their subjects from their economic failures. That's what FDR biographer John T. Flynn thought.

    There are some parallels between thirties Germany with the U.S. in the sixties. Instead of picking guns or butter, LBJ tried to fund both the Vietnam war and the Great Society welfare programs at the same time. This started almost nonstop government deficits going up to the present. In addition to borrowing, the U.S. government started engaging in money printing to cover the deficits.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >They both may have started a war with each other to distract their subjects from their economic failures.

    You are right about the Third Reich’s economic issues, but there’s no indication that was ever a major motivating factor for Hitler personally. War was embedded in his entire ideology: and to an extent, his character structure. Without war, Hitler wouldn’t have been Hitler.

    Major difference besides the different degree of latitude a President has compared to an absolute dictator is that the body politic in Germany was a lot less gung-ho on war in 1939 than the US public was in 1965. Even top-level Nazis were skeptical. Best encapsulating this was the conversation that Hermann Goering (no shrinking violet-the man who phlegmatically gone the annexation of Austria done by taking the initiative and pushing his vascillating, high-strung boss forward) had with Hitler prior to the invasion of Poland:

    “Mein Fuhrer, must we always go for broke?”

    “Goering, you know my entire life I’ve gone for broke.”

    It speaks volumes about Hitler’s compulsively militant nature that WWII happened how it did: his need for war overwhelmed everything, including his own previously demonstrated political gifts.

  78. Don’t you really smart guys who no doubt scored ultra high SAT’s and even GRE’s have anything to talk about other than a dictator who has been dead for over 75 years? It looks retarded. Really, really retarded.

    • Replies: @fnn
    @anon

    Retarded anti-Hitler fetishism is weaponized to justify shitshows like endless BLM rioting and displays of terminal stage Anglo-American liberalism like Portland, Oregon:
    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/12/01/portland-memories/

    And all the above has been protected by FBI/DOJ for the last five years.

    Replies: @anon

  79. Well…I really don’t know what to say. Wall Street was already degenerate, but…well, here you go:
    “Nasdaq Inc. aims to require listed companies to include women and people of diverse racial identities or sexual orientation on their boards, a move that could prompt change at hundreds of companies.

    The exchange operator filed a proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require listed companies to have at least one woman on their boards, in addition to a director who is a minority or one who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. ”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Talha

    I don't even known if there's enough gay people out there for that. Media portrayals lead to people overestimating how many of them there are.

    Regardless of that, corporate cultures always model themselves off the dominant zeitgeist in the ruling classes of whatever country they are in. So, in Malaysia, they'll donate to zakat charities, in China, they'll be members of the CPC, and in America, they'll be woke.

    (Note to GOP: you are the cultural insurgents now, so start behaving like it-aka, Corporate America Is Not Your Friend Who You Should Give Tax Breaks To and You Have To Be The Irreverent, Impious Pro-Free Speech Funny Guys Pissing Off The Moral Scolds Now. I know this is a very weird place for right-wingers, being the relatively pro-free speech, anti-war party: but you gotta deal with it, it's a sign of how screwed up things are. The liberals have abandoned their traditional roles, so must you.)

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Talha

    Perfect illustration of weaponized Wokeism. You're not getting job security, better wages, UBI, Medicare-for-all or anything else you economic leftists want, but we'll make this colored lesbian 1%er chairman of the board instead of this white male 1%er who will have to settle for COO instead. And have you seen our rainbow colored business logo? You're welcome!

  80. @Talha
    Well...I really don't know what to say. Wall Street was already degenerate, but...well, here you go:
    "Nasdaq Inc. aims to require listed companies to include women and people of diverse racial identities or sexual orientation on their boards, a move that could prompt change at hundreds of companies.

    The exchange operator filed a proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require listed companies to have at least one woman on their boards, in addition to a director who is a minority or one who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. "
    https://twitter.com/IsmailRoyer/status/1333849708079566849


    Peace.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Audacious Epigone

    I don’t even known if there’s enough gay people out there for that. Media portrayals lead to people overestimating how many of them there are.

    Regardless of that, corporate cultures always model themselves off the dominant zeitgeist in the ruling classes of whatever country they are in. So, in Malaysia, they’ll donate to zakat charities, in China, they’ll be members of the CPC, and in America, they’ll be woke.

    (Note to GOP: you are the cultural insurgents now, so start behaving like it-aka, Corporate America Is Not Your Friend Who You Should Give Tax Breaks To and You Have To Be The Irreverent, Impious Pro-Free Speech Funny Guys Pissing Off The Moral Scolds Now. I know this is a very weird place for right-wingers, being the relatively pro-free speech, anti-war party: but you gotta deal with it, it’s a sign of how screwed up things are. The liberals have abandoned their traditional roles, so must you.)

    • Replies: @Talha
    @nebulafox


    I don’t even known if there’s enough gay people out there for that.
     
    Doesn’t matter, you can claim to be whatever you want these days as far as gender and sexuality is concerned. “I’m really a bisexual guy who just happens to get lucky with females and unlucky with males. Please raise my stock options.”

    The liberals have abandoned their traditional roles, so must you.
     
    What? No!!! Leftists would never become so capitalist so as to make money off the clout of religious extremists! Not in a million...oh wait...
    https://www.twitter.com/deebashadnia/status/1333812076033286144

    Peace.
  81. @nebulafox
    @Talha

    I don't even known if there's enough gay people out there for that. Media portrayals lead to people overestimating how many of them there are.

    Regardless of that, corporate cultures always model themselves off the dominant zeitgeist in the ruling classes of whatever country they are in. So, in Malaysia, they'll donate to zakat charities, in China, they'll be members of the CPC, and in America, they'll be woke.

    (Note to GOP: you are the cultural insurgents now, so start behaving like it-aka, Corporate America Is Not Your Friend Who You Should Give Tax Breaks To and You Have To Be The Irreverent, Impious Pro-Free Speech Funny Guys Pissing Off The Moral Scolds Now. I know this is a very weird place for right-wingers, being the relatively pro-free speech, anti-war party: but you gotta deal with it, it's a sign of how screwed up things are. The liberals have abandoned their traditional roles, so must you.)

    Replies: @Talha

    I don’t even known if there’s enough gay people out there for that.

    Doesn’t matter, you can claim to be whatever you want these days as far as gender and sexuality is concerned. “I’m really a bisexual guy who just happens to get lucky with females and unlucky with males. Please raise my stock options.”

    The liberals have abandoned their traditional roles, so must you.

    What? No!!! Leftists would never become so capitalist so as to make money off the clout of religious extremists! Not in a million…oh wait…

    Peace.

  82. @Dan
    @fnn

    "The current mania for hunting down former clerk-typists and auto mechanics is only about a decade old."

    Nope. Bro, the project started in 1947. By 10 years ago it was already basically over because most of the people involved were already dead.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Historical_Documentation_Centre

    "All except a few high-profile war criminals were left unmolested during the Cold War and for some years thereafter. "

    Nope.

    "According to the centre, about 40,000 Nazis have been tried for war crimes since the end of the war, and most were found guilty."

    Are any of these people even able to read? How do they manage to inhale through the right opening?

    Replies: @fnn

    40,000 is a small number out the ten million or so who served in the German armed forces in ww2. And what was the average sentence served by those 40,000? I think typically only a few years.

  83. @Dan
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "One must do better than to argue that Nazis were unpopular, not least because they weren’t."

    Well they are the most unpopular thing in the world in 2020. Which is why trying to use them boost a political movement is like trying to use a boulder as a floatie in the swimming pool. Surely it must be role-play and not genuine, because nobody would actually try to win like that. It is really interesting that this crew can remain perpetually in 1937, as if nobody knows yet how things will out.

    AE, how common are these LARPers? Because you seem to have three commenting all at the same time, unless there are two sock puppets.

    Replies: @fnn, @Audacious Epigone

    Hardly anybody has the anti-Nazi fetish in Latin America, Islamic world, Africa, India, China, Japan.
    Mexico may be the world capital of (mostly) non-ironic National Socialism:
    https://codoh.com/library/document/victory-in-baja-a-revisionist-dream-comes-true/en/

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/mexican-conference/

    https://jewlicious.com/2015/06/mexican-nazi-cheerleaders/

  84. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    About “my people.” I realize you are some sort of a cartoon Nazi.
     
    Blah, blah, blah.

    Twink
    es, my opinion on the National Question is precisely the same as any random Chinese, Korean, or Japanese. Are those people all "cartoon nazis," too? Or is "nazi" just your hate slur for White people who want White people to continue existing?

    Non-whites to White people: What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Or is “nazi” just your hate slur for White people who want White people to continue existing?

    Ah, I see. You subscribe to the idea of “white genocide.”

    Nazi is my slur for those who subscribe to National Socialism, which you self-avowed on Unz.

    For the record, I also want “white people to continue existing.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    For the record, I also want “white people to continue existing.”
     
    So long as you're not inconvenienced.

    So, “argue like a Jew” was meant as a compliment?
     
    Twinkles, I didn't say I loved everyone as my own. I'm just not interested in joining up with your rainbow coalition against black people.

    As for Jews, they look huwite to me. If they want to be huwite, I'm fine with that. If they don't, I'm fine with that, too. I wish them well either way. That doesn't change the facts about the destructive effects of Jewish activism in the 20th Century West. You do understand that it's possible to criticize a group without hating or wishing them I'll, don't you?
    , @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Nazi is my slur for those who subscribe to National Socialism, which you self-avowed on Unz.

     

    Twinkles, there are only logically possible varieties of socialism, national socialism and international socialism. International socialism is a nonstarter, as that deranged cartoon nazi Paul Krugman said years ago. If you're going to offer a safety net, you can't make that offer global.

    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/

    as profound as suggesting that North Koreans are happier than South Koreans (because of higher fertility).
     
    Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that's the difference between you and me.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

  85. @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    But @Rosie also fails to make a crucial distinction between blacks, on the one hand, and nonblack nonwhites on the other.
     
    I don't care about this distinction. I do not share the anti black animus that is common around here. My nationalism is not based on hatred or contempt of any group, but a desire for White continuity.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    not based on hatred or contempt of any group

    So, “argue like a Jew” was meant as a compliment?

  86. @anon
    Don't you really smart guys who no doubt scored ultra high SAT's and even GRE's have anything to talk about other than a dictator who has been dead for over 75 years? It looks retarded. Really, really retarded.

    Replies: @fnn

    Retarded anti-Hitler fetishism is weaponized to justify shitshows like endless BLM rioting and displays of terminal stage Anglo-American liberalism like Portland, Oregon:
    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/12/01/portland-memories/

    And all the above has been protected by FBI/DOJ for the last five years.

    • Replies: @anon
    @fnn

    Retarded anti-Hitler fetishism

    does not justify retarded Hitler fetishism, retarded "what if" war porn, or any other retardedness..except to spergs somewhere on the spectrum no doubt with high SAT's.

    Dude, it's retarded. It's retarded. It's really retarded for otherwise intelligent humans to be pulled into yet another mid-school-level "whutIF" argument. Do you see why?

    And justifying retarded autistic "muh NashunulSoc" on the basis of "Antifa gets away with XXXX" is not even mid-school, it's closer to second grade.

    Why allow yourself to be trolled by retards into acting like a bigger retard? Makes no sense.

    Replies: @fnn

  87. @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Communism is totalitarian. I’d rather take a bullet.
     
    I'd have said the same thing at one time, but now that we have transnational megacorporations censoring opinions they don't like, what difference does it make?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    we have transnational megacorporations censoring opinions they don’t like, what difference does it make?

    There are many differences between an authoritarian society and a totalitarian one. China, for example, is no longer the latter, but the former.

    As bad as thing have become in the U.S., it is not a totalitarian country and you equating it to Woke corporatism shows ignorance as profound as suggesting that North Koreans are happier than South Koreans (because of higher fertility).

  88. anon[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @fnn
    @anon

    Retarded anti-Hitler fetishism is weaponized to justify shitshows like endless BLM rioting and displays of terminal stage Anglo-American liberalism like Portland, Oregon:
    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/12/01/portland-memories/

    And all the above has been protected by FBI/DOJ for the last five years.

    Replies: @anon

    Retarded anti-Hitler fetishism

    does not justify retarded Hitler fetishism, retarded “what if” war porn, or any other retardedness..except to spergs somewhere on the spectrum no doubt with high SAT’s.

    Dude, it’s retarded. It’s retarded. It’s really retarded for otherwise intelligent humans to be pulled into yet another mid-school-level “whutIF” argument. Do you see why?

    And justifying retarded autistic “muh NashunulSoc” on the basis of “Antifa gets away with XXXX” is not even mid-school, it’s closer to second grade.

    Why allow yourself to be trolled by retards into acting like a bigger retard? Makes no sense.

    • Replies: @fnn
    @anon

    Billions of high IQ people in East Asia and South Asia don't let themselves get spooked into searching for Nazis under the bed.

    Replies: @anon

  89. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    Or is “nazi” just your hate slur for White people who want White people to continue existing?
     
    Ah, I see. You subscribe to the idea of “white genocide.”

    Nazi is my slur for those who subscribe to National Socialism, which you self-avowed on Unz.

    For the record, I also want “white people to continue existing.”

    Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie

    For the record, I also want “white people to continue existing.”

    So long as you’re not inconvenienced.

    So, “argue like a Jew” was meant as a compliment?

    Twinkles, I didn’t say I loved everyone as my own. I’m just not interested in joining up with your rainbow coalition against black people.

    As for Jews, they look huwite to me. If they want to be huwite, I’m fine with that. If they don’t, I’m fine with that, too. I wish them well either way. That doesn’t change the facts about the destructive effects of Jewish activism in the 20th Century West. You do understand that it’s possible to criticize a group without hating or wishing them I’ll, don’t you?

  90. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    Or is “nazi” just your hate slur for White people who want White people to continue existing?
     
    Ah, I see. You subscribe to the idea of “white genocide.”

    Nazi is my slur for those who subscribe to National Socialism, which you self-avowed on Unz.

    For the record, I also want “white people to continue existing.”

    Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie

    Nazi is my slur for those who subscribe to National Socialism, which you self-avowed on Unz.

    Twinkles, there are only logically possible varieties of socialism, national socialism and international socialism. International socialism is a nonstarter, as that deranged cartoon nazi Paul Krugman said years ago. If you’re going to offer a safety net, you can’t make that offer global.

    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/

    as profound as suggesting that North Koreans are happier than South Koreans (because of higher fertility).

    Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that’s the difference between you and me.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    >Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that’s the difference between you and me.

    Have you ever seen an average North Korean? I mean people you don't see on TV or as waitresses in those DPRK ran restaurants in China or Southeast Asia. They aren't that hard to run into in Northeast China where they can hope to blend in with the local ethnic Koreans or expat communities-or at least they weren't until recently when Kim Jong Un started cracking down harder. And some defectors do manage to make it to the South where they more often than not struggle to adapt.

    The ones from my generational cohort, born in the 1990s: they are *tiny*. Big heads appended to small bodies and thin limbs, wavering gait, the women got adolescent chest bumps rather than regular breasts. Even the ones lucky enough to make it to the ROK and spend years on non-starvation mode remain distinctly smaller and more hunched over. You get the idea.

    Why is that? I already gave away the answer: severe early childhood malnutrition, verging on starvation, due to the ill luck of being born during a famine where at least a six digit amount of people, possibly more, died. Many of them also suffer from what we'd label as acute PTSD, particularly the girls who ended up in the sex trade (remember: one wrong step, and the mobster pimp can get you sent back to a camp in the DPRK) or sold to abusive farmer husbands twice their age in Dongbei.

    So, yeah, screw that ***t you just peddled.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Talha

    , @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    there are only logically possible varieties of socialism, national socialism and international socialism.
     
    Nope. Those binary choices involve but one variable (borders). There are several different types and strains of socialism based on different variables (e.g. democratic socialism vs. authoritarian socialism, etc.).

    Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that’s the difference between you and me.
     
    Point to where I wrote "GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility." In other words, this is yet another straw man. This happens often, because you seem unable to grasp a basic element of philosophy in science, namely, that falsification of a proposition is not a confirmation of its opposite.

    In this case...

    You say: "I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future."

    I say: North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea, yet it is a totalitarian country with a malnourished population whereas South Korea is prosperous and much freer.

    You say: Aha! You think GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility!

    I say: Never said any such thing. I merely falsified your proposition.

    And it goes like that with our conversation just about everywhere (interspersed with your sundry ad hominem). I can cite numerous examples such as this. You put forth a wide-ranging claim with an allegedly high explanatory power, I falsify it with evidence, and you claim that I assert the opposite of what you do. In reality, I simply poke holes in your assertions much of the time. If you really wanted to know, not assume, what I think, you could, straight up, ask me, but you never do, because you want to prove yourself right and win arguments. You don't seem to have any interest in updating your priors, sharpening your arguments, or simply increasing your knowledge where it is clearly deficient.

    Though you did not ask, I will volunteer what I think about the phenomenon of fertility in regards to "national wellbeing," for the sake of clarity. It appears to me that fertility is affected by many different variables. For example, as AE often points out, there is a high degree of correlation between education for women and fertility. There is also a measurable degree of correlation between income and fertility. As the average level of education for women go up, fertility goes down (there are few exceptions, which we could discuss if you were interested). As income rises, fertility drops (but then it rises again at a very high threshold, I think something like $500K or $1 million a year in income).

    Religion also seems to play a role, with Islamic countries with higher fertility than Christian ones (but much of that may be confounded by comparative economic developments and access availability of education for women). Military conflicts also plays a robust role - societies with a high degree of conflict-engagement have lower fertility, perhaps because men tend to be away fighting and unavailable for procreation (though once the conflicts end, there tend to be booms - hence the famous Baby Boomer Generation born to returning G.I.'s in America).

    Yet another factor to consider is the availability and acquaintance with modern birth control methods. Again, this variable is highly confounded by economic development levels and education for women. Also relevant is the level of obstetric and pediatric medical care - societies with better medical care tend to have lower fertility whereas those that do not have good care engage in so-called r-selection, i.e. having lots of babies and hoping at least some survive. All these and many other factors operate on each other and affect fertility.

    Returning back to the case of North Korea vs. South Korea, we have a unique situation that allows for a social science experiment writ-large in the real world, because the two societies were one country prior to 1945 and have the same source populations. Although statistics out of North Korea is not reliable, all sources agree that North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea and yet it enjoys radically worse measures of national wellbeing, from income to education level, to leisure time, to freedom, to just about any other commonly cited factors.

    Simply put, fertility is subject to many varying inputs, and it is - by itself - certainly not "as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future." Your assertion might be the case in very specific time and place were certain conditions obtain, but is clearly not true universally or historically.

    that’s the difference between you and me
     
    The real difference between you and me is that I am capable of examining multiple variables and realizing the world is very complex and full of counter-intuitive phenomenon (which is why I trust concrete data more than my own feelings that are subject to confirmation and selection bias), whereas you pick and choose evidence you see to fit your own intuitions and become hostile when someone presents evidences that contradict your intuition. And then once you decide you dislike the person ("You are not a good person"), you ignore whatever concrete evidences he presents and simply engage in logical fallacies (ad hominem, straw men, etc.) and diversions.

    Replies: @Rosie

  91. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Nazi is my slur for those who subscribe to National Socialism, which you self-avowed on Unz.

     

    Twinkles, there are only logically possible varieties of socialism, national socialism and international socialism. International socialism is a nonstarter, as that deranged cartoon nazi Paul Krugman said years ago. If you're going to offer a safety net, you can't make that offer global.

    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/

    as profound as suggesting that North Koreans are happier than South Koreans (because of higher fertility).
     
    Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that's the difference between you and me.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

    >Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that’s the difference between you and me.

    Have you ever seen an average North Korean? I mean people you don’t see on TV or as waitresses in those DPRK ran restaurants in China or Southeast Asia. They aren’t that hard to run into in Northeast China where they can hope to blend in with the local ethnic Koreans or expat communities-or at least they weren’t until recently when Kim Jong Un started cracking down harder. And some defectors do manage to make it to the South where they more often than not struggle to adapt.

    The ones from my generational cohort, born in the 1990s: they are *tiny*. Big heads appended to small bodies and thin limbs, wavering gait, the women got adolescent chest bumps rather than regular breasts. Even the ones lucky enough to make it to the ROK and spend years on non-starvation mode remain distinctly smaller and more hunched over. You get the idea.

    Why is that? I already gave away the answer: severe early childhood malnutrition, verging on starvation, due to the ill luck of being born during a famine where at least a six digit amount of people, possibly more, died. Many of them also suffer from what we’d label as acute PTSD, particularly the girls who ended up in the sex trade (remember: one wrong step, and the mobster pimp can get you sent back to a camp in the DPRK) or sold to abusive farmer husbands twice their age in Dongbei.

    So, yeah, screw that ***t you just peddled.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @nebulafox


    So, yeah, screw that ***t you just peddled.
     
    I'm peddling precisely nothing. I don't know much of anything about North Korea. What I do know is that I don't believe the media. Iraqis were supposed to be so oppressed, they would welcome us with flowers as liberators. Fool me once and all that...
    , @Talha
    @nebulafox


    they are *tiny*. Big heads appended to small bodies and thin limbs
     
    I always thought they looked like little kids compared to South Koreans. Especially when you see the soldiers standing side by side.

    severe early childhood malnutrition, verging on starvation
     
    That's probably the only thing that could account for this...other than chemical exposure or something. It's not like the populations are vastly different genetically.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  92. @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    >Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that’s the difference between you and me.

    Have you ever seen an average North Korean? I mean people you don't see on TV or as waitresses in those DPRK ran restaurants in China or Southeast Asia. They aren't that hard to run into in Northeast China where they can hope to blend in with the local ethnic Koreans or expat communities-or at least they weren't until recently when Kim Jong Un started cracking down harder. And some defectors do manage to make it to the South where they more often than not struggle to adapt.

    The ones from my generational cohort, born in the 1990s: they are *tiny*. Big heads appended to small bodies and thin limbs, wavering gait, the women got adolescent chest bumps rather than regular breasts. Even the ones lucky enough to make it to the ROK and spend years on non-starvation mode remain distinctly smaller and more hunched over. You get the idea.

    Why is that? I already gave away the answer: severe early childhood malnutrition, verging on starvation, due to the ill luck of being born during a famine where at least a six digit amount of people, possibly more, died. Many of them also suffer from what we'd label as acute PTSD, particularly the girls who ended up in the sex trade (remember: one wrong step, and the mobster pimp can get you sent back to a camp in the DPRK) or sold to abusive farmer husbands twice their age in Dongbei.

    So, yeah, screw that ***t you just peddled.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Talha

    So, yeah, screw that ***t you just peddled.

    I’m peddling precisely nothing. I don’t know much of anything about North Korea. What I do know is that I don’t believe the media. Iraqis were supposed to be so oppressed, they would welcome us with flowers as liberators. Fool me once and all that…

  93. @V. K. Ovelund
    @DanHessinMD

    Reflexive anti-Nazism is trite. One must do better than to argue that Nazis were unpopular, not least because they weren't.

    I find no fault in your comment otherwise.

    Replies: @Dan, @nebulafox

    I do agree that to compulsively deny talents or skill (as so many do with Adolf Hitler) in the morally reprehensible is a sign of immaturity, not wisdom. But my overriding point about Nazism isn’t that Hitler was stupid, or that the Third Reich was unpopular until the war started to go sour for Germany. My point is that Nazism as a phenomenon contained no redeeming, constructive features whatsoever, even for the people it purportedly was out to benefit: who seriously wanted to become a Wehrbauer out near the Urals? Damned few people. The closest modern analogue in terms of radicalism and nihilism was the Khmer Rouge, and they (thankfully) ruled a 3rd World backwater and could only do limited damage because of that.

    Moreover, it not only didn’t achieve its goals, in many cases, it achieved the opposite of them. On top of that, it is lost on the white nationalist types who defend him that Hitler was not one of them. He was a German ultra-nationalist with German ultra-nationalist concerns at the time: it was Russians and Poles who were the looming Untermenschen in the Nazi regime’s policies, not the Chinese or the Muslims. Had he had his way, he would have killed more whites in history while retaining positive relationships with Imperial Japan and the Islamic World.

    Being a hardliner on 1A and recognizing that having pictures of Hitler in the Kroll on the front page is a dumb idea are not mutually irreconcilable conclusions to draw.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox


    On top of that, it is lost on the white nationalist types who defend him that Hitler was not one of them. He was a German ultra-nationalist with German ultra-nationalist concerns at the time: it was Russians and Poles who were the looming Untermenschen in the Nazi regime’s policies, not the Chinese or the Muslims. Had he had his way, he would have killed more whites in history while retaining positive relationships with Imperial Japan and the Islamic World.
     
    You are right about this, though it isn't actually quite lost on the white nationalist types.

    I can think of no brief way to explain this and no one has asked me for an essay, but let me loosely say that white nationalists [a] respect Hitler as much for what white nationalists think he stood against as for what they think he stood for, [b] lift Hitler out of his specific historical context to regard his spirit or legacy in a broader sense, [c] feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies.

    White nationalists notice that references to Hitler cause whites born before about 1975 to overreact. The overreaction brings into view a host of awkward questions for which older whites lack useful answers. Older whites are not required to agree with the lads, but they should recognize: the cult of Hitler is partly bait.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  94. @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    >Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that’s the difference between you and me.

    Have you ever seen an average North Korean? I mean people you don't see on TV or as waitresses in those DPRK ran restaurants in China or Southeast Asia. They aren't that hard to run into in Northeast China where they can hope to blend in with the local ethnic Koreans or expat communities-or at least they weren't until recently when Kim Jong Un started cracking down harder. And some defectors do manage to make it to the South where they more often than not struggle to adapt.

    The ones from my generational cohort, born in the 1990s: they are *tiny*. Big heads appended to small bodies and thin limbs, wavering gait, the women got adolescent chest bumps rather than regular breasts. Even the ones lucky enough to make it to the ROK and spend years on non-starvation mode remain distinctly smaller and more hunched over. You get the idea.

    Why is that? I already gave away the answer: severe early childhood malnutrition, verging on starvation, due to the ill luck of being born during a famine where at least a six digit amount of people, possibly more, died. Many of them also suffer from what we'd label as acute PTSD, particularly the girls who ended up in the sex trade (remember: one wrong step, and the mobster pimp can get you sent back to a camp in the DPRK) or sold to abusive farmer husbands twice their age in Dongbei.

    So, yeah, screw that ***t you just peddled.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Talha

    they are *tiny*. Big heads appended to small bodies and thin limbs

    I always thought they looked like little kids compared to South Koreans. Especially when you see the soldiers standing side by side.

    severe early childhood malnutrition, verging on starvation

    That’s probably the only thing that could account for this…other than chemical exposure or something. It’s not like the populations are vastly different genetically.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Talha


    That’s probably the only thing that could account for this…other than chemical exposure or something. It’s not like the populations are vastly different genetically.
     
    Well, they don’t have environmental standards in North Korea, so the population is probably subject to all sorts of contamination, mitigated only by the fact that North Korea doesn’t have much of industrial output. At the end of the day, all manners of economic and social ill compound each other in a distorted and failed totalitarian state that is North Korea.

    The genetics are not different at all. Koreans have relatively little genetic structure even compared to the Chinese. Moreover, due to the massive number of northern Koreans who fled to the South in 1945-1953, about 20% of South Koreans are direct progeny of northern Koreans.

    None of this is just about Korea, Chinese fertility in 1950 was around 6.5 births per woman. Now it’s under 1.7.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/ffa1000c-afbb-42ea-a550-3818f168420d

    Similarly, Indian fertility was a bit under 6 in 1950, it’s now 2.2.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/30ffa413-3909-438b-9de5-c8ffe313f8f4

    The Russian case is less straightforward. Russia’s fertility dropped considerably from 1950-1968, then stabilized and rose slightly until 1988 when it fell again for about 10 years and has recovered somewhat:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/03407ee5-0fed-48d6-b08f-17a37f0560be
  95. @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I do agree that to compulsively deny talents or skill (as so many do with Adolf Hitler) in the morally reprehensible is a sign of immaturity, not wisdom. But my overriding point about Nazism isn't that Hitler was stupid, or that the Third Reich was unpopular until the war started to go sour for Germany. My point is that Nazism as a phenomenon contained no redeeming, constructive features whatsoever, even for the people it purportedly was out to benefit: who seriously wanted to become a Wehrbauer out near the Urals? Damned few people. The closest modern analogue in terms of radicalism and nihilism was the Khmer Rouge, and they (thankfully) ruled a 3rd World backwater and could only do limited damage because of that.

    Moreover, it not only didn't achieve its goals, in many cases, it achieved the opposite of them. On top of that, it is lost on the white nationalist types who defend him that Hitler was not one of them. He was a German ultra-nationalist with German ultra-nationalist concerns at the time: it was Russians and Poles who were the looming Untermenschen in the Nazi regime's policies, not the Chinese or the Muslims. Had he had his way, he would have killed more whites in history while retaining positive relationships with Imperial Japan and the Islamic World.

    Being a hardliner on 1A and recognizing that having pictures of Hitler in the Kroll on the front page is a dumb idea are not mutually irreconcilable conclusions to draw.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    On top of that, it is lost on the white nationalist types who defend him that Hitler was not one of them. He was a German ultra-nationalist with German ultra-nationalist concerns at the time: it was Russians and Poles who were the looming Untermenschen in the Nazi regime’s policies, not the Chinese or the Muslims. Had he had his way, he would have killed more whites in history while retaining positive relationships with Imperial Japan and the Islamic World.

    You are right about this, though it isn’t actually quite lost on the white nationalist types.

    I can think of no brief way to explain this and no one has asked me for an essay, but let me loosely say that white nationalists [a] respect Hitler as much for what white nationalists think he stood against as for what they think he stood for, [b] lift Hitler out of his specific historical context to regard his spirit or legacy in a broader sense, [c] feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies.

    White nationalists notice that references to Hitler cause whites born before about 1975 to overreact. The overreaction brings into view a host of awkward questions for which older whites lack useful answers. Older whites are not required to agree with the lads, but they should recognize: the cult of Hitler is partly bait.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies

    His enemies were the grandfathers of the people you're directing this appeal to.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund

  96. @anon
    @fnn

    Retarded anti-Hitler fetishism

    does not justify retarded Hitler fetishism, retarded "what if" war porn, or any other retardedness..except to spergs somewhere on the spectrum no doubt with high SAT's.

    Dude, it's retarded. It's retarded. It's really retarded for otherwise intelligent humans to be pulled into yet another mid-school-level "whutIF" argument. Do you see why?

    And justifying retarded autistic "muh NashunulSoc" on the basis of "Antifa gets away with XXXX" is not even mid-school, it's closer to second grade.

    Why allow yourself to be trolled by retards into acting like a bigger retard? Makes no sense.

    Replies: @fnn

    Billions of high IQ people in East Asia and South Asia don’t let themselves get spooked into searching for Nazis under the bed.

    • Replies: @anon
    @fnn

    Billions of high IQ people in East Asia and South Asia don’t let themselves get spooked into searching for Nazis under the bed.

    So?

    Replies: @fnn

  97. @fnn
    @anon

    Billions of high IQ people in East Asia and South Asia don't let themselves get spooked into searching for Nazis under the bed.

    Replies: @anon

    Billions of high IQ people in East Asia and South Asia don’t let themselves get spooked into searching for Nazis under the bed.

    So?

    • Replies: @fnn
    @anon

    Maybe the official ideology/religion of the American Empire is insane. Looking at Portland, its most fanatical adherents are schizophrenics, child molesters, trannies, junkies and miscellaneous other "spiteful mutants."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon

  98. @DanHessinMD
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "We’ve got a real civilizational crisis on our hands and some new thinking is required"

    LOL, "new thinking" isn't lamely role-playing the most politically unpopular movement in the world from eighty years ago.

    Trying to win with that is like attempting to win a 100 meter race while giving your opponent a 2 mile head start. Obviously nobody actually thinks this could could win and its just role play. But hiding under the covers and playing kids games is no way to confront the challenges of civilization. It's like a homeless person waking up every day to their own little world where they are Queen of England because reality is too unbearable.

    Raising a homeschool family and maintaining faith is a way to start.

    Trump won a presidency and nearly won another. These sad LARPers would lose a race for town dog catcher 100 times out of 100.

    Reality is what it is. And yet here they are!

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @fnn

    Raising a homeschool family and maintaining faith is a way to start.

    The Amish have been doing that in America for 300 years. The result: US is culturally less like the Amish than it has ever been.

  99. @anon
    @fnn

    Billions of high IQ people in East Asia and South Asia don’t let themselves get spooked into searching for Nazis under the bed.

    So?

    Replies: @fnn

    Maybe the official ideology/religion of the American Empire is insane. Looking at Portland, its most fanatical adherents are schizophrenics, child molesters, trannies, junkies and miscellaneous other “spiteful mutants.”

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @fnn


    Maybe the official ideology/religion of the American Empire is insane.
     
    Exactly.

    Americans (along perhaps with their imperial subjects) should stop ridiculing and disavowing that which the great and influential have instructed them to ridicule and disavow. Even if it were ridiculous and worthy of disavowal, to jeer collectively at the target at which the venal chief points his bony finger of indignation—this is unworthy of the proud descendants of a free people.

    Suggestion: in 2020, if it gets one banned from Twitter, then no self-respecting citizen should probably be mocking it.

    , @anon
    @fnn

    Maybe the official ideology/religion of the American Empire is insane.

    What does this non sequitur have to do with retarded Hitler-fetishism that I was pointing out?

    Does the word "context" have any meaning to you? Or are you just trolling...again?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  100. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Nazi is my slur for those who subscribe to National Socialism, which you self-avowed on Unz.

     

    Twinkles, there are only logically possible varieties of socialism, national socialism and international socialism. International socialism is a nonstarter, as that deranged cartoon nazi Paul Krugman said years ago. If you're going to offer a safety net, you can't make that offer global.

    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/

    as profound as suggesting that North Koreans are happier than South Koreans (because of higher fertility).
     
    Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that's the difference between you and me.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

    there are only logically possible varieties of socialism, national socialism and international socialism.

    Nope. Those binary choices involve but one variable (borders). There are several different types and strains of socialism based on different variables (e.g. democratic socialism vs. authoritarian socialism, etc.).

    Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that’s the difference between you and me.

    Point to where I wrote “GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility.” In other words, this is yet another straw man. This happens often, because you seem unable to grasp a basic element of philosophy in science, namely, that falsification of a proposition is not a confirmation of its opposite.

    In this case…

    You say: “I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.”

    I say: North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea, yet it is a totalitarian country with a malnourished population whereas South Korea is prosperous and much freer.

    You say: Aha! You think GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility!

    I say: Never said any such thing. I merely falsified your proposition.

    And it goes like that with our conversation just about everywhere (interspersed with your sundry ad hominem). I can cite numerous examples such as this. You put forth a wide-ranging claim with an allegedly high explanatory power, I falsify it with evidence, and you claim that I assert the opposite of what you do. In reality, I simply poke holes in your assertions much of the time. If you really wanted to know, not assume, what I think, you could, straight up, ask me, but you never do, because you want to prove yourself right and win arguments. You don’t seem to have any interest in updating your priors, sharpening your arguments, or simply increasing your knowledge where it is clearly deficient.

    Though you did not ask, I will volunteer what I think about the phenomenon of fertility in regards to “national wellbeing,” for the sake of clarity. It appears to me that fertility is affected by many different variables. For example, as AE often points out, there is a high degree of correlation between education for women and fertility. There is also a measurable degree of correlation between income and fertility. As the average level of education for women go up, fertility goes down (there are few exceptions, which we could discuss if you were interested). As income rises, fertility drops (but then it rises again at a very high threshold, I think something like $500K or $1 million a year in income).

    Religion also seems to play a role, with Islamic countries with higher fertility than Christian ones (but much of that may be confounded by comparative economic developments and access availability of education for women). Military conflicts also plays a robust role – societies with a high degree of conflict-engagement have lower fertility, perhaps because men tend to be away fighting and unavailable for procreation (though once the conflicts end, there tend to be booms – hence the famous Baby Boomer Generation born to returning G.I.’s in America).

    Yet another factor to consider is the availability and acquaintance with modern birth control methods. Again, this variable is highly confounded by economic development levels and education for women. Also relevant is the level of obstetric and pediatric medical care – societies with better medical care tend to have lower fertility whereas those that do not have good care engage in so-called r-selection, i.e. having lots of babies and hoping at least some survive. All these and many other factors operate on each other and affect fertility.

    Returning back to the case of North Korea vs. South Korea, we have a unique situation that allows for a social science experiment writ-large in the real world, because the two societies were one country prior to 1945 and have the same source populations. Although statistics out of North Korea is not reliable, all sources agree that North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea and yet it enjoys radically worse measures of national wellbeing, from income to education level, to leisure time, to freedom, to just about any other commonly cited factors.

    Simply put, fertility is subject to many varying inputs, and it is – by itself – certainly not “as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.” Your assertion might be the case in very specific time and place were certain conditions obtain, but is clearly not true universally or historically.

    that’s the difference between you and me

    The real difference between you and me is that I am capable of examining multiple variables and realizing the world is very complex and full of counter-intuitive phenomenon (which is why I trust concrete data more than my own feelings that are subject to confirmation and selection bias), whereas you pick and choose evidence you see to fit your own intuitions and become hostile when someone presents evidences that contradict your intuition. And then once you decide you dislike the person (“You are not a good person”), you ignore whatever concrete evidences he presents and simply engage in logical fallacies (ad hominem, straw men, etc.) and diversions.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Nope. Those binary choices involve but one variable (borders). There are several different types and strains of socialism based on different variables (e.g. democratic socialism vs. authoritarian socialism, etc.).
     
    A case in point. There are only two logical possibilities for socialism, Twinkles:

    Socialism that is national and socialism that is not national.

    N or ~ N.

    That's it. There are no other options. That each of these may be further divisible into different categories doesn't change the exclusive nature of these logical possibilities.

    You say: Aha! You think GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility!

    I say: Never said any such thing. I merely falsified your proposition.
     
    Oh Twinkles, you really need to get that mote out of your own eye before you start picking specks out of mine.

    It is you who overreacted to what I said. I never, ever said that fertility is the only measure of national wellbeing. I didn't even say it was the best measure. I said it was as good as any. Nor did I ever say that it is inconceivable that a country with high fertility is ever worse in a variety of ways than a country with low fertility.

    But this is very typical of you, Twinkles, you are so eager to pounce on any percieved inaccuracy in anything I say (because of your obsessive hatred of me) that you leap before you look.


    In reality, I simply poke holes in your assertions much of the time.
     
    Indeed that is clearly what you attempt to do, and your antagonism is evident from your tone.

    If you really wanted to know, not assume, what I think, you could, straight up, ask me, but you never do, because you want to prove yourself right and win arguments.
     
    You are projecting here.

    Here is another example of your overeagerness pounce without attending so so words.


    as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future
     
    I was specifically talking about people's subjective feelings of confidence about the future, not objective circumstances.

    Yes, in some places people have lots of children is insurance against child-mortality and/old-age poverty. I also realize that some people don't have access to birth control, or have religious objections to using it. The point is simply that, all else equal, a more confident and optimistic population will be more fertile than a fearful and pessimistic one.

    Now, if you want to have constructive exchanges with me, I'm certainly willing to attempt a reset. Try to be civil, and ask for clarification rather than pouncing, and you'll find that I will treat you with respect in turn.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

  101. @Talha
    @nebulafox


    they are *tiny*. Big heads appended to small bodies and thin limbs
     
    I always thought they looked like little kids compared to South Koreans. Especially when you see the soldiers standing side by side.

    severe early childhood malnutrition, verging on starvation
     
    That's probably the only thing that could account for this...other than chemical exposure or something. It's not like the populations are vastly different genetically.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    That’s probably the only thing that could account for this…other than chemical exposure or something. It’s not like the populations are vastly different genetically.

    Well, they don’t have environmental standards in North Korea, so the population is probably subject to all sorts of contamination, mitigated only by the fact that North Korea doesn’t have much of industrial output. At the end of the day, all manners of economic and social ill compound each other in a distorted and failed totalitarian state that is North Korea.

    The genetics are not different at all. Koreans have relatively little genetic structure even compared to the Chinese. Moreover, due to the massive number of northern Koreans who fled to the South in 1945-1953, about 20% of South Koreans are direct progeny of northern Koreans.

    None of this is just about Korea, Chinese fertility in 1950 was around 6.5 births per woman. Now it’s under 1.7.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/ffa1000c-afbb-42ea-a550-3818f168420d

    Similarly, Indian fertility was a bit under 6 in 1950, it’s now 2.2.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/30ffa413-3909-438b-9de5-c8ffe313f8f4

    The Russian case is less straightforward. Russia’s fertility dropped considerably from 1950-1968, then stabilized and rose slightly until 1988 when it fell again for about 10 years and has recovered somewhat:

    https://www.macrotrends.net/03407ee5-0fed-48d6-b08f-17a37f0560be

    • Thanks: Talha
  102. @Dan
    @JohnPlywood

    " it won’t change the fact that for every German killed, roughly 3 Soviets, 2 Brits and 1.8 American soldiers had to die."

    I am afraid I will get dumber just by interacting with you, but here goes:

    The Wehrmacht had 4.5 million military casualties to America's 400 thousand. Your ability to do basic arithmetic is much less than what my eight year old could do when she was six.

    Germany succeeded in getting their cities firebombed and their country flattened. Germany never touched US, and became an American charity case after the war.

    Ever since the war people have made a hobby of locating old former Nazis in hiding and putting them on trial, to humiliate and kick them around some more. Such winning.

    Everyone idolizes the Nazis? Your social circle must consist mainly of Internet 'friends' if you think that, because this is what, 2% of the population? One suspects your dear Internet friends are Feds.

    Was Biden about a welfare check so Spencer doesn't have to depend on his mommy?

    Hey genius, you can't get much welfare when Biden needs to take care of 11 million amnestied illegals.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @fnn, @JohnPlywood

    I’m aware that the USA lost fewer troops than the Wehrmacht, and most of those casualties were in the Pacific region. In battles in which USA forces engaged with Nazis, however, they did indeed suffer more casualties than than American troops, and in general.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(1935%E2%80%931945)

    Peter Turchin reports a study by American colonel Trevor Dupuy found that German combat efficiency was higher than both the British and American armies – if a combat efficiency of 1 was assigned to the British, then the Americans had a combat efficiency of 1.1 and the Germans of 1.45. This would mean British forces would need to commit 45% more troops (or arm existing troops more heavily to the same proportion) to have a even chance of winning the battle, while the Americans would need to commit 30% more to have an even chance.[18]&

    Sorry, but the Germans were better soldiers and they built your modern military and space program as well. There are other places on the doll where rhey touched you, as well. You’re already “Germans”.

  103. @fnn
    @anon

    Maybe the official ideology/religion of the American Empire is insane. Looking at Portland, its most fanatical adherents are schizophrenics, child molesters, trannies, junkies and miscellaneous other "spiteful mutants."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon

    Maybe the official ideology/religion of the American Empire is insane.

    Exactly.

    Americans (along perhaps with their imperial subjects) should stop ridiculing and disavowing that which the great and influential have instructed them to ridicule and disavow. Even if it were ridiculous and worthy of disavowal, to jeer collectively at the target at which the venal chief points his bony finger of indignation—this is unworthy of the proud descendants of a free people.

    Suggestion: in 2020, if it gets one banned from Twitter, then no self-respecting citizen should probably be mocking it.

  104. @fnn
    @anon

    Maybe the official ideology/religion of the American Empire is insane. Looking at Portland, its most fanatical adherents are schizophrenics, child molesters, trannies, junkies and miscellaneous other "spiteful mutants."

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon

    Maybe the official ideology/religion of the American Empire is insane.

    What does this non sequitur have to do with retarded Hitler-fetishism that I was pointing out?

    Does the word “context” have any meaning to you? Or are you just trolling…again?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    What does this non sequitur have to do with retarded Hitler-fetishism that I was pointing out?
     
    It has to do with empty pejoratives, which persuade no one that does not already agree.

    @fnn has presented an argument. You have replied with “fetish” and “retarded.” You are not obliged to engage with persons you deem foolish or unreasonable, of course, but since you are engaging, who is winning the debate in your opinion?

    Some of us have come to believe that scattering and running for cover whenever the name of Hitler is mentioned is unnecessary and unwise—or retarded, if you like.

    Replies: @anon

  105. @anon
    @fnn

    Maybe the official ideology/religion of the American Empire is insane.

    What does this non sequitur have to do with retarded Hitler-fetishism that I was pointing out?

    Does the word "context" have any meaning to you? Or are you just trolling...again?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    What does this non sequitur have to do with retarded Hitler-fetishism that I was pointing out?

    It has to do with empty pejoratives, which persuade no one that does not already agree.

    has presented an argument. You have replied with “fetish” and “retarded.” You are not obliged to engage with persons you deem foolish or unreasonable, of course, but since you are engaging, who is winning the debate in your opinion?

    Some of us have come to believe that scattering and running for cover whenever the name of Hitler is mentioned is unnecessary and unwise—or retarded, if you like.

    • Replies: @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    @fnn has presented an argument.

    A non sequitur is not an argument, that is what fnn has offered. In fact, fnn is engaged in a form of trolling.

    You have replied with “fetish” and “retarded.” You are not obliged to engage with persons you deem foolish or unreasonable, of course, but since you are engaging, who is winning the debate in your opinion?

    What debate? Trolling for flames, as both you and fnn are obviously doing, is not debate. It may be entertaining, but it isn't a debate.

    Some of us have come to believe that scattering and running for cover whenever the name of Hitler is mentioned is unnecessary and unwise—or retarded, if you like.

    So? It's rather a large step from that position to "Muh HITLER did no wrong!", now isn't it? Yes?

    Suppose, just for example, that you managed to convince everyone in a comment thread of the latter, would that do anything at all in the larger world?

    Too many people can't tell the diff between sterile argumentation with a tiny handful of cranks in comments, and action in the real world. It appears that you may well be one of these.

    Sad.

  106. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    there are only logically possible varieties of socialism, national socialism and international socialism.
     
    Nope. Those binary choices involve but one variable (borders). There are several different types and strains of socialism based on different variables (e.g. democratic socialism vs. authoritarian socialism, etc.).

    Oh, Twinkles, I know you think that GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility, but then that’s the difference between you and me.
     
    Point to where I wrote "GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility." In other words, this is yet another straw man. This happens often, because you seem unable to grasp a basic element of philosophy in science, namely, that falsification of a proposition is not a confirmation of its opposite.

    In this case...

    You say: "I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future."

    I say: North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea, yet it is a totalitarian country with a malnourished population whereas South Korea is prosperous and much freer.

    You say: Aha! You think GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility!

    I say: Never said any such thing. I merely falsified your proposition.

    And it goes like that with our conversation just about everywhere (interspersed with your sundry ad hominem). I can cite numerous examples such as this. You put forth a wide-ranging claim with an allegedly high explanatory power, I falsify it with evidence, and you claim that I assert the opposite of what you do. In reality, I simply poke holes in your assertions much of the time. If you really wanted to know, not assume, what I think, you could, straight up, ask me, but you never do, because you want to prove yourself right and win arguments. You don't seem to have any interest in updating your priors, sharpening your arguments, or simply increasing your knowledge where it is clearly deficient.

    Though you did not ask, I will volunteer what I think about the phenomenon of fertility in regards to "national wellbeing," for the sake of clarity. It appears to me that fertility is affected by many different variables. For example, as AE often points out, there is a high degree of correlation between education for women and fertility. There is also a measurable degree of correlation between income and fertility. As the average level of education for women go up, fertility goes down (there are few exceptions, which we could discuss if you were interested). As income rises, fertility drops (but then it rises again at a very high threshold, I think something like $500K or $1 million a year in income).

    Religion also seems to play a role, with Islamic countries with higher fertility than Christian ones (but much of that may be confounded by comparative economic developments and access availability of education for women). Military conflicts also plays a robust role - societies with a high degree of conflict-engagement have lower fertility, perhaps because men tend to be away fighting and unavailable for procreation (though once the conflicts end, there tend to be booms - hence the famous Baby Boomer Generation born to returning G.I.'s in America).

    Yet another factor to consider is the availability and acquaintance with modern birth control methods. Again, this variable is highly confounded by economic development levels and education for women. Also relevant is the level of obstetric and pediatric medical care - societies with better medical care tend to have lower fertility whereas those that do not have good care engage in so-called r-selection, i.e. having lots of babies and hoping at least some survive. All these and many other factors operate on each other and affect fertility.

    Returning back to the case of North Korea vs. South Korea, we have a unique situation that allows for a social science experiment writ-large in the real world, because the two societies were one country prior to 1945 and have the same source populations. Although statistics out of North Korea is not reliable, all sources agree that North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea and yet it enjoys radically worse measures of national wellbeing, from income to education level, to leisure time, to freedom, to just about any other commonly cited factors.

    Simply put, fertility is subject to many varying inputs, and it is - by itself - certainly not "as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future." Your assertion might be the case in very specific time and place were certain conditions obtain, but is clearly not true universally or historically.

    that’s the difference between you and me
     
    The real difference between you and me is that I am capable of examining multiple variables and realizing the world is very complex and full of counter-intuitive phenomenon (which is why I trust concrete data more than my own feelings that are subject to confirmation and selection bias), whereas you pick and choose evidence you see to fit your own intuitions and become hostile when someone presents evidences that contradict your intuition. And then once you decide you dislike the person ("You are not a good person"), you ignore whatever concrete evidences he presents and simply engage in logical fallacies (ad hominem, straw men, etc.) and diversions.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Nope. Those binary choices involve but one variable (borders). There are several different types and strains of socialism based on different variables (e.g. democratic socialism vs. authoritarian socialism, etc.).

    A case in point. There are only two logical possibilities for socialism, Twinkles:

    Socialism that is national and socialism that is not national.

    N or ~ N.

    That’s it. There are no other options. That each of these may be further divisible into different categories doesn’t change the exclusive nature of these logical possibilities.

    You say: Aha! You think GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility!

    I say: Never said any such thing. I merely falsified your proposition.

    Oh Twinkles, you really need to get that mote out of your own eye before you start picking specks out of mine.

    It is you who overreacted to what I said. I never, ever said that fertility is the only measure of national wellbeing. I didn’t even say it was the best measure. I said it was as good as any. Nor did I ever say that it is inconceivable that a country with high fertility is ever worse in a variety of ways than a country with low fertility.

    But this is very typical of you, Twinkles, you are so eager to pounce on any percieved inaccuracy in anything I say (because of your obsessive hatred of me) that you leap before you look.

    In reality, I simply poke holes in your assertions much of the time.

    Indeed that is clearly what you attempt to do, and your antagonism is evident from your tone.

    If you really wanted to know, not assume, what I think, you could, straight up, ask me, but you never do, because you want to prove yourself right and win arguments.

    You are projecting here.

    Here is another example of your overeagerness pounce without attending so so words.

    as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future

    I was specifically talking about people’s subjective feelings of confidence about the future, not objective circumstances.

    Yes, in some places people have lots of children is insurance against child-mortality and/old-age poverty. I also realize that some people don’t have access to birth control, or have religious objections to using it. The point is simply that, all else equal, a more confident and optimistic population will be more fertile than a fearful and pessimistic one.

    Now, if you want to have constructive exchanges with me, I’m certainly willing to attempt a reset. Try to be civil, and ask for clarification rather than pouncing, and you’ll find that I will treat you with respect in turn.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Rosie

    And by the way, I'll even stop calling you Twinkles, Twinkie.

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a5/8f/8f/a58f8feb744180ef0d49d7b5546b11dd.jpg

    , @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    Socialism that is national and socialism that is not national.

    N or ~ N.

    That’s it. There are no other options.
     
    That's only if you approach the subject with one lens, one variable, which is "national borders." But there are multiple variables in this world. So, for example, if you were to categorize socialism based on amount of political control/duress by the state, you get "democratic socialism" vs. "authoritarian socialism."

    In reality, there has never been a democratic society that has self-avowed to be "national socialist." Indeed, national socialism has been historically a subset of authoritarian/totalitarian socialism. So even when examining only two variables, there are three possibilities: DS, AS-I (e.g. internationalist authoritarian socialism), and AS-N (e.g. nationalist authoritarian socialism).

    As you introduce more variables, you will get more possibilities still.

    It is you who overreacted to what I said.
     
    Why do you keep inverting? I am not the one who responded to a lighthearted comment (with a wink/smiley, no less), with an angry, unhinged "Fuckoff! You argue like a Jew!" outburst. Stop ascribing your own lack of emotional control to others.

    I never, ever said that fertility is the only measure of national wellbeing. I didn’t even say it was the best measure.
     
    More straw men and diversion.

    as good as any
     
    Which is exactly what I critiqued. It's not. "As good as" implies equivalence and "any" implies "all." If you were to say, "My IQ is as good as any in this crowd." You are implying that your IQ is (at least) equal to everyone (or whomever else has the highest IQ) in the crowd. In other words, you would be stating that no one in the crowd has higher IQ than you (others either have the same IQ or lower).

    Fertility is clearly not as good as any other variable in measuring national well-being. North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea, but has an abysmal level of well-being. It has low GDP per capita, low education level, the highest malnutrition and the highest homicide rate in the region, very low human development index, and on and on.

    your tone
     
    Remember again, "Fuck off! You argue like a Jew."? Or "you... arrogant bully," or "You are not a good person"? My tone is not the problem. It is something you raise to "win" the internet all the while you evince your negative emotions quite transparently. Try this: simply make good arguments and back them up with sound evidence. See what happens to my alleged attempt to "pounce" on your comments. In such a case, I wouldn't do it, because then I would look silly. I might even give you an "Agree" button!

    The point is simply that, all else equal, a more confident and optimistic population will be more fertile than a fearful and pessimistic one.
     
    Ah, "all else equal." Very good! I am thrilled that exchanges with me has made you sound much more careful and intelligent. See how that works? Keep it up.

    Now, if you want to have constructive exchanges with me, I’m certainly willing to attempt a reset. Try to be civil, and ask for clarification rather than pouncing, and you’ll find that I will treat you with respect in turn.
     
    Back to this again. Why don't you take a look at our last, say, 20-30 exchanges? You will note that I do not engage in ad hominem or straw men while you persistently call me names and curse, "Fuck off, " "argue like a Jew," "arrogant bully," ad nauseam. Meanwhile, I have been using data sources, graphs, figures, etc. as well as carefully constructed arguments. So instead of trying to sound like a bigger person, just be a normal, educated human being and stick to arguments and evidences, and save the insults and the psycho-babble.

    I’ll even stop calling you Twinkles, Twinkie.
     
    I don't care either way. I asked once to address me with my chosen handle and you did me the courtesy of declining and addressing me as "Twinkles," which I gather is meant to be derisive. And you've been at it for months and possibly years. You calling me this or that doesn't affect how I am or how I am viewed so much as it affects how you are viewed. So if you want to seem like a normal, decent person, change. If not, keep at it. The choice is entirely up to you.

    Now if you were genuinely interested in extending the olive branch and want to be a better person, you'd simply apologize for saying things like "Fuck off" and ask me to be cordial, instead of issuing a command ("Try to be... and ask") and then offering a vague possibility of good behavior ("willing to attempt a reset").

    I am cordial with most commenters here, even those with whom I disagree vehemently on points. But I don't do fake-nice and I certainly don't take fake-nice well. I am positively hostile to passive-aggressive-nice. Instead of declaring a grand gesture after hurling insults for weeks on end, just behave how you think a decent, educated person ought to behave and see what happens.

    Replies: @Rosie

  107. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Nope. Those binary choices involve but one variable (borders). There are several different types and strains of socialism based on different variables (e.g. democratic socialism vs. authoritarian socialism, etc.).
     
    A case in point. There are only two logical possibilities for socialism, Twinkles:

    Socialism that is national and socialism that is not national.

    N or ~ N.

    That's it. There are no other options. That each of these may be further divisible into different categories doesn't change the exclusive nature of these logical possibilities.

    You say: Aha! You think GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility!

    I say: Never said any such thing. I merely falsified your proposition.
     
    Oh Twinkles, you really need to get that mote out of your own eye before you start picking specks out of mine.

    It is you who overreacted to what I said. I never, ever said that fertility is the only measure of national wellbeing. I didn't even say it was the best measure. I said it was as good as any. Nor did I ever say that it is inconceivable that a country with high fertility is ever worse in a variety of ways than a country with low fertility.

    But this is very typical of you, Twinkles, you are so eager to pounce on any percieved inaccuracy in anything I say (because of your obsessive hatred of me) that you leap before you look.


    In reality, I simply poke holes in your assertions much of the time.
     
    Indeed that is clearly what you attempt to do, and your antagonism is evident from your tone.

    If you really wanted to know, not assume, what I think, you could, straight up, ask me, but you never do, because you want to prove yourself right and win arguments.
     
    You are projecting here.

    Here is another example of your overeagerness pounce without attending so so words.


    as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future
     
    I was specifically talking about people's subjective feelings of confidence about the future, not objective circumstances.

    Yes, in some places people have lots of children is insurance against child-mortality and/old-age poverty. I also realize that some people don't have access to birth control, or have religious objections to using it. The point is simply that, all else equal, a more confident and optimistic population will be more fertile than a fearful and pessimistic one.

    Now, if you want to have constructive exchanges with me, I'm certainly willing to attempt a reset. Try to be civil, and ask for clarification rather than pouncing, and you'll find that I will treat you with respect in turn.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

    And by the way, I’ll even stop calling you Twinkles, Twinkie.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  108. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Nope. Those binary choices involve but one variable (borders). There are several different types and strains of socialism based on different variables (e.g. democratic socialism vs. authoritarian socialism, etc.).
     
    A case in point. There are only two logical possibilities for socialism, Twinkles:

    Socialism that is national and socialism that is not national.

    N or ~ N.

    That's it. There are no other options. That each of these may be further divisible into different categories doesn't change the exclusive nature of these logical possibilities.

    You say: Aha! You think GDP is a better measure of national wellbeing than fertility!

    I say: Never said any such thing. I merely falsified your proposition.
     
    Oh Twinkles, you really need to get that mote out of your own eye before you start picking specks out of mine.

    It is you who overreacted to what I said. I never, ever said that fertility is the only measure of national wellbeing. I didn't even say it was the best measure. I said it was as good as any. Nor did I ever say that it is inconceivable that a country with high fertility is ever worse in a variety of ways than a country with low fertility.

    But this is very typical of you, Twinkles, you are so eager to pounce on any percieved inaccuracy in anything I say (because of your obsessive hatred of me) that you leap before you look.


    In reality, I simply poke holes in your assertions much of the time.
     
    Indeed that is clearly what you attempt to do, and your antagonism is evident from your tone.

    If you really wanted to know, not assume, what I think, you could, straight up, ask me, but you never do, because you want to prove yourself right and win arguments.
     
    You are projecting here.

    Here is another example of your overeagerness pounce without attending so so words.


    as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future
     
    I was specifically talking about people's subjective feelings of confidence about the future, not objective circumstances.

    Yes, in some places people have lots of children is insurance against child-mortality and/old-age poverty. I also realize that some people don't have access to birth control, or have religious objections to using it. The point is simply that, all else equal, a more confident and optimistic population will be more fertile than a fearful and pessimistic one.

    Now, if you want to have constructive exchanges with me, I'm certainly willing to attempt a reset. Try to be civil, and ask for clarification rather than pouncing, and you'll find that I will treat you with respect in turn.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

    Socialism that is national and socialism that is not national.

    N or ~ N.

    That’s it. There are no other options.

    That’s only if you approach the subject with one lens, one variable, which is “national borders.” But there are multiple variables in this world. So, for example, if you were to categorize socialism based on amount of political control/duress by the state, you get “democratic socialism” vs. “authoritarian socialism.”

    In reality, there has never been a democratic society that has self-avowed to be “national socialist.” Indeed, national socialism has been historically a subset of authoritarian/totalitarian socialism. So even when examining only two variables, there are three possibilities: DS, AS-I (e.g. internationalist authoritarian socialism), and AS-N (e.g. nationalist authoritarian socialism).

    As you introduce more variables, you will get more possibilities still.

    It is you who overreacted to what I said.

    Why do you keep inverting? I am not the one who responded to a lighthearted comment (with a wink/smiley, no less), with an angry, unhinged “Fuckoff! You argue like a Jew!” outburst. Stop ascribing your own lack of emotional control to others.

    I never, ever said that fertility is the only measure of national wellbeing. I didn’t even say it was the best measure.

    More straw men and diversion.

    as good as any

    Which is exactly what I critiqued. It’s not. “As good as” implies equivalence and “any” implies “all.” If you were to say, “My IQ is as good as any in this crowd.” You are implying that your IQ is (at least) equal to everyone (or whomever else has the highest IQ) in the crowd. In other words, you would be stating that no one in the crowd has higher IQ than you (others either have the same IQ or lower).

    Fertility is clearly not as good as any other variable in measuring national well-being. North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea, but has an abysmal level of well-being. It has low GDP per capita, low education level, the highest malnutrition and the highest homicide rate in the region, very low human development index, and on and on.

    your tone

    Remember again, “Fuck off! You argue like a Jew.”? Or “you… arrogant bully,” or “You are not a good person”? My tone is not the problem. It is something you raise to “win” the internet all the while you evince your negative emotions quite transparently. Try this: simply make good arguments and back them up with sound evidence. See what happens to my alleged attempt to “pounce” on your comments. In such a case, I wouldn’t do it, because then I would look silly. I might even give you an “Agree” button!

    The point is simply that, all else equal, a more confident and optimistic population will be more fertile than a fearful and pessimistic one.

    Ah, “all else equal.” Very good! I am thrilled that exchanges with me has made you sound much more careful and intelligent. See how that works? Keep it up.

    Now, if you want to have constructive exchanges with me, I’m certainly willing to attempt a reset. Try to be civil, and ask for clarification rather than pouncing, and you’ll find that I will treat you with respect in turn.

    Back to this again. Why don’t you take a look at our last, say, 20-30 exchanges? You will note that I do not engage in ad hominem or straw men while you persistently call me names and curse, “Fuck off, ” “argue like a Jew,” “arrogant bully,” ad nauseam. Meanwhile, I have been using data sources, graphs, figures, etc. as well as carefully constructed arguments. So instead of trying to sound like a bigger person, just be a normal, educated human being and stick to arguments and evidences, and save the insults and the psycho-babble.

    I’ll even stop calling you Twinkles, Twinkie.

    I don’t care either way. I asked once to address me with my chosen handle and you did me the courtesy of declining and addressing me as “Twinkles,” which I gather is meant to be derisive. And you’ve been at it for months and possibly years. You calling me this or that doesn’t affect how I am or how I am viewed so much as it affects how you are viewed. So if you want to seem like a normal, decent person, change. If not, keep at it. The choice is entirely up to you.

    Now if you were genuinely interested in extending the olive branch and want to be a better person, you’d simply apologize for saying things like “Fuck off” and ask me to be cordial, instead of issuing a command (“Try to be… and ask”) and then offering a vague possibility of good behavior (“willing to attempt a reset”).

    I am cordial with most commenters here, even those with whom I disagree vehemently on points. But I don’t do fake-nice and I certainly don’t take fake-nice well. I am positively hostile to passive-aggressive-nice. Instead of declaring a grand gesture after hurling insults for weeks on end, just behave how you think a decent, educated person ought to behave and see what happens.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Fertility is clearly not as good as any other variable in measuring national well-being. North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea, but has an abysmal level of well-being. It has low GDP per capita, low education level, the highest malnutrition and the highest homicide rate in the region, very low human development index, and on and on.
     
    I see you're going to continue with your obnoxious nitpicking and harassment.

    Anyway, no Twinkles, one counterexample does not refute that fertility is "as good as any" other indicator of "a sense of well-being and confidence about the future." Moreover, it's not even really a counterexample. You continue to ignore the subjective and forward-looking nature of the kind of national morale I was referring to. None of the factors you listed have anything to do with people's sense of the trajectory and future prospects of the nation.

    One other variable that might be better or at least as good as fertility in measuring confidence about the future is consumer spending, but I don't know.

    https://academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ej/ueaa068/5847688?redirectedFrom=fulltext

    Now, are you going to be charitable and acknowledge that I have a point or are you going to be uncivil and demand that I "admit I was wrong" and then tell me all about how I care more about winning arguments on the internet than learning new things? Sadly, I think I know the answer.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  109. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Crony capitalism is capitalism. It’s how capitalism ends up working in practice.

    People who resort to arguments that crony capitalism isn’t real capitalism are very much like people who say that the problem with communism is that it just hasn’t been done properly.
     
    I dunno. I suspect that communism wasn't nearly as bad as we've been led to believe. If I'm not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people's sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future.

    On the other hand, I think capitalism in one country can work fine, too. The key is you have to have the right people running the country. That's easier said than done, I know, but it's clearly possible. The Chinese Communist Party isn't trying to humiliate and replace their own population.

    One thing I think we can decisively reject is the idea that only the government poses a threat of tyranny, but then we already knew that, or at least we should have.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

    Now that we got that out of the way (it’s always “tone” with you), let’s address the substance of the matter in greater detail. You wrote:

    I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe. If I’m not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future

    I will be using the data from here: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/birth-rate

    Here are the Russian birth rates by years:

    1950: 27.656 per 1,000 women.
    1960: 23.872
    1970: 15.132
    1980: 16.157
    1990: 14.048
    2000: 9.272
    2010: 12.044
    2020: 12.194

    As with other industrialized/industrializing countries, the overall post-war trend is downward in fertility. The greatest period of decline was between 1950-1970 when Russia enjoyed post-war reconstruction and growth. Without looking at the specifics, I can guess several different variables here such as growth in income, rise in education level (esp. for women), improvements in healthcare, etc. The decline could also be due to the great reduction in the number of young men in the immediately preceding war period, but I do not think this is much of a factor, given that the U.S. (without such great losses in young men) also experienced a similarly large decline in fertility in the same period.

    Russia enjoyed a small rebound in fertility in the 70’s and 80’s. Interestingly enough, so did the U.S. during the roughly same period (1978-1988). But the growths in fertility in both countries during this time paled in comparison to the reductions in the preceding three decades.

    Russia also had a significant decline in fertility in the 1990’s, no doubt due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the consequent social and economic chaos. The nadir was in 1998 (8.912 births per 1,000). Since then, Russia’s fertility has grown moderately until 2013 (12.981), but is slowly declining again and is, as of 2020, 12.194 births per 1,000 women.

    So both your use of the late Soviet and post-Soviet fertility rates as a measure of national wellbeing and implying that “communism wasn’t nearly as bad” using such a comparison are unwarranted, to say the least.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Twinkie

    Sorry, two corrections:

    1. I wrote births per 1,000 women, but that is not correct. Those numbers are all births per 1,000 people.

    2. There is a separate table for actual fertility rate (per woman) here: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/fertility-rate

    But the trend line is mostly the same - big drop from 1950 to 1968, moderate rebound until 1988, and then drop again until 1998 and recovery since (the only major difference is that the birth decline since 2013 doesn't correspond in the fertility table, in which there is a continuing, small gain during the same period).

  110. @Twinkie
    @Rosie

    Now that we got that out of the way (it's always "tone" with you), let's address the substance of the matter in greater detail. You wrote:


    I suspect that communism wasn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe. If I’m not mistaken Russian birthrates were pretty good before the end of USSR, and collapsed afterwards. I think birthrates are about as good an indication as anything of people’s sense of wellbeing and confidence about the future
     
    I will be using the data from here: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/birth-rate

    Here are the Russian birth rates by years:

    1950: 27.656 per 1,000 women.
    1960: 23.872
    1970: 15.132
    1980: 16.157
    1990: 14.048
    2000: 9.272
    2010: 12.044
    2020: 12.194

    As with other industrialized/industrializing countries, the overall post-war trend is downward in fertility. The greatest period of decline was between 1950-1970 when Russia enjoyed post-war reconstruction and growth. Without looking at the specifics, I can guess several different variables here such as growth in income, rise in education level (esp. for women), improvements in healthcare, etc. The decline could also be due to the great reduction in the number of young men in the immediately preceding war period, but I do not think this is much of a factor, given that the U.S. (without such great losses in young men) also experienced a similarly large decline in fertility in the same period.

    Russia enjoyed a small rebound in fertility in the 70's and 80's. Interestingly enough, so did the U.S. during the roughly same period (1978-1988). But the growths in fertility in both countries during this time paled in comparison to the reductions in the preceding three decades.

    Russia also had a significant decline in fertility in the 1990's, no doubt due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the consequent social and economic chaos. The nadir was in 1998 (8.912 births per 1,000). Since then, Russia's fertility has grown moderately until 2013 (12.981), but is slowly declining again and is, as of 2020, 12.194 births per 1,000 women.

    So both your use of the late Soviet and post-Soviet fertility rates as a measure of national wellbeing and implying that "communism wasn't nearly as bad" using such a comparison are unwarranted, to say the least.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Sorry, two corrections:

    1. I wrote births per 1,000 women, but that is not correct. Those numbers are all births per 1,000 people.

    2. There is a separate table for actual fertility rate (per woman) here: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/fertility-rate

    But the trend line is mostly the same – big drop from 1950 to 1968, moderate rebound until 1988, and then drop again until 1998 and recovery since (the only major difference is that the birth decline since 2013 doesn’t correspond in the fertility table, in which there is a continuing, small gain during the same period).

  111. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    Socialism that is national and socialism that is not national.

    N or ~ N.

    That’s it. There are no other options.
     
    That's only if you approach the subject with one lens, one variable, which is "national borders." But there are multiple variables in this world. So, for example, if you were to categorize socialism based on amount of political control/duress by the state, you get "democratic socialism" vs. "authoritarian socialism."

    In reality, there has never been a democratic society that has self-avowed to be "national socialist." Indeed, national socialism has been historically a subset of authoritarian/totalitarian socialism. So even when examining only two variables, there are three possibilities: DS, AS-I (e.g. internationalist authoritarian socialism), and AS-N (e.g. nationalist authoritarian socialism).

    As you introduce more variables, you will get more possibilities still.

    It is you who overreacted to what I said.
     
    Why do you keep inverting? I am not the one who responded to a lighthearted comment (with a wink/smiley, no less), with an angry, unhinged "Fuckoff! You argue like a Jew!" outburst. Stop ascribing your own lack of emotional control to others.

    I never, ever said that fertility is the only measure of national wellbeing. I didn’t even say it was the best measure.
     
    More straw men and diversion.

    as good as any
     
    Which is exactly what I critiqued. It's not. "As good as" implies equivalence and "any" implies "all." If you were to say, "My IQ is as good as any in this crowd." You are implying that your IQ is (at least) equal to everyone (or whomever else has the highest IQ) in the crowd. In other words, you would be stating that no one in the crowd has higher IQ than you (others either have the same IQ or lower).

    Fertility is clearly not as good as any other variable in measuring national well-being. North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea, but has an abysmal level of well-being. It has low GDP per capita, low education level, the highest malnutrition and the highest homicide rate in the region, very low human development index, and on and on.

    your tone
     
    Remember again, "Fuck off! You argue like a Jew."? Or "you... arrogant bully," or "You are not a good person"? My tone is not the problem. It is something you raise to "win" the internet all the while you evince your negative emotions quite transparently. Try this: simply make good arguments and back them up with sound evidence. See what happens to my alleged attempt to "pounce" on your comments. In such a case, I wouldn't do it, because then I would look silly. I might even give you an "Agree" button!

    The point is simply that, all else equal, a more confident and optimistic population will be more fertile than a fearful and pessimistic one.
     
    Ah, "all else equal." Very good! I am thrilled that exchanges with me has made you sound much more careful and intelligent. See how that works? Keep it up.

    Now, if you want to have constructive exchanges with me, I’m certainly willing to attempt a reset. Try to be civil, and ask for clarification rather than pouncing, and you’ll find that I will treat you with respect in turn.
     
    Back to this again. Why don't you take a look at our last, say, 20-30 exchanges? You will note that I do not engage in ad hominem or straw men while you persistently call me names and curse, "Fuck off, " "argue like a Jew," "arrogant bully," ad nauseam. Meanwhile, I have been using data sources, graphs, figures, etc. as well as carefully constructed arguments. So instead of trying to sound like a bigger person, just be a normal, educated human being and stick to arguments and evidences, and save the insults and the psycho-babble.

    I’ll even stop calling you Twinkles, Twinkie.
     
    I don't care either way. I asked once to address me with my chosen handle and you did me the courtesy of declining and addressing me as "Twinkles," which I gather is meant to be derisive. And you've been at it for months and possibly years. You calling me this or that doesn't affect how I am or how I am viewed so much as it affects how you are viewed. So if you want to seem like a normal, decent person, change. If not, keep at it. The choice is entirely up to you.

    Now if you were genuinely interested in extending the olive branch and want to be a better person, you'd simply apologize for saying things like "Fuck off" and ask me to be cordial, instead of issuing a command ("Try to be... and ask") and then offering a vague possibility of good behavior ("willing to attempt a reset").

    I am cordial with most commenters here, even those with whom I disagree vehemently on points. But I don't do fake-nice and I certainly don't take fake-nice well. I am positively hostile to passive-aggressive-nice. Instead of declaring a grand gesture after hurling insults for weeks on end, just behave how you think a decent, educated person ought to behave and see what happens.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Fertility is clearly not as good as any other variable in measuring national well-being. North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea, but has an abysmal level of well-being. It has low GDP per capita, low education level, the highest malnutrition and the highest homicide rate in the region, very low human development index, and on and on.

    I see you’re going to continue with your obnoxious nitpicking and harassment.

    Anyway, no Twinkles, one counterexample does not refute that fertility is “as good as any” other indicator of “a sense of well-being and confidence about the future.” Moreover, it’s not even really a counterexample. You continue to ignore the subjective and forward-looking nature of the kind of national morale I was referring to. None of the factors you listed have anything to do with people’s sense of the trajectory and future prospects of the nation.

    One other variable that might be better or at least as good as fertility in measuring confidence about the future is consumer spending, but I don’t know.

    https://academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ej/ueaa068/5847688?redirectedFrom=fulltext

    Now, are you going to be charitable and acknowledge that I have a point or are you going to be uncivil and demand that I “admit I was wrong” and then tell me all about how I care more about winning arguments on the internet than learning new things? Sadly, I think I know the answer.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    obnoxious nitpicking and harassment... Anyway, no Twinkles
     
    I see you made your choice. Are you going to "#metoo" me next?

    one counterexample does not refute
     
    Remember this? "falsification of a proposition is not a confirmation of its opposite." The thing about falsification is that it only takes one counterexample while confirmation - no matter how many examples - is always provisional (since there could be other, hitherto undiscovered counterexamples). I had the impression that you studied philosophy. Did you not read Popper?

    But, we don't even have to go that far. You clearly did not read my comment above about Russian fertility in the post-war years. Both American and Russian fertility dropped significantly during the 1950-1970 timeframe, a period of unparalleled economic growth and dramatic rise in living standards and quality of life ("national well-being" if you will) for the United States and the Soviet Union. And those trends are similar in every case of industrialized/industrializing economy I examined in the data I linked above.


    subjective
     
    So is your contention now that when the two countries were experiencing the most dramatic gains in the quality of life in their respective modern histories, the peoples in the two countries were experiencing a similarly dramatic decline in "subjective" well-being?

    https://academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ej/ueaa068/5847688?redirectedFrom=fulltext
     
    I wish you would read carefully the links you provide.

    from 1988 to 2014... fertility behaviour is more forward looking and sensitive to changes in short-run expectations about the economy
     
    Which do you think provides a better evidence for a general proposition, data from several countries over a 70 year-period or 26 years in one country? Moreover, the article is simply about fertility being a leading indicator, and doesn't make a claim about the directionality depending on other conditions.

    are you going to be charitable and acknowledge that I have a point or are you going to be uncivil and demand that I “admit I was wrong” and then tell me all about how I care more about winning arguments on the internet than learning new things?
     
    You want charity from me now? Are you asking for my validation? How about this?

    Ah, “all else equal.” Very good! I am thrilled that exchanges with me has made you sound much more careful and intelligent. See how that works? Keep it up.
     
    Launching personal attacks and cursing at your interlocutor while demanding "civility" because he asks for evidence come off as both unhinged and hypocritical. Here is a worthwhile suggestion: go back and read your comments and mine with a fresh set of eyes and see how you come off. Here is another suggestion that I learned from my first boss: write what you want to write, leave, and come back in a while (1 hour or 1 day as appropriate) and see if you like the sound of what you wrote.

    By the way, admitting that you were wrong - when you were clearly incorrect or inaccurate - doesn't make you look weak or worse, it makes you look better (at least to me) and intellectually more honest. It's one of the things I really like and trust about AE.

    I grow tired of writing the same thing, but I am an optimist, so here goes again: you will find me a far less implacable foe in a debate or a discussion, so long as you make modest claims and propose a good set of evidences. But if you continue to make wild generalizations based on your own intuition and insist that others accept it without criticism, I'm afraid you will be continued to be "pounced," and not just by me (remember "res" whom you called as "asshole" because he critiqued your argument?). Worse still, they might just ignore you (again, note that "res" simply stopped once you engaged in a personal insult). I am a bit more patient, thanks in part to my homeschooling duties. ;)

    Replies: @Rosie

  112. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Fertility is clearly not as good as any other variable in measuring national well-being. North Korea has higher fertility than South Korea, but has an abysmal level of well-being. It has low GDP per capita, low education level, the highest malnutrition and the highest homicide rate in the region, very low human development index, and on and on.
     
    I see you're going to continue with your obnoxious nitpicking and harassment.

    Anyway, no Twinkles, one counterexample does not refute that fertility is "as good as any" other indicator of "a sense of well-being and confidence about the future." Moreover, it's not even really a counterexample. You continue to ignore the subjective and forward-looking nature of the kind of national morale I was referring to. None of the factors you listed have anything to do with people's sense of the trajectory and future prospects of the nation.

    One other variable that might be better or at least as good as fertility in measuring confidence about the future is consumer spending, but I don't know.

    https://academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ej/ueaa068/5847688?redirectedFrom=fulltext

    Now, are you going to be charitable and acknowledge that I have a point or are you going to be uncivil and demand that I "admit I was wrong" and then tell me all about how I care more about winning arguments on the internet than learning new things? Sadly, I think I know the answer.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    obnoxious nitpicking and harassment… Anyway, no Twinkles

    I see you made your choice. Are you going to “#metoo” me next?

    one counterexample does not refute

    Remember this? “falsification of a proposition is not a confirmation of its opposite.” The thing about falsification is that it only takes one counterexample while confirmation – no matter how many examples – is always provisional (since there could be other, hitherto undiscovered counterexamples). I had the impression that you studied philosophy. Did you not read Popper?

    But, we don’t even have to go that far. You clearly did not read my comment above about Russian fertility in the post-war years. Both American and Russian fertility dropped significantly during the 1950-1970 timeframe, a period of unparalleled economic growth and dramatic rise in living standards and quality of life (“national well-being” if you will) for the United States and the Soviet Union. And those trends are similar in every case of industrialized/industrializing economy I examined in the data I linked above.

    subjective

    So is your contention now that when the two countries were experiencing the most dramatic gains in the quality of life in their respective modern histories, the peoples in the two countries were experiencing a similarly dramatic decline in “subjective” well-being?

    https://academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ej/ueaa068/5847688?redirectedFrom=fulltext

    I wish you would read carefully the links you provide.

    from 1988 to 2014… fertility behaviour is more forward looking and sensitive to changes in short-run expectations about the economy

    Which do you think provides a better evidence for a general proposition, data from several countries over a 70 year-period or 26 years in one country? Moreover, the article is simply about fertility being a leading indicator, and doesn’t make a claim about the directionality depending on other conditions.

    are you going to be charitable and acknowledge that I have a point or are you going to be uncivil and demand that I “admit I was wrong” and then tell me all about how I care more about winning arguments on the internet than learning new things?

    You want charity from me now? Are you asking for my validation? How about this?

    Ah, “all else equal.” Very good! I am thrilled that exchanges with me has made you sound much more careful and intelligent. See how that works? Keep it up.

    Launching personal attacks and cursing at your interlocutor while demanding “civility” because he asks for evidence come off as both unhinged and hypocritical. Here is a worthwhile suggestion: go back and read your comments and mine with a fresh set of eyes and see how you come off. Here is another suggestion that I learned from my first boss: write what you want to write, leave, and come back in a while (1 hour or 1 day as appropriate) and see if you like the sound of what you wrote.

    By the way, admitting that you were wrong – when you were clearly incorrect or inaccurate – doesn’t make you look weak or worse, it makes you look better (at least to me) and intellectually more honest. It’s one of the things I really like and trust about AE.

    I grow tired of writing the same thing, but I am an optimist, so here goes again: you will find me a far less implacable foe in a debate or a discussion, so long as you make modest claims and propose a good set of evidences. But if you continue to make wild generalizations based on your own intuition and insist that others accept it without criticism, I’m afraid you will be continued to be “pounced,” and not just by me (remember “res” whom you called as “asshole” because he critiqued your argument?). Worse still, they might just ignore you (again, note that “res” simply stopped once you engaged in a personal insult). I am a bit more patient, thanks in part to my homeschooling duties. 😉

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Did you not read Popper?

     

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You're an arrogant piece of shit and a bully. This is a transparent humiliation play.

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Fuck off, Twinkles
    You argue like a Jew

    (In any event, no your example doesn't refute anything but a Straw Man.)

    So is your contention now that when the two countries were experiencing the most dramatic gains in the quality of life in their respective modern histories, the peoples in the two countries were experiencing a similarly dramatic decline in “subjective” well-being?
     
    I know this is hard for you to wrap your tiny brain around, Twinkles, but yes. Improvements in material standard of living can absolutely coincide with subjective feelings of pessimism about the future, especially when a cultural revolution is destroying people's culture.

    Which do you think provides a better evidence for a general proposition, data from several countries over a 70 year-period or 26 years in one country?
     
    26 years in one country is by far the more relevant evidence. Here is a worthwhile suggestion: Go back and read my original comment, which you admit now that you "pounced" on, to see why.

    No, you're not. You're just an asshole and a bully. The difference between you and res is that he is an asshole every once in awhile, whereas you are an asshole every single time you address me.

    Worse still, they might just ignore you (again, note that “res” simply stopped once you engaged in a personal insult).
     
    I'm 100% fine with that. Why don't you fuck off and leave me alone if you find my comments so unenlightening and useless. You could choose to ignore me as I have done you, but instead you harass me constantly because you think I'm a bad white and you don't approve of my politics.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @anon

  113. anon[349] • Disclaimer says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    What does this non sequitur have to do with retarded Hitler-fetishism that I was pointing out?
     
    It has to do with empty pejoratives, which persuade no one that does not already agree.

    @fnn has presented an argument. You have replied with “fetish” and “retarded.” You are not obliged to engage with persons you deem foolish or unreasonable, of course, but since you are engaging, who is winning the debate in your opinion?

    Some of us have come to believe that scattering and running for cover whenever the name of Hitler is mentioned is unnecessary and unwise—or retarded, if you like.

    Replies: @anon

    has presented an argument.

    A non sequitur is not an argument, that is what fnn has offered. In fact, fnn is engaged in a form of trolling.

    You have replied with “fetish” and “retarded.” You are not obliged to engage with persons you deem foolish or unreasonable, of course, but since you are engaging, who is winning the debate in your opinion?

    What debate? Trolling for flames, as both you and fnn are obviously doing, is not debate. It may be entertaining, but it isn’t a debate.

    Some of us have come to believe that scattering and running for cover whenever the name of Hitler is mentioned is unnecessary and unwise—or retarded, if you like.

    So? It’s rather a large step from that position to “Muh HITLER did no wrong!”, now isn’t it? Yes?

    Suppose, just for example, that you managed to convince everyone in a comment thread of the latter, would that do anything at all in the larger world?

    Too many people can’t tell the diff between sterile argumentation with a tiny handful of cranks in comments, and action in the real world. It appears that you may well be one of these.

    Sad.

  114. Maybe in Namibia (a former German colony) they watch old reruns of Hogan’s Heroes. Almost everyone connected with the show except the star (Bob Crane) was Jewish, so even Jews were saner back then.

    https://twitter.com/westland_will/status/1334568505799188481

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @fnn

    There was once an "Adolf Hitler Bar" in Busan, South Korea, but the owner thought better of it and renamed it to "Ditler Bar": http://www.pusanweb.com/feature/hitlerbar/hitlermain.htm

  115. @fnn
    Maybe in Namibia (a former German colony) they watch old reruns of Hogan's Heroes. Almost everyone connected with the show except the star (Bob Crane) was Jewish, so even Jews were saner back then.

    https://twitter.com/westland_will/status/1334568505799188481

    Replies: @Twinkie

    There was once an “Adolf Hitler Bar” in Busan, South Korea, but the owner thought better of it and renamed it to “Ditler Bar”: http://www.pusanweb.com/feature/hitlerbar/hitlermain.htm

  116. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    obnoxious nitpicking and harassment... Anyway, no Twinkles
     
    I see you made your choice. Are you going to "#metoo" me next?

    one counterexample does not refute
     
    Remember this? "falsification of a proposition is not a confirmation of its opposite." The thing about falsification is that it only takes one counterexample while confirmation - no matter how many examples - is always provisional (since there could be other, hitherto undiscovered counterexamples). I had the impression that you studied philosophy. Did you not read Popper?

    But, we don't even have to go that far. You clearly did not read my comment above about Russian fertility in the post-war years. Both American and Russian fertility dropped significantly during the 1950-1970 timeframe, a period of unparalleled economic growth and dramatic rise in living standards and quality of life ("national well-being" if you will) for the United States and the Soviet Union. And those trends are similar in every case of industrialized/industrializing economy I examined in the data I linked above.


    subjective
     
    So is your contention now that when the two countries were experiencing the most dramatic gains in the quality of life in their respective modern histories, the peoples in the two countries were experiencing a similarly dramatic decline in "subjective" well-being?

    https://academic.oup.com/ej/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ej/ueaa068/5847688?redirectedFrom=fulltext
     
    I wish you would read carefully the links you provide.

    from 1988 to 2014... fertility behaviour is more forward looking and sensitive to changes in short-run expectations about the economy
     
    Which do you think provides a better evidence for a general proposition, data from several countries over a 70 year-period or 26 years in one country? Moreover, the article is simply about fertility being a leading indicator, and doesn't make a claim about the directionality depending on other conditions.

    are you going to be charitable and acknowledge that I have a point or are you going to be uncivil and demand that I “admit I was wrong” and then tell me all about how I care more about winning arguments on the internet than learning new things?
     
    You want charity from me now? Are you asking for my validation? How about this?

    Ah, “all else equal.” Very good! I am thrilled that exchanges with me has made you sound much more careful and intelligent. See how that works? Keep it up.
     
    Launching personal attacks and cursing at your interlocutor while demanding "civility" because he asks for evidence come off as both unhinged and hypocritical. Here is a worthwhile suggestion: go back and read your comments and mine with a fresh set of eyes and see how you come off. Here is another suggestion that I learned from my first boss: write what you want to write, leave, and come back in a while (1 hour or 1 day as appropriate) and see if you like the sound of what you wrote.

    By the way, admitting that you were wrong - when you were clearly incorrect or inaccurate - doesn't make you look weak or worse, it makes you look better (at least to me) and intellectually more honest. It's one of the things I really like and trust about AE.

    I grow tired of writing the same thing, but I am an optimist, so here goes again: you will find me a far less implacable foe in a debate or a discussion, so long as you make modest claims and propose a good set of evidences. But if you continue to make wild generalizations based on your own intuition and insist that others accept it without criticism, I'm afraid you will be continued to be "pounced," and not just by me (remember "res" whom you called as "asshole" because he critiqued your argument?). Worse still, they might just ignore you (again, note that "res" simply stopped once you engaged in a personal insult). I am a bit more patient, thanks in part to my homeschooling duties. ;)

    Replies: @Rosie

    Did you not read Popper?

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You’re an arrogant piece of shit and a bully. This is a transparent humiliation play.

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Fuck off, Twinkles
    You argue like a Jew

    (In any event, no your example doesn’t refute anything but a Straw Man.)

    So is your contention now that when the two countries were experiencing the most dramatic gains in the quality of life in their respective modern histories, the peoples in the two countries were experiencing a similarly dramatic decline in “subjective” well-being?

    I know this is hard for you to wrap your tiny brain around, Twinkles, but yes. Improvements in material standard of living can absolutely coincide with subjective feelings of pessimism about the future, especially when a cultural revolution is destroying people’s culture.

    Which do you think provides a better evidence for a general proposition, data from several countries over a 70 year-period or 26 years in one country?

    26 years in one country is by far the more relevant evidence. Here is a worthwhile suggestion: Go back and read my original comment, which you admit now that you “pounced” on, to see why.

    No, you’re not. You’re just an asshole and a bully. The difference between you and res is that he is an asshole every once in awhile, whereas you are an asshole every single time you address me.

    Worse still, they might just ignore you (again, note that “res” simply stopped once you engaged in a personal insult).

    I’m 100% fine with that. Why don’t you fuck off and leave me alone if you find my comments so unenlightening and useless. You could choose to ignore me as I have done you, but instead you harass me constantly because you think I’m a bad white and you don’t approve of my politics.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    when a cultural revolution is destroying people’s culture.
     
    There was no cultural revolution happening in 1950’s Russia or the United States when living standards rose and fertility fell dramatically.

    as I have done you
     
    You don’t ignore me at all. You can’t stand that I show you to make unwarranted assertions, so you hurl personal insult after another. I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You’re an arrogant piece of shit and a bully.
     
    What a lovely woman. Your husband is so lucky.

    This is a transparent humiliation play.
     
    No one can humiliate you when you are an honest, intelligent, and dignified human being. As I wrote before self-humiliation is very easy to avoid.

    In all seriousness, I think you ought to seek some therapy or psychiatric help. You appear to have some anger issues.

    you harass me constantly because you think I’m a bad white and you don’t approve of my politics.
     
    Here is what you don’t seem to get - I do not know you. For all I know, you are a trans black person pretending to be something else. I can only engage with your ideas you present online. And your ideas have a lot of holes. That is all. Don’t shoot the messenger - engage with the message instead.

    I have been extraordinarily patient with you despite your anger bursts and personal insults, and it appears that the fact I remain unfazed is sending you deeper and deeper into unhinged territory. Are you sure you really are an advocate for white national socialism, because I think the way you argue here is not exactly winning admirers and followers. Perhaps Stormfront or AmRen is more your cup of tea.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @anon
    @Rosie

    Twinkie asks

    Did you not read Popper?

    Rosie posie:

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You’re an arrogant piece of shit and a bully. This is a transparent humiliation play.


    Midwit "smart girl" who doesn't understand the scientific method detected. Ping!

    Rosie reminds me of the gun store commando who brags about his 400 yard shot on a running antelope out in Wyoming -- but who can't quite ever get around to taking his gear out to the local rifle range and demonstrating an actual shot on a fixed target at a closer distance. Go figure.

    Her hostile and rage-filled response simply confirms what Twinkie suggested.

    Plus it is always enlightening to see Christians interacting with each other as Christ commanded them to.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  117. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Did you not read Popper?

     

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You're an arrogant piece of shit and a bully. This is a transparent humiliation play.

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Fuck off, Twinkles
    You argue like a Jew

    (In any event, no your example doesn't refute anything but a Straw Man.)

    So is your contention now that when the two countries were experiencing the most dramatic gains in the quality of life in their respective modern histories, the peoples in the two countries were experiencing a similarly dramatic decline in “subjective” well-being?
     
    I know this is hard for you to wrap your tiny brain around, Twinkles, but yes. Improvements in material standard of living can absolutely coincide with subjective feelings of pessimism about the future, especially when a cultural revolution is destroying people's culture.

    Which do you think provides a better evidence for a general proposition, data from several countries over a 70 year-period or 26 years in one country?
     
    26 years in one country is by far the more relevant evidence. Here is a worthwhile suggestion: Go back and read my original comment, which you admit now that you "pounced" on, to see why.

    No, you're not. You're just an asshole and a bully. The difference between you and res is that he is an asshole every once in awhile, whereas you are an asshole every single time you address me.

    Worse still, they might just ignore you (again, note that “res” simply stopped once you engaged in a personal insult).
     
    I'm 100% fine with that. Why don't you fuck off and leave me alone if you find my comments so unenlightening and useless. You could choose to ignore me as I have done you, but instead you harass me constantly because you think I'm a bad white and you don't approve of my politics.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @anon

    when a cultural revolution is destroying people’s culture.

    There was no cultural revolution happening in 1950’s Russia or the United States when living standards rose and fertility fell dramatically.

    as I have done you

    You don’t ignore me at all. You can’t stand that I show you to make unwarranted assertions, so you hurl personal insult after another. I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You’re an arrogant piece of shit and a bully.

    What a lovely woman. Your husband is so lucky.

    This is a transparent humiliation play.

    No one can humiliate you when you are an honest, intelligent, and dignified human being. As I wrote before self-humiliation is very easy to avoid.

    In all seriousness, I think you ought to seek some therapy or psychiatric help. You appear to have some anger issues.

    you harass me constantly because you think I’m a bad white and you don’t approve of my politics.

    Here is what you don’t seem to get – I do not know you. For all I know, you are a trans black person pretending to be something else. I can only engage with your ideas you present online. And your ideas have a lot of holes. That is all. Don’t shoot the messenger – engage with the message instead.

    I have been extraordinarily patient with you despite your anger bursts and personal insults, and it appears that the fact I remain unfazed is sending you deeper and deeper into unhinged territory. Are you sure you really are an advocate for white national socialism, because I think the way you argue here is not exactly winning admirers and followers. Perhaps Stormfront or AmRen is more your cup of tea.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    No one can humiliate you when you are an honest, intelligent, and dignified human being. As I wrote before self-humiliation is very easy to avoid.
     
    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.

    The problem is not me. It's you, the proof being that noone else harasses me as you constantly do.

    And your ideas have a lot of holes
     

    Holes that only you seem to notice and harp on at such length that you stoop even to contradicting the most basic logical trivialities as X or not X or depressed and hopeless people tend to avoid having children when they can get access to birth control.

    I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?


    I have been extraordinarily patient

     

    You have not been patient; you have been a condescending prick.

    and it appears that the fact I remain unfazed is sending you deeper and deeper into unhinged territory.


     

    Another cheap Jewy power play. Be a completely unreasonable jackass and then use the other person's exasperation at your obtuse weaseling and hair splitting as evidence that they are stupid cranks.

    I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?
     

    You are on my ignore list and I never click show on any of your comments that are not directly addressed to me. That's what normal people who aren't spiteful and aggressive bullies do when they think someone else's comments aren't worth a shit.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

  118. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    when a cultural revolution is destroying people’s culture.
     
    There was no cultural revolution happening in 1950’s Russia or the United States when living standards rose and fertility fell dramatically.

    as I have done you
     
    You don’t ignore me at all. You can’t stand that I show you to make unwarranted assertions, so you hurl personal insult after another. I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You’re an arrogant piece of shit and a bully.
     
    What a lovely woman. Your husband is so lucky.

    This is a transparent humiliation play.
     
    No one can humiliate you when you are an honest, intelligent, and dignified human being. As I wrote before self-humiliation is very easy to avoid.

    In all seriousness, I think you ought to seek some therapy or psychiatric help. You appear to have some anger issues.

    you harass me constantly because you think I’m a bad white and you don’t approve of my politics.
     
    Here is what you don’t seem to get - I do not know you. For all I know, you are a trans black person pretending to be something else. I can only engage with your ideas you present online. And your ideas have a lot of holes. That is all. Don’t shoot the messenger - engage with the message instead.

    I have been extraordinarily patient with you despite your anger bursts and personal insults, and it appears that the fact I remain unfazed is sending you deeper and deeper into unhinged territory. Are you sure you really are an advocate for white national socialism, because I think the way you argue here is not exactly winning admirers and followers. Perhaps Stormfront or AmRen is more your cup of tea.

    Replies: @Rosie

    No one can humiliate you when you are an honest, intelligent, and dignified human being. As I wrote before self-humiliation is very easy to avoid.

    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.

    The problem is not me. It’s you, the proof being that noone else harasses me as you constantly do.

    And your ideas have a lot of holes

    Holes that only you seem to notice and harp on at such length that you stoop even to contradicting the most basic logical trivialities as X or not X or depressed and hopeless people tend to avoid having children when they can get access to birth control.

    I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?

    I have been extraordinarily patient

    You have not been patient; you have been a condescending prick.

    and it appears that the fact I remain unfazed is sending you deeper and deeper into unhinged territory.

    Another cheap Jewy power play. Be a completely unreasonable jackass and then use the other person’s exasperation at your obtuse weaseling and hair splitting as evidence that they are stupid cranks.

    I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?

    You are on my ignore list and I never click show on any of your comments that are not directly addressed to me. That’s what normal people who aren’t spiteful and aggressive bullies do when they think someone else’s comments aren’t worth a shit.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.
     
    Did the spittle hit your screen as you typed that? Or are you showing by your implication - "Twinkie is not even sub-human, he's not human at all!" - that you are, after all, a dehumanizing Nazi (one who clearly has anger issues)?

    The problem is not me. It’s you, the proof being that noone else harasses me as you constantly do.
     
    It's not "harassment" if I took your ideas seriously and critiqued them. Or are you the God-Empress of this blog and simply make proclamations here, to which we are all supposed to bend the knee?

    Are all my data, graphs, figures, numbers, and citations just Greek to you?


    You are on my ignore list and I never click show on any of your comments that are not directly addressed to me.
     
    I am pretty sure that you can ignore all my comments if you so chose. If you feel like my questioning your assertions is "harassment," why don't you just ignore all my comments and "poof" the supposed "harassment" disappears? Why do you keep coming back for the intellectual spanking that clearly causes you emotional distress? Is your husband not giving you enough attention or are you having those "moments of low marriage quality" again?

    Another cheap Jewy power play... obtuse weaseling and hair splitting as evidence
     
    Numeracy and basic understanding of the philosophy of science are not "Jewy" - they are products of human civilization and advancement, in which your co-ethnics (assuming that you are an Anglo-American) have played a major role in the last several hundred years. You do not like white people's math and philosophy? Why do you hate white people so much, Rosie? ;)

    By the way, seriously, have you not ever heard of Karl Popper? I really thought you had studied philosophy. If not, you really ought to give "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" a try. It was first published in German in the 30's and later in English in the late 50's, I think. Popper is considered one of the giants of modern philosophy (he is often touted as the "greatest philosopher of the 20th century), and his idea of "falsifiability" has become tremendously influential in science and philosophy in the post-war years... so much so that even I, a philistine who prefers history to philosophy, have read it.

    I should note, though, that Popper's ancestors were Jewish, though Popper was baptized and grew up as a Lutheran. Perhaps that is too "Jewy" for you.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @iffen
    @Rosie

    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.

    Just for variety you could sometimes use one of my favorites: You are a lying asshole and your nickname is shit. I don't have the copyright, but if you do wish to use it sometimes please don't direct it toward Twinkie because I am 100% certain that he is not a liar.

  119. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    No one can humiliate you when you are an honest, intelligent, and dignified human being. As I wrote before self-humiliation is very easy to avoid.
     
    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.

    The problem is not me. It's you, the proof being that noone else harasses me as you constantly do.

    And your ideas have a lot of holes
     

    Holes that only you seem to notice and harp on at such length that you stoop even to contradicting the most basic logical trivialities as X or not X or depressed and hopeless people tend to avoid having children when they can get access to birth control.

    I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?


    I have been extraordinarily patient

     

    You have not been patient; you have been a condescending prick.

    and it appears that the fact I remain unfazed is sending you deeper and deeper into unhinged territory.


     

    Another cheap Jewy power play. Be a completely unreasonable jackass and then use the other person's exasperation at your obtuse weaseling and hair splitting as evidence that they are stupid cranks.

    I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?
     

    You are on my ignore list and I never click show on any of your comments that are not directly addressed to me. That's what normal people who aren't spiteful and aggressive bullies do when they think someone else's comments aren't worth a shit.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.

    Did the spittle hit your screen as you typed that? Or are you showing by your implication – “Twinkie is not even sub-human, he’s not human at all!” – that you are, after all, a dehumanizing Nazi (one who clearly has anger issues)?

    The problem is not me. It’s you, the proof being that noone else harasses me as you constantly do.

    It’s not “harassment” if I took your ideas seriously and critiqued them. Or are you the God-Empress of this blog and simply make proclamations here, to which we are all supposed to bend the knee?

    Are all my data, graphs, figures, numbers, and citations just Greek to you?

    You are on my ignore list and I never click show on any of your comments that are not directly addressed to me.

    I am pretty sure that you can ignore all my comments if you so chose. If you feel like my questioning your assertions is “harassment,” why don’t you just ignore all my comments and “poof” the supposed “harassment” disappears? Why do you keep coming back for the intellectual spanking that clearly causes you emotional distress? Is your husband not giving you enough attention or are you having those “moments of low marriage quality” again?

    Another cheap Jewy power play… obtuse weaseling and hair splitting as evidence

    Numeracy and basic understanding of the philosophy of science are not “Jewy” – they are products of human civilization and advancement, in which your co-ethnics (assuming that you are an Anglo-American) have played a major role in the last several hundred years. You do not like white people’s math and philosophy? Why do you hate white people so much, Rosie? 😉

    By the way, seriously, have you not ever heard of Karl Popper? I really thought you had studied philosophy. If not, you really ought to give “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” a try. It was first published in German in the 30’s and later in English in the late 50’s, I think. Popper is considered one of the giants of modern philosophy (he is often touted as the “greatest philosopher of the 20th century), and his idea of “falsifiability” has become tremendously influential in science and philosophy in the post-war years… so much so that even I, a philistine who prefers history to philosophy, have read it.

    I should note, though, that Popper’s ancestors were Jewish, though Popper was baptized and grew up as a Lutheran. Perhaps that is too “Jewy” for you.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Did the spittle hit your screen
     
    Nothing enrages a true wisdom-lover like a sophist who weaponizes philosophy against their enemies. You know this, which is precisely why you do it.

    If you feel like my questioning your assertions is “harassment,”
     
    Twinkles, almost everyone in this blog questions my assertions from time to time, you are the only one who harasses me.

    intellectual spanking
     
    Twinkles, denying scientific truths (e.g. Gause's Law) and denying simple logical truths is not an intellectual spanking.

    Why do you read my comments if you find them so stupid? Because you want to bully badwhites off this forum. The only Whites you find acceptable are those who are resigned to our annihilation.

    Numeracy and basic understanding of the philosophy of science are not “Jewy” –
     

    No, constant putdowns and humiliation tactics like this are, you despicable lying sack of dog shit. I think that'll be my new name for you. DLSDG.

    Popper is considered one of the giants of modern philosophy
     

    Nothing in Popper supports the idea that you can falsify a Straw Man and declare victory without rightfully being called out as a sophist and a bully. Philosophic principles have nothing to do with this conversation. This is not an intellectual debate. It is an attempt on your part to drive me away from this forum by force of will.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  120. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.
     
    Did the spittle hit your screen as you typed that? Or are you showing by your implication - "Twinkie is not even sub-human, he's not human at all!" - that you are, after all, a dehumanizing Nazi (one who clearly has anger issues)?

    The problem is not me. It’s you, the proof being that noone else harasses me as you constantly do.
     
    It's not "harassment" if I took your ideas seriously and critiqued them. Or are you the God-Empress of this blog and simply make proclamations here, to which we are all supposed to bend the knee?

    Are all my data, graphs, figures, numbers, and citations just Greek to you?


    You are on my ignore list and I never click show on any of your comments that are not directly addressed to me.
     
    I am pretty sure that you can ignore all my comments if you so chose. If you feel like my questioning your assertions is "harassment," why don't you just ignore all my comments and "poof" the supposed "harassment" disappears? Why do you keep coming back for the intellectual spanking that clearly causes you emotional distress? Is your husband not giving you enough attention or are you having those "moments of low marriage quality" again?

    Another cheap Jewy power play... obtuse weaseling and hair splitting as evidence
     
    Numeracy and basic understanding of the philosophy of science are not "Jewy" - they are products of human civilization and advancement, in which your co-ethnics (assuming that you are an Anglo-American) have played a major role in the last several hundred years. You do not like white people's math and philosophy? Why do you hate white people so much, Rosie? ;)

    By the way, seriously, have you not ever heard of Karl Popper? I really thought you had studied philosophy. If not, you really ought to give "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" a try. It was first published in German in the 30's and later in English in the late 50's, I think. Popper is considered one of the giants of modern philosophy (he is often touted as the "greatest philosopher of the 20th century), and his idea of "falsifiability" has become tremendously influential in science and philosophy in the post-war years... so much so that even I, a philistine who prefers history to philosophy, have read it.

    I should note, though, that Popper's ancestors were Jewish, though Popper was baptized and grew up as a Lutheran. Perhaps that is too "Jewy" for you.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Did the spittle hit your screen

    Nothing enrages a true wisdom-lover like a sophist who weaponizes philosophy against their enemies. You know this, which is precisely why you do it.

    If you feel like my questioning your assertions is “harassment,”

    Twinkles, almost everyone in this blog questions my assertions from time to time, you are the only one who harasses me.

    intellectual spanking

    Twinkles, denying scientific truths (e.g. Gause’s Law) and denying simple logical truths is not an intellectual spanking.

    Why do you read my comments if you find them so stupid? Because you want to bully badwhites off this forum. The only Whites you find acceptable are those who are resigned to our annihilation.

    Numeracy and basic understanding of the philosophy of science are not “Jewy” –

    No, constant putdowns and humiliation tactics like this are, you despicable lying sack of dog shit. I think that’ll be my new name for you. DLSDG.

    Popper is considered one of the giants of modern philosophy

    Nothing in Popper supports the idea that you can falsify a Straw Man and declare victory without rightfully being called out as a sophist and a bully. Philosophic principles have nothing to do with this conversation. This is not an intellectual debate. It is an attempt on your part to drive me away from this forum by force of will.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie

    Well, you stopped cursing in the last comment. That’s an improvement. Do you feel better? Less “enraged” as you admitted?


    weaponizes philosophy against their enemies
     
    Do elaborate.

    This is not an intellectual debate.
     
    Of course not. That would require two people with intellect. When one of the participants screams and hollers obscenities after failing to grasp the numbers at hand, it becomes a sane person trying to reason with a hysteric.

    falsify a Straw Man
     
    I falsified exactly what you wrote, verbatim.

    It is an attempt on your part to drive me away from this forum by force of will.
     
    How can I drive you away? What am I going to do, find you in person and put a gun to your head? Only you can choose to participate in conversations on this blog. Just like only you can humiliate yourself thusly:

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Fuck off, Twinkles
    You argue like a Jew
     

    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.
     
    Only the best people, I guess.

    Returning to the substance at hand, is it now your contention that there was “cultural revolution” going on in the 1950’s in the U.S. and Russia when living standards dramatically increased and fertility fell considerably? That Americans who were at the height of their power and prosperity (the U.S. accounted for 50% of the entire world’s GDP at the time) were inexplicably feeling distressed about the future, so much so that their fertility dropped so much?

  121. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Did the spittle hit your screen
     
    Nothing enrages a true wisdom-lover like a sophist who weaponizes philosophy against their enemies. You know this, which is precisely why you do it.

    If you feel like my questioning your assertions is “harassment,”
     
    Twinkles, almost everyone in this blog questions my assertions from time to time, you are the only one who harasses me.

    intellectual spanking
     
    Twinkles, denying scientific truths (e.g. Gause's Law) and denying simple logical truths is not an intellectual spanking.

    Why do you read my comments if you find them so stupid? Because you want to bully badwhites off this forum. The only Whites you find acceptable are those who are resigned to our annihilation.

    Numeracy and basic understanding of the philosophy of science are not “Jewy” –
     

    No, constant putdowns and humiliation tactics like this are, you despicable lying sack of dog shit. I think that'll be my new name for you. DLSDG.

    Popper is considered one of the giants of modern philosophy
     

    Nothing in Popper supports the idea that you can falsify a Straw Man and declare victory without rightfully being called out as a sophist and a bully. Philosophic principles have nothing to do with this conversation. This is not an intellectual debate. It is an attempt on your part to drive me away from this forum by force of will.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Well, you stopped cursing in the last comment. That’s an improvement. Do you feel better? Less “enraged” as you admitted?

    weaponizes philosophy against their enemies

    Do elaborate.

    This is not an intellectual debate.

    Of course not. That would require two people with intellect. When one of the participants screams and hollers obscenities after failing to grasp the numbers at hand, it becomes a sane person trying to reason with a hysteric.

    falsify a Straw Man

    I falsified exactly what you wrote, verbatim.

    It is an attempt on your part to drive me away from this forum by force of will.

    How can I drive you away? What am I going to do, find you in person and put a gun to your head? Only you can choose to participate in conversations on this blog. Just like only you can humiliate yourself thusly:

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Fuck off, Twinkles
    You argue like a Jew

    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.

    Only the best people, I guess.

    Returning to the substance at hand, is it now your contention that there was “cultural revolution” going on in the 1950’s in the U.S. and Russia when living standards dramatically increased and fertility fell considerably? That Americans who were at the height of their power and prosperity (the U.S. accounted for 50% of the entire world’s GDP at the time) were inexplicably feeling distressed about the future, so much so that their fertility dropped so much?

  122. @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    No one can humiliate you when you are an honest, intelligent, and dignified human being. As I wrote before self-humiliation is very easy to avoid.
     
    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.

    The problem is not me. It's you, the proof being that noone else harasses me as you constantly do.

    And your ideas have a lot of holes
     

    Holes that only you seem to notice and harp on at such length that you stoop even to contradicting the most basic logical trivialities as X or not X or depressed and hopeless people tend to avoid having children when they can get access to birth control.

    I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?


    I have been extraordinarily patient

     

    You have not been patient; you have been a condescending prick.

    and it appears that the fact I remain unfazed is sending you deeper and deeper into unhinged territory.


     

    Another cheap Jewy power play. Be a completely unreasonable jackass and then use the other person's exasperation at your obtuse weaseling and hair splitting as evidence that they are stupid cranks.

    I do remember when you threatened to put me on your ignore list. What happened to that?
     

    You are on my ignore list and I never click show on any of your comments that are not directly addressed to me. That's what normal people who aren't spiteful and aggressive bullies do when they think someone else's comments aren't worth a shit.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    Twinkles, you are a lying sack of dog shit and I hereby retract any prior statements I may have made to the effect that you are a human being.

    Just for variety you could sometimes use one of my favorites: You are a lying asshole and your nickname is shit. I don’t have the copyright, but if you do wish to use it sometimes please don’t direct it toward Twinkie because I am 100% certain that he is not a liar.

  123. anon[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    @Twinkie


    Did you not read Popper?

     

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You're an arrogant piece of shit and a bully. This is a transparent humiliation play.

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Fuck off, Twinkles
    You argue like a Jew

    (In any event, no your example doesn't refute anything but a Straw Man.)

    So is your contention now that when the two countries were experiencing the most dramatic gains in the quality of life in their respective modern histories, the peoples in the two countries were experiencing a similarly dramatic decline in “subjective” well-being?
     
    I know this is hard for you to wrap your tiny brain around, Twinkles, but yes. Improvements in material standard of living can absolutely coincide with subjective feelings of pessimism about the future, especially when a cultural revolution is destroying people's culture.

    Which do you think provides a better evidence for a general proposition, data from several countries over a 70 year-period or 26 years in one country?
     
    26 years in one country is by far the more relevant evidence. Here is a worthwhile suggestion: Go back and read my original comment, which you admit now that you "pounced" on, to see why.

    No, you're not. You're just an asshole and a bully. The difference between you and res is that he is an asshole every once in awhile, whereas you are an asshole every single time you address me.

    Worse still, they might just ignore you (again, note that “res” simply stopped once you engaged in a personal insult).
     
    I'm 100% fine with that. Why don't you fuck off and leave me alone if you find my comments so unenlightening and useless. You could choose to ignore me as I have done you, but instead you harass me constantly because you think I'm a bad white and you don't approve of my politics.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @anon

    Twinkie asks

    Did you not read Popper?

    Rosie posie:

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You’re an arrogant piece of shit and a bully. This is a transparent humiliation play.

    Midwit “smart girl” who doesn’t understand the scientific method detected. Ping!

    Rosie reminds me of the gun store commando who brags about his 400 yard shot on a running antelope out in Wyoming — but who can’t quite ever get around to taking his gear out to the local rifle range and demonstrating an actual shot on a fixed target at a closer distance. Go figure.

    Her hostile and rage-filled response simply confirms what Twinkie suggested.

    Plus it is always enlightening to see Christians interacting with each other as Christ commanded them to.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @anon


    Midwit “smart girl” who doesn’t understand the scientific method detected.
     
    The baffling thing about this is that Rosie spent an entire lengthy thread asserting that a college major in philosophy is better for the job market than a STEM education (and berated me for my alleged ignorance about the rigors of “Anglo-American philosophy”), but then seemed entirely unfamiliar with one of the giants in 20th century philosophy or his enormously influential philosophical formulation about nature of knowledge. It appears she was rather badly exposed of her ignorance and erupted in rage in response to the embarrassment.

    I’d have been far more ashamed about the lack of basic numeracy if I were her (e.g. she didn’t understand that the median was less influenced by extremes as the mean was and that you could ascertain certain things about distribution by comparing the two).

  124. @Jtgw
    Regarding vaccines, the rationale for having as many as possible take it is that some minority will probably be unable to take it for medical reasons and they will be vulnerable to the virus unless a sufficient majority of the rest of the population takes it. Honestly makes sense to me. I’d support political secession for those who refuse the vaccine for no good reason, on understanding that we can keep them out of our country.

    I’m wondering about your explanation for the DNCs scuttling of Bernies campaign. I agree the corporate elite probably do not want those expensive programs just yet (though Amazon supports $15 as it will eliminate poorer competitors). But I think enough voters also reject those policies that the DNC could plausibly think Bernie would be unelectable. Are you saying if they wanted to the plutocracy could engineer the support they needed for any policy?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    I think enough voters also reject those policies that the DNC could plausibly think Bernie would be unelectable. Are you saying if they wanted to the plutocracy could engineer the support they needed for any policy?

    They get their bailouts, first dibs on new money, and their wars, so yes, pretty close.

  125. @Rosie
    @Magic Dirt Resident


    This is absolutely idiotic. There is not one single piece of evidence that shows the “donor plutocracy” favoring a balanced budget and responsible government spending. It’s no wonder leftwing populism is dead in the water when its proponents don’t even know basic terminology.
     
    I hate semantic arg, but I'm more than happy to concede AE's much more graciously expressed point that the donor class wants "crony capitalism" rather than "fiscal conservatism."

    My main point was what they do NOT want: corporations being made to pay their share.

    Replies: @Mr. XYZ, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    I knew what you meant, and I suspect most others did as well. The corptocracy wants privatized profits and socialized costs.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Audacious Epigone

    I must disagree. I’m the one who critiqued the corporatists and wrote that that’s what most Americans object. Rosie is on record as resenting the neighbor with a bigger house. Most Americans are much more fair-minded than she is and don’t begrudge the moderately more affluent dentist or master plumber. To repeat, they just want the large scale corporatist theft of public money to stop.

  126. @joe2.5
    Not all RoatanBill questions are "reasonable".

    1. "If you take the vaccine and I don’t, you are supposedly protected and I’m not. Where is your harm if I don’t take the vaccine?

    Typical deep, crass ignorance. The real big bump in median human life expectancy was due to the widespread vaccinations following Pasteur's work (and the preceding, hugely successful experiment by Jenner on smallpox.) It worked not by protecting the single vaccinated subjects, but protecting entire societies thanks to general immunization, which decreased the contagion possibilities. Not an exact analogy but will do: if you fireproofed most of the trees in a forest -- a fire started in one place would have nowhere to jump to, whereas with optional (and loose) fireproofing the whole forest will burn. It takes more than a couple minutes of newspaper reading to understand the basics of epidemiology at all.

    2. "Why are the vaccine takers so eager to force everyone to be vaccinated if the vaccine they accepted is protecting them?"
    Because... look above. The protection is slight to non-existent if the proportion of vaccinated members of the group remains under a critical mass.

    That said, to 3. "Where is informed consent in the vaccine push for everyone to get vaccinated?", which is a reasonable question, my not less reasonable answer is "I didn't see you go to jail or get hanged for protesting laws about mobilization, war and the draft. Before you agree that anyone be sent to die in some war, or his house eminent-domained, etc., you should agree to compulsory vaccination (provided it is reasonably safe and proven effective.)

    But here's the rub, none of "reasonably safe and proven effective" applies to the current state of Coronavirus vaccines. Effective... we don't know really yet. Safe, the US vaccines are definitely not to be declared so at this stage and we'll have to wait a very long time to know if the newfangled mRNA vaccines are safe for humans in the long term (of course they are a big success already for the aim they were designed for, i.e. to bring oodles of money to the industry, and raise very high the prices for what is essentially dirt cheap.) The Russian vaccine, by the way, doesn't have that drawback, as it relies on tried and true "old-fashioned" vaccine production methods. But of course it will be prohibited in the US and its colonies.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Re: 1., is there a large population for which smallpox poses little to no threat, though? For healthy non-geriatrics, Covid isn’t as bad as the flu, for many not even as bad as a cold. Won’t they develop immunity without vaccination?

  127. @iffen
    @Rosie

    You argue like a Jew. That’s no surprise. Spiritually, you are one.

    Gasp! You are not supposed to say things like that. Oh, wait, this is TUR.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    TUR sounds like “turd”. UR, though, UR is legendary! This is UR, not TUR.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Audacious Epigone

    A rose by any other ...

  128. @Audacious Epigone
    @Rosie

    I knew what you meant, and I suspect most others did as well. The corptocracy wants privatized profits and socialized costs.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I must disagree. I’m the one who critiqued the corporatists and wrote that that’s what most Americans object. Rosie is on record as resenting the neighbor with a bigger house. Most Americans are much more fair-minded than she is and don’t begrudge the moderately more affluent dentist or master plumber. To repeat, they just want the large scale corporatist theft of public money to stop.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  129. @anon
    @Rosie

    Twinkie asks

    Did you not read Popper?

    Rosie posie:

    Fuck off, Twinkles. You’re an arrogant piece of shit and a bully. This is a transparent humiliation play.


    Midwit "smart girl" who doesn't understand the scientific method detected. Ping!

    Rosie reminds me of the gun store commando who brags about his 400 yard shot on a running antelope out in Wyoming -- but who can't quite ever get around to taking his gear out to the local rifle range and demonstrating an actual shot on a fixed target at a closer distance. Go figure.

    Her hostile and rage-filled response simply confirms what Twinkie suggested.

    Plus it is always enlightening to see Christians interacting with each other as Christ commanded them to.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Midwit “smart girl” who doesn’t understand the scientific method detected.

    The baffling thing about this is that Rosie spent an entire lengthy thread asserting that a college major in philosophy is better for the job market than a STEM education (and berated me for my alleged ignorance about the rigors of “Anglo-American philosophy”), but then seemed entirely unfamiliar with one of the giants in 20th century philosophy or his enormously influential philosophical formulation about nature of knowledge. It appears she was rather badly exposed of her ignorance and erupted in rage in response to the embarrassment.

    I’d have been far more ashamed about the lack of basic numeracy if I were her (e.g. she didn’t understand that the median was less influenced by extremes as the mean was and that you could ascertain certain things about distribution by comparing the two).

  130. @Audacious Epigone
    @iffen

    TUR sounds like "turd". UR, though, UR is legendary! This is UR, not TUR.

    Replies: @iffen

    A rose by any other …

  131. @Dan
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "One must do better than to argue that Nazis were unpopular, not least because they weren’t."

    Well they are the most unpopular thing in the world in 2020. Which is why trying to use them boost a political movement is like trying to use a boulder as a floatie in the swimming pool. Surely it must be role-play and not genuine, because nobody would actually try to win like that. It is really interesting that this crew can remain perpetually in 1937, as if nobody knows yet how things will out.

    AE, how common are these LARPers? Because you seem to have three commenting all at the same time, unless there are two sock puppets.

    Replies: @fnn, @Audacious Epigone

    Good question on the broad pro/anti Nazi split. It’s probably something like 10% pro/90% anti if we had to be dichotomous about it. These are three separate commenters though.

  132. @Talha
    Well...I really don't know what to say. Wall Street was already degenerate, but...well, here you go:
    "Nasdaq Inc. aims to require listed companies to include women and people of diverse racial identities or sexual orientation on their boards, a move that could prompt change at hundreds of companies.

    The exchange operator filed a proposal with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require listed companies to have at least one woman on their boards, in addition to a director who is a minority or one who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. "
    https://twitter.com/IsmailRoyer/status/1333849708079566849


    Peace.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Audacious Epigone

    Perfect illustration of weaponized Wokeism. You’re not getting job security, better wages, UBI, Medicare-for-all or anything else you economic leftists want, but we’ll make this colored lesbian 1%er chairman of the board instead of this white male 1%er who will have to settle for COO instead. And have you seen our rainbow colored business logo? You’re welcome!

    • Agree: Talha, Twinkie
  133. @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox


    On top of that, it is lost on the white nationalist types who defend him that Hitler was not one of them. He was a German ultra-nationalist with German ultra-nationalist concerns at the time: it was Russians and Poles who were the looming Untermenschen in the Nazi regime’s policies, not the Chinese or the Muslims. Had he had his way, he would have killed more whites in history while retaining positive relationships with Imperial Japan and the Islamic World.
     
    You are right about this, though it isn't actually quite lost on the white nationalist types.

    I can think of no brief way to explain this and no one has asked me for an essay, but let me loosely say that white nationalists [a] respect Hitler as much for what white nationalists think he stood against as for what they think he stood for, [b] lift Hitler out of his specific historical context to regard his spirit or legacy in a broader sense, [c] feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies.

    White nationalists notice that references to Hitler cause whites born before about 1975 to overreact. The overreaction brings into view a host of awkward questions for which older whites lack useful answers. Older whites are not required to agree with the lads, but they should recognize: the cult of Hitler is partly bait.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies

    His enemies were the grandfathers of the people you’re directing this appeal to.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Audacious Epigone


    His enemies were the grandfathers of the people you’re directing this appeal to.
     
    Yup, like my wife’s grandfather of whom I was enormously fond - a decorated WWII ETO veteran, retired senior VP of a media company (started as a newspaper carrier) who fixed his own roof into his ‘80s, an elder of his community and church who was very active in charity, and who was a very kind and loving father and much beloved grandfather and patriarch - as perfect a Christian gentleman as they come.

    Even though he didn’t harbor hatred toward ordinary Germans, he abhorred the Nazis and it was pretty plain from his recollections how the Waffen-SS and Nazi Beamten who fell into his (and that of his unit) hands fared.
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Audacious Epigone


    feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies

    His enemies were the grandfathers of the people you’re directing this appeal to.
     

    My own grandfather, too, is included, decorated for valor. I used to beg the man to tell me yet another war story. He died many years ago. I miss him.

    Were I addressing the grandfathers, I would not say what I said, but maybe the grandsons also are too close.

    The insult was inadvertent. Pardon.

    No one owes me an audience when my tale insults them personally. Unfortunately, this observation checkmates me. Perhaps 75 years is simply too soon to treat the war candidly as an historical event.

    But if I and others like me fall silent, I know well the propaganda that will fill the silence: Schindler's List, Anne Frank, and all the rest. I don't like it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  134. @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies

    His enemies were the grandfathers of the people you're directing this appeal to.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund

    His enemies were the grandfathers of the people you’re directing this appeal to.

    Yup, like my wife’s grandfather of whom I was enormously fond – a decorated WWII ETO veteran, retired senior VP of a media company (started as a newspaper carrier) who fixed his own roof into his ‘80s, an elder of his community and church who was very active in charity, and who was a very kind and loving father and much beloved grandfather and patriarch – as perfect a Christian gentleman as they come.

    Even though he didn’t harbor hatred toward ordinary Germans, he abhorred the Nazis and it was pretty plain from his recollections how the Waffen-SS and Nazi Beamten who fell into his (and that of his unit) hands fared.

  135. @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies

    His enemies were the grandfathers of the people you're directing this appeal to.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund

    feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies

    His enemies were the grandfathers of the people you’re directing this appeal to.

    My own grandfather, too, is included, decorated for valor. I used to beg the man to tell me yet another war story. He died many years ago. I miss him.

    Were I addressing the grandfathers, I would not say what I said, but maybe the grandsons also are too close.

    The insult was inadvertent. Pardon.

    No one owes me an audience when my tale insults them personally. Unfortunately, this observation checkmates me. Perhaps 75 years is simply too soon to treat the war candidly as an historical event.

    But if I and others like me fall silent, I know well the propaganda that will fill the silence: Schindler’s List, Anne Frank, and all the rest. I don’t like it.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I already regret my last comment, which took the form of, “I'm sorry and, by the way, aren't I the real victim here?”

    The truth is, I do not know how to respond. I may need to think on it for a while.

    I heard what you said, if that is any consolation.

    Thanks for the colloquy.

  136. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Audacious Epigone


    feel very strongly that Hitler had the right enemies

    His enemies were the grandfathers of the people you’re directing this appeal to.
     

    My own grandfather, too, is included, decorated for valor. I used to beg the man to tell me yet another war story. He died many years ago. I miss him.

    Were I addressing the grandfathers, I would not say what I said, but maybe the grandsons also are too close.

    The insult was inadvertent. Pardon.

    No one owes me an audience when my tale insults them personally. Unfortunately, this observation checkmates me. Perhaps 75 years is simply too soon to treat the war candidly as an historical event.

    But if I and others like me fall silent, I know well the propaganda that will fill the silence: Schindler's List, Anne Frank, and all the rest. I don't like it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I already regret my last comment, which took the form of, “I’m sorry and, by the way, aren’t I the real victim here?”

    The truth is, I do not know how to respond. I may need to think on it for a while.

    I heard what you said, if that is any consolation.

    Thanks for the colloquy.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS