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
Reverend Killjoy
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

Jay Fink on the soul-sucking humorlessness of the Woke:

It’s some combination of liberalism and America’s cultural puritanism that makes American liberals so unpleasant. At it’s core I see Wokeness as a killjoy. This is a fairly recent phenomenon too. Liberals from 30+ years ago were a more fun group than they are today.

When the Woke do laugh, it is invariably one of disdain and snark rather than of joy and mirth. Forcing the latter from the range of acceptable behaviors is inhumane. Hopefully it is also inhuman, such that in short order humanity rejects the rejection of one of life’s greatest pleasures.

Moving to other core human emotions, dfordoom on the motivational power of fear:

The best way to make the elites behave better is to make them feel fear. From the end of the 19th century to around the early 1960s our elites were terrified there’d be a socialist revolution and that they’d be lined up against a wall and shot. As a result they made an effort to ameliorate the sufferings of the working class.

There’s nothing like fear to give the elites a sense of social responsibility.

The elites no longer feel that fear because in the 1960s the Economic Left (which was a genuine threat to the elites) was replaced by the New Left (which was elite-friendly and elite-funded and controlled).

If a Democrat consolidation–court-packing, DC and Puerto Rican statehood, citizenship for illegal aliens–occurs between now and the 2022 mid-terms such that the GOP is permanently locked out of national electoral contention, will it lead to the progressive left breaking off from the corporatist neo-liberal establishment that clearly holds the whip hand in the Democrat party today? Twenty years down the road it seems as plausible that there is progressive DSA party to compete with a corporatist, centrist Democrat party as there is the current Republican party competing with it.

Mark G. doesn’t think the GOP can out-promise the Democrat party:

If the Republicans try to win elections by offering more free stuff than the Democrats it is not going to work because the Democrats can always outbid them. Trump may get by Sleepy Joe and Hindu Hillary but there are just too many people now who want the government to give them things. I predict an expanding Democrat run government in the future. The Democrats free health care plan will be especially unworkable. They also support open borders immigration and free health care and free everything else will act as a magnet pulling in poor people from around the world and hasten the collapse.

Respectfully disagree with the first sentence–at least theoretically, though he’s almost certainly correct in practice–and the reason is right under Mark’s nose! Democrats promise X to everyone living in the US or able to find a way here; Republicans respond by promising X+ exclusively to American citizens. That’s the electorally effective populist America First message in a nutshell right there–and the best form of ‘minority outreach’ the party can reasonably hope to achieve.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: COTW 
Hide 65 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. … a magnet pulling in poor people from around the world…

    That’s been the US for its entire history, even before. The only way to control that is to control immigration, as used to be done. This boat will fill up with people and sink down to the level of every other sorry scow on Earth.

    • Agree: bruce county, AKAHorace
  2. It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted. Perhaps they can re-invent themselves, perhaps not. It’s difficult to imagine full-bore socialists not creating a viable party soon, either by completely taking over the Dens, or by splitting off from them. It remains to be seen whether populists/nationalists will find a home in the future party system. I hope that separatists will be a factor in the reorganization.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @MBlanc46


    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted.
     
    If you look at Anglosphere countries which have had very high non-white immigration the parties of the Right are doing just fine. In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections and look like they're about to make that four out of six. In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.

    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful.

    The parties of the Left are not likely to start splitting. They're already struggling so that's the last thing they're likely to do in countries with rigid two-party systems such as the US.

    Any major political re-alignment is probably decades away. If it happens at all.

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri, @Neuday, @Christopher Porritt, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    , @Nodwink
    @MBlanc46

    FYI

    https://peoplesparty.org/the-peoples-convention/

  3. The GOP is incapable of change. Many in the GOP want open borders for cheap labor. They have much more loyalty to big corporations and will continue to pursue hyper Zionist policies.

  4. This Failed State cannot continue. Its a House of Cards.

    The debts skyrocket. The US Dollar gets abandoned as WRC.

    Once the finances crumble, this failed state will simply dissolve.

    It will devolve into violence in the cities. The suburbs will have to fight.

    Civil War II has already begun. Its just not obvious yet.

    Know this: Western Civilization only comes in White.

    China cares not for the dark races. Its expanding for land and resources.

    With the West declining, China will fill the vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum.

    • Agree: Neuday, Jus' Sayin'...
    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @Dr. Doom

    Another paranoid yellow peril tourette's comment.


    China cannot even keep its own livestock maintained, check out US pig exports to China.



    China can't afford to fill the US role and China is stagnating anyway. Like the USA (ignoring the botched COVID-19 shutdowns -- botched by Republisharts)

  5. @MBlanc46
    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted. Perhaps they can re-invent themselves, perhaps not. It’s difficult to imagine full-bore socialists not creating a viable party soon, either by completely taking over the Dens, or by splitting off from them. It remains to be seen whether populists/nationalists will find a home in the future party system. I hope that separatists will be a factor in the reorganization.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Nodwink

    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted.

    If you look at Anglosphere countries which have had very high non-white immigration the parties of the Right are doing just fine. In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections and look like they’re about to make that four out of six. In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.

    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful.

    The parties of the Left are not likely to start splitting. They’re already struggling so that’s the last thing they’re likely to do in countries with rigid two-party systems such as the US.

    Any major political re-alignment is probably decades away. If it happens at all.

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @dfordoom


    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

     

    But what does it matter if the Republican party or any "right-wing" party survive? Who cares?? High immigration does something worse, changes the demographics and the culture of a country. I don't care about politicians, of course they will find a way to survive. I care about countries and their historical ethnic majorities surviving.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Almost Missouri
    @dfordoom


    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful. ... In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections
     
    That ain't success. That's hanging on to power by your fingernails. The Democrats won five out of five presidential election 1932-1946 by much larger margins. The Democrats held the House of Representatives for a 40-year unbroken streak 1955-1995 and but for four anomalous years, a 62-year streak 1933-1995. That's "very successful".

    The UK's Conservative [sic] Party favors mass immigration, multiculturalism, LGTPedo crap, anti-white legislation and globalism. The more genuinely conservative rightwing parties are effectively illegal and banned. So, not successful.

    You'll know Australian politics better than I, but in any case I wasn't under the impression that Australia "had very high non-white immigration", at least not compared to the US and UK.

    And this doesn't even consider the fact that the permanent bureaucracies are overwhelmingly Leftist, so only the policies of Leftwing governments get persistently implemented.

    Nor does it consider that while every election the Left goes even further Left, the Right goes further Left too, so today's "victory" for the "Right" is actually just a victory for yesterday's Left.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Neuday
    @dfordoom


    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.
     
    Ever hear of this place called "Mexifornia"? It's a one-party state.

    Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink

    , @Christopher Porritt
    @dfordoom

    " In countries like Britain .... the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically" ???
    The Conservative party in Britain is in no way "conservative" - since 2010 they have transformed into liberals. Conservative Prime Minister Cameron introduced gay marriage. A large proportion of Conservative MP's are liberal on social issues (Abortion, Capital Punishment, Transgenderisms).With the Coronavirus pandemic Prime Minister Johnson has transformed into a tinpot dictator. Fiscal conservativism has been abandoned and the budget deficit is rocketing skywards. There is still a reasonably large constituency of social and fiscal minded conservatives but all the major political parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists) ignore them.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @dfordoom

    No. What happened was whites started moving to conservative parties as brown, black and yellow immigrants arrived and took their place in liberal parties. Thus a balance was maintained, maybe even a slight edge to conservative parties.

    But we're running out of whites to move right, and there's an endless supply of non-white immigrants to add to the liberal parties. The tipping point for the United States nationally will come over the next decade, and we'll be on our way to looking politically like California.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @dfordoom


    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.
     
    Except that the goal of right wing politics isn't to have an empty suit on "our team" instituting the next phase of globalism, it's to preserve our people and prosperity by instituting right-wing policies, which never, ever happens. Genuine right wing parties are extinct in the anglosphere and only starting to make a comeback in continental Europe.

    In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.
     
    Why not just pretend that AOC is actually right wing and declare total right wing dominance of all politics everywhere? This is the most clueless definition shell game nonsense I've ever heard, if you think right wing politics is dominant in Britain of all places you're clueless. You're only projecting the 'paranoia' of cuckservatives losing power on the 'right wing', the actual fear was that all efforts toward nationalism, protectionism, and natalism would be gravely damaged by immigration, and that's been proven completely correct; you'd be stupid to argue otherwise.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

  6. The GOP is incapable of change. Many in the GOP want open borders for cheap labor.

    Untrue. Then GOP has changed massively in the last 4 years. Two destructive constituencies have been moved to the SJW Globalist DNC.

    -1- The MegaCorporations went totally TDS when Trump advocated fair trade and blue-collar jobs with decent pay for U.S. Citizens. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the voice of MegsCorps, is now supporting SJW Globalist DNC candidates. (1)

    Every former administration took massive payments from the CoC and allowed the Chamber to write trade agreements language for decades. The CoC business model was to take payments from Wall Street multinationals and then write the agreements to their benefit.

    President Trump knew about the CoC business model; that’s why he never allowed them a seat at the ‘America First’ table. … the U.S. Chamber dropped their pretense and admitted they were now supporting democrats because the CoC effort can only succeed by destroying Main St.

    The CoC was never a “right wing organization”, nor was it a “republican organization”; it was always a multinational globalist organization structured to support Wall Street and destroy Main Street. It was always a feature, not a flaw…. but no-one would believe it.

    -2- The NeoConDemocrat #NeverTrumpers have been mostly quashed. Bill Kristol, George Will, and John Bolton have been driven out of the GOP. Trump is the first President in recent history that has not started a new foreign war.

    Sociopath Khameni’s actions have been desperate & provocative. Trump has refused to escalate in response Iran’s desperate attempts to start a war. His strategy to Contain Iranian aggression without a War is working. Iran’s currency has plunged by ~60% this year, substantially reducing the violent Ayatollah’s ability to fund international terrorism.

    Trump has de-escalated the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and there will be less than 2,500 by Christmas. Barack Hussein’s Surge peak was ~55,000. That is a reduction of over 95%.

    He also has made it clear that the U.S. will not be tricked into supporting Ergonan’s advances in Syria. Moving the U.S. Troops to “protect oil” was a ludicrous cover story. Trump extracted U.S. Troops from a logistically awful kill-sack and simultaneously created a large direct contact front between Putin/Assad and Erdogan.
    ____

    Trump has successfully started a process that is changing the GOP. Look at Lindsey Graham’s radical retrenchment. Trump’s 2nd term will continue to chip away at establishment cronies in the GOP and the Deep State.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/08/28/the-bloom-is-off-the-ruse-tom-donohue-and-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-announce-support-for-far-left-democrats-in-2020/

    • Thanks: Mark G.
  7. @dfordoom
    @MBlanc46


    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted.
     
    If you look at Anglosphere countries which have had very high non-white immigration the parties of the Right are doing just fine. In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections and look like they're about to make that four out of six. In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.

    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful.

    The parties of the Left are not likely to start splitting. They're already struggling so that's the last thing they're likely to do in countries with rigid two-party systems such as the US.

    Any major political re-alignment is probably decades away. If it happens at all.

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri, @Neuday, @Christopher Porritt, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    But what does it matter if the Republican party or any “right-wing” party survive? Who cares?? High immigration does something worse, changes the demographics and the culture of a country. I don’t care about politicians, of course they will find a way to survive. I care about countries and their historical ethnic majorities surviving.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    But what does it matter if the Republican party or any “right-wing” party survive?
     
    It doesn't matter at all to me. I'd love to see them destroyed. The point I was making is that so far there's no real evidence that immigration has damaged mainstream "right-wing" parties. They're doing extremely well in electoral terms, which means they have no incentive to change and they have no incentive to adopt "populism" - I expect that for the foreseeable future they will continue to be the same scum that they are now.
  8. @dfordoom
    @MBlanc46


    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted.
     
    If you look at Anglosphere countries which have had very high non-white immigration the parties of the Right are doing just fine. In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections and look like they're about to make that four out of six. In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.

    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful.

    The parties of the Left are not likely to start splitting. They're already struggling so that's the last thing they're likely to do in countries with rigid two-party systems such as the US.

    Any major political re-alignment is probably decades away. If it happens at all.

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri, @Neuday, @Christopher Porritt, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful. … In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections

    That ain’t success. That’s hanging on to power by your fingernails. The Democrats won five out of five presidential election 1932-1946 by much larger margins. The Democrats held the House of Representatives for a 40-year unbroken streak 1955-1995 and but for four anomalous years, a 62-year streak 1933-1995. That’s “very successful”.

    The UK’s Conservative [sic] Party favors mass immigration, multiculturalism, LGTPedo crap, anti-white legislation and globalism. The more genuinely conservative rightwing parties are effectively illegal and banned. So, not successful.

    You’ll know Australian politics better than I, but in any case I wasn’t under the impression that Australia “had very high non-white immigration”, at least not compared to the US and UK.

    And this doesn’t even consider the fact that the permanent bureaucracies are overwhelmingly Leftist, so only the policies of Leftwing governments get persistently implemented.

    Nor does it consider that while every election the Left goes even further Left, the Right goes further Left too, so today’s “victory” for the “Right” is actually just a victory for yesterday’s Left.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Almost Missouri


    That ain’t success. That’s hanging on to power by your fingernails.
     
    As far as political parties are concerned, winning is winning. At the moment the "right-wing" parties are still winning so they're not going to change.

    The UK’s Conservative [sic] Party favors mass immigration, multiculturalism, LGTPedo crap, anti-white legislation and globalism.
     
    True. They're scum. But my point was that they are winning.

    The more genuinely conservative rightwing parties are effectively illegal and banned. So, not successful.
     
    The truth, as depressing as it might be for many commenters here, is that such alternative parties on the Right have attracted very little electoral support. When people are given the chance to vote for such parties (such as One Nation in Australia or various far right parties in Britain) they do not do so.

    But the points I was making related to the electoral success of the establishment mainstream parties of the Right (which I despise as much as you do). Those parties are doing extremely well when it comes to winning elections. There was an expectation in Britain that the huge surge in immigration would make the Conservative Party unelectable. In fact the Conservatives have now won four successive elections. The theory that immigration would give Labour permanent government has so far turned out to be totally incorrect.

    Nor does it consider that while every election the Left goes even further Left, the Right goes further Left too, so today’s “victory” for the “Right” is actually just a victory for yesterday’s Left.
     
    Only if you define politics purely in terms of social/cultural policies. In terms of economic policies both sides are moving further Right. Of course I agree that social/cultural policies are very very important.

    What has changed in politics since the 1960s is that the mainstream parties of both the Left and the Right have embraced right-wing economic policies and social liberalism.

    What's really depressing is that this has been extremely successful for the mainstream parties of the Right.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  9. While dfordoom is completely correct in your cited comment,
    he/she forgot to extend the line of thought to the non-elites:

    Somewhere between late 1970’s and early 90’s the majority of working class people decided they also see no reason to be fearful anymore, for example that immoral behavior would lead to serious negative reverberations for them, down the road.
    And as today’s problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues, that had an even bigger impact on the direction of our country (and the whole West.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mikael_


    Somewhere between late 1970’s and early 90’s the majority of working class people decided they also see no reason to be fearful anymore, for example that immoral behavior would lead to serious negative reverberations for them, down the road.
     
    I'm not sure that the majority of working class people decided any such thing. It depends of course on what exactly you mean by working class, and what exactly you mean by immoral behaviour.

    And as today’s problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues
     
    An interesting assertion but very dubious. If "immoral behaviour" no longer has consequences that is certainly not the result of decisions made by ordinary working class people. It wasn't working class people who made the decisions about how the police and the courts would deal with crimes such as drug offences, or made the decisions to introduce no-fault divorce and to legalise abortion or to legalise homosexuality or to remove the stigma of illegitimacy or to remove the stigma attached to pre-marital sex or any of the other decisions that have changed society so radically.

    Those were all top-down decisions.

    Replies: @Mikael_

  10. @MBlanc46
    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted. Perhaps they can re-invent themselves, perhaps not. It’s difficult to imagine full-bore socialists not creating a viable party soon, either by completely taking over the Dens, or by splitting off from them. It remains to be seen whether populists/nationalists will find a home in the future party system. I hope that separatists will be a factor in the reorganization.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Nodwink

  11. The elites no longer feel that fear because in the 1960s the Economic Left (which was a genuine threat to the elites) was replaced by the New Left (which was elite-friendly and elite-funded and controlled).

    Oh, they still feel fear, which is why they’re pushing the pedal to the metal on their COVID “crisis” response. Lock the people down into tiny bubbles that are ineffective for resistance, tear apart the social fabric that would support any resistance (Thou shalt have no God who comes before Goverment), and make them afraid of not just the virus but also the organised brownshirts known as #BLM.

    I heard talk in a few countries that this year’s Christmas Markets might be cancelled: I would suggest someone start calling them Black Lives Matter markets. That might sound a bit too close to the history, but since that’s been memory-holed, why not give it a go?

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
  12. Despite all the propaganda about the horrors of communism, the existence of the Soviet Union at least offered an alternative model of society which America’s elites had to take into consideration in their treatment of our working class (and overwhelming white) population at the time. Apart from white nationalism, I don’t any other model on the scene today which worries our elites enough to improve the lives of white working Americans.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @advancedatheist

    Loss of an enemy is often more devastating than loss of a friend. In 1991, theUSA was presented with a unipolar moment. We could have had our "peace dividend" and reduced the military that we had kept in place to fight a two-front WW2. Instead, in 1990, April Glaspie induced an invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, and we got to spend the next 30 years with troops on the ground in various Muslim countries.

    Trump in 2015 asked the greatest question: we blew $4trlnin Iraq. How much better off would we have been if we had spent that money HERE, on infrastructure? Or, not fighting at all to preserve strength against the Soviets, instead of pissing off Muslims around the world.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    , @Lowe
    @advancedatheist

    Being afraid of the Soviet Union was a matter of being afraid of a nation with a large army of white men.

    The demographic vanishing act of whites means there is nothing to fear for the powerful. There will be no civil war, no revolution, because there is nobody to fight it.

    , @dfordoom
    @advancedatheist


    Despite all the propaganda about the horrors of communism, the existence of the Soviet Union at least offered an alternative model of society which America’s elites had to take into consideration in their treatment of our working class (and overwhelming white) population at the time. Apart from white nationalism, I don’t any other model on the scene today which worries our elites enough to improve the lives of white working Americans.
     
    I agree completely. It's always a healthier situation when there are competing systems. That way the elites cannot tell us that we have to put up with the present system because there are no alternatives.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike

  13. … such that the GOP is permanently locked out of national electoral contention …

    After a decade or two, once Democratic rule has sloughed off a sufficient number of disaffected voters, will the GOP not just realign and start winning again?

    I do not care whether the GOP wins, for the GOP is unfriendly to anyone that believes that white people have interests; but a sloughing followed by a realignment is how our two-party system has worked in the past as far as I know. Only whites even like blacks (though I don’t).

    It has been argued that ethnic factors make it different this time, but how long can Asians and Hispanics happily cohabit the party of U.S. blacks?

    I don’t see it.

  14. @advancedatheist
    Despite all the propaganda about the horrors of communism, the existence of the Soviet Union at least offered an alternative model of society which America's elites had to take into consideration in their treatment of our working class (and overwhelming white) population at the time. Apart from white nationalism, I don't any other model on the scene today which worries our elites enough to improve the lives of white working Americans.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Lowe, @dfordoom

    Loss of an enemy is often more devastating than loss of a friend. In 1991, theUSA was presented with a unipolar moment. We could have had our “peace dividend” and reduced the military that we had kept in place to fight a two-front WW2. Instead, in 1990, April Glaspie induced an invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, and we got to spend the next 30 years with troops on the ground in various Muslim countries.

    Trump in 2015 asked the greatest question: we blew $4trlnin Iraq. How much better off would we have been if we had spent that money HERE, on infrastructure? Or, not fighting at all to preserve strength against the Soviets, instead of pissing off Muslims around the world.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @TomSchmidt

    It just ushered in a certain triumphalist American arrogance, which in my view set up the situation for 9/11 because Americans believed nobody could touch them. They could have gone for a peace dividend, but instead it was seen as a pretext to enlarge NATO.

  15. @Dr. Doom
    This Failed State cannot continue. Its a House of Cards.

    The debts skyrocket. The US Dollar gets abandoned as WRC.

    Once the finances crumble, this failed state will simply dissolve.

    It will devolve into violence in the cities. The suburbs will have to fight.

    Civil War II has already begun. Its just not obvious yet.

    Know this: Western Civilization only comes in White.

    China cares not for the dark races. Its expanding for land and resources.

    With the West declining, China will fill the vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood

    Another paranoid yellow peril tourette’s comment.

    China cannot even keep its own livestock maintained, check out US pig exports to China.

    China can’t afford to fill the US role and China is stagnating anyway. Like the USA (ignoring the botched COVID-19 shutdowns — botched by Republisharts)

  16. @advancedatheist
    Despite all the propaganda about the horrors of communism, the existence of the Soviet Union at least offered an alternative model of society which America's elites had to take into consideration in their treatment of our working class (and overwhelming white) population at the time. Apart from white nationalism, I don't any other model on the scene today which worries our elites enough to improve the lives of white working Americans.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Lowe, @dfordoom

    Being afraid of the Soviet Union was a matter of being afraid of a nation with a large army of white men.

    The demographic vanishing act of whites means there is nothing to fear for the powerful. There will be no civil war, no revolution, because there is nobody to fight it.

  17. @TomSchmidt
    @advancedatheist

    Loss of an enemy is often more devastating than loss of a friend. In 1991, theUSA was presented with a unipolar moment. We could have had our "peace dividend" and reduced the military that we had kept in place to fight a two-front WW2. Instead, in 1990, April Glaspie induced an invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, and we got to spend the next 30 years with troops on the ground in various Muslim countries.

    Trump in 2015 asked the greatest question: we blew $4trlnin Iraq. How much better off would we have been if we had spent that money HERE, on infrastructure? Or, not fighting at all to preserve strength against the Soviets, instead of pissing off Muslims around the world.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    It just ushered in a certain triumphalist American arrogance, which in my view set up the situation for 9/11 because Americans believed nobody could touch them. They could have gone for a peace dividend, but instead it was seen as a pretext to enlarge NATO.

  18. I’m not sure that the rich in America were really ever really afraid of being put against the wall.

    There was never a general strike, was there? No attempted revolution. The super-rich commonly went slumming, and many wealthy were pretty integrated into the wider community before white flight started. I’d be more frightened today certainly, if I were super-rich. Because of the racial element of any possible revolution.

    • Replies: @Lowe
    @songbird

    There is a lot of historical evidence showing the elites were concerned about anarchism and communism. The Palmer Raids are the first item that comes to mind.

    The rich are not concerned about that today, and they're right not to be. Non-white people don't make effective armies, etc.

    Replies: @songbird

  19. @dfordoom
    @MBlanc46


    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted.
     
    If you look at Anglosphere countries which have had very high non-white immigration the parties of the Right are doing just fine. In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections and look like they're about to make that four out of six. In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.

    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful.

    The parties of the Left are not likely to start splitting. They're already struggling so that's the last thing they're likely to do in countries with rigid two-party systems such as the US.

    Any major political re-alignment is probably decades away. If it happens at all.

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri, @Neuday, @Christopher Porritt, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    Ever hear of this place called “Mexifornia”? It’s a one-party state.

    • Agree: Jus' Sayin'...
    • Replies: @anon
    @Neuday

    There are many things he's never heard of. Australian Boomers are just as clueless as American ones.

    , @Jay Fink
    @Neuday

    My friend: Trump is going to win California

    Me: Are you crazy he's going to lose California by over 20 points

    My Friend: No, everyone on my Facebook ftom California is voting for Trump

    Me: Well yeah like minded people tend to know each other. Let me ask you this do you have any Hispanic FB friends in California?

    My friend: No, they are all white so what.

    Me: (thinking but not telling him) This particular friend of mine has to have an IQ below 100.

  20. @Neuday
    @dfordoom


    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.
     
    Ever hear of this place called "Mexifornia"? It's a one-party state.

    Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink

    There are many things he’s never heard of. Australian Boomers are just as clueless as American ones.

  21. Mr Epigone says:

    Respectfully disagree with the first sentence–at least theoretically, though he’s almost certainly correct in practice–and the reason is right under Mark’s nose! Democrats promise X to everyone living in the US or able to find a way here; Republicans respond by promising X+ exclusively to American citizens. That’s the electorally effective populist America First message in a nutshell right there–and the best form of ‘minority outreach’ the party can reasonably hope to achieve.

    I say:

    US and THEM and we are US and they are THEM.

    I saw Them! star James Whitmore in a supermarket once and I said hello to him.

    Those baby boomer twerps who are good musicians and song tellers in the band Pink Floyd sang about US and THEM and the Globalizers ain’t making no distinction between US and THEM except for 5 acre zoning and exclusive schools and test examination entrance schools and gated compound communities and the like.

    The new political party called WHITE CORE AMERICA will certainly make a distinction between citizens and foreigners and I have decided that old stocker Americans — or part old stocker Americans — should get a hundred thousand dollar bounty for having blood ancestors who fought in the American Colonial Secessionary War from the British Empire. For each ancestor who fought against the British Empire you’ll get one hundred thousand dollars. I’ll get at least three hundred thousand dollars for my ancestors who fought in the American Colonial Secessionary War from the British Empire.

    Obama is Son of the American Revolution ready to go for at least a hundred thousand but Obama will not be eligible for the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) of ten thousand dollars a month from the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank. Obama does not have all blood ancestors born in the USA or colonial America before 1924.

    Obama don’t need no PCLP because he’s grilling burgers at his mansion on Martha’s Vineyard and his mansion in Swamp City Rome on the Potomac DC.

    Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) further explained:

    The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will grant each American citizen with all blood ancestry born in the USA before 1924 or colonial America ten thousand dollars a month — tax free. The privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank shall conjure up the cash and dole it out like water.

    The evil and treasonous Republican Party puts the interests of foreigners and foreign nations ahead of the interests of the American people and the American nation.

    The putrid and rancid Republican Party puts the interests of illegal alien invaders and the millstone client state of Israel ahead of the interests of the American people and the American nation.

    The rancid Wall Street Journal faction of the Republican Party and the Republican Party donors and the Republican Party politician whores all put the interests of foreigners and foreign nations ahead of the interests of the American people and the American nation.

    DO NOT VOTE FOR THE RANCID AND TREASONOUS REPUBLICAN PARTY

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING

  22. It’s some combination of liberalism and America’s cultural puritanism that makes American liberals so unpleasant. At it’s core I see Wokeness as a killjoy. This is a fairly recent phenomenon too. Liberals from 30+ years ago were a more fun group than they are today.

    Very true. I might get some disagreement from people in the comment section, but I believe this is a function of wokeness being (at least in part) a psychological surrogate for formal religion, which appears to have had a dramatic decline over the last few decades or so. Christianity has always had (among other things) two psychologically appealing elements: first, as a spiritual experience on the individual level, and second, as a moral framework on the collective level. Leftists who seem to think they can get along in life without the spiritual element have come to the realization that they can’t get along without the moral framework.

    The problem with wokeness is that it only has this collective element. The woke person is only as strong as all of the woke people standing around him. It was this aspect of religion that most alarmed the founding fathers, as they recognized (from history) the potential for corruption and conflict that existed within it, hence the establishment clause. Because of this, wokeness – at least in it’s current form – doesn’t have much capacity for personal self-scrutiny. It’s other-scrutiny that it focuses on.

  23. …as there is the current Republican party competing with it…

    The current establishment of the Republican Party is not competing with the current establishment of the Democrat Party. The establishments of both the Democrat and Republican Party represent exactly the same interests. On the other hand, the engaged bases of each party have interests that diverge radically from one another and from the common interests of their parties’ establishments. For at least two decades, and probably significantly longer, the USA’s party system has been on the verge of a breakdown and a major restructuring.

    The result will likely be a short-lived intermediate period with three major political parties: (1) a dominant populist party, composed of the middle class base of the current Republican Party and a large part of the White, Christian, native-born base of the Republican Party; (2) a large left wing party composed of the current Democrat Party establishment plus those elements of the current Democrat Party, which Steve Sailer characterizes as the “coalition of the fringes; and (3) a short-lived rump party composed of the current Republican Party’s establishment.

    The latter will be short lived because it will not appeal to any large voter base and its political impotence will soon cause the current fat cat supporters of the Republican Party establishment to withdraw all their financial support.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    I am already looking forward to the 2024 GOP primaries. Will there be any Presidential candidates that the establishment does not approve of? If so will Republican primary voters get behind those candidates like they did Trump?

    I am curious on how Mike Pence will do. On one hand Trump voters might like him because he was Trump's loyal VP. On the other hand some might realize that he is much more of a GOPe guy than a nationalist-populist.

  24. Mr Epigone says:

    Democrats promise X to everyone living in the US or able to find a way here; Republicans respond by promising X+ exclusively to American citizens. That’s the electorally effective populist America First message in a nutshell right there–and the best form of ‘minority outreach’ the party can reasonably hope to achieve.

    I say:

    Teddy Goldman Sachs Hubby Cruz puts the interests of foreigners and illegal alien invaders and the millstone client state of Israel ahead of the interests of the American people and the American nation.

    Teddy Cruz is a XENOPHILE TREASONITE POLITICIAN WHORE.

    Donors may be pushing Teddy Cruz for 2024, so I’ll be rhetorically hammering him.

    I wrote this about Teddy Cruz in August of 2020:

    Teddy Cruz pushes mass legal immigration and Teddy Cruz refuses to call for the immediate deportation of all illegal alien invaders and Teddy Cruz wants to flood more visa foreigners into the USA and Teddy Cruz wants to flood the USA with foreigners of every kind.

    Teddy Cruz is turning Texas into a Democrat Party state by means of mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Teddy Cruz is directly responsible for creating the conditions whereby non-citizens and foreigners are outvoting the White Core American ancestral core of the USA.

    Teddy Cruz is a cheap bastard who won’t support the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP).

    The Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will pay each American who has all blood ancestry born in colonial America or the USA before 1924 a cool ten thousand dollars a month. The US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank shall work together to conjure up the cash out of thin air, just like the ruling class is doing now.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/non-citizen-voting-primary-edition/#comment-4091807

  25. The lefties these days are definitely pro-level buzzkills, but so are the righties. None of you political junkies want anybody to have any fun. And God forbid anybody enjoys sport fucking.
    A pox on both your houses!

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Anonymous


    The lefties these days are definitely pro-level buzzkills, but so are the righties.
     
    To some extent that's true. Modern western society, especially the Anglosphere and even more especially the United States, has become hyper-moralistic. Hyper-moralistic about everything. Everybody wants to mind everybody else's business. Everybody wants to launch moral crusades.

    The Cultural Left has the power at the moment but if the Cultural Right had power they would be just as oppressive.

    I think it's a legacy of Protestantism. It's cultural Protestantism. Even atheists still conform to cultural Protestantism.

    Replies: @TelfoedJohn

  26. Listen to Aipac Chopra’s mirthless laugh in this tweet. It’s designed to distract from her emptiness. There’s nothing inside her except a few catchphrases and identity labels.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @TelfoedJohn

    She is the perfect tool of the neo-liberal establishment, a climber who will do whatever she is told to continue climbing, and anyone who criticizes her is racist/sexist/xenophobic(second-gen immigrant)/anti-Semitic(via marriage).

  27. @songbird
    I'm not sure that the rich in America were really ever really afraid of being put against the wall.

    There was never a general strike, was there? No attempted revolution. The super-rich commonly went slumming, and many wealthy were pretty integrated into the wider community before white flight started. I'd be more frightened today certainly, if I were super-rich. Because of the racial element of any possible revolution.

    Replies: @Lowe

    There is a lot of historical evidence showing the elites were concerned about anarchism and communism. The Palmer Raids are the first item that comes to mind.

    The rich are not concerned about that today, and they’re right not to be. Non-white people don’t make effective armies, etc.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Lowe

    Anarchists didn't have broad support. I think that is implicit in the wall analogy.

    Maybe, they were worried about that support crystallizing? Well, maybe. But I think they were more concerned with the direct consequences of terrorism. More boobytraps and bombs, than being seized by mobs.

  28. @Neuday
    @dfordoom


    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.
     
    Ever hear of this place called "Mexifornia"? It's a one-party state.

    Replies: @anon, @Jay Fink

    My friend: Trump is going to win California

    Me: Are you crazy he’s going to lose California by over 20 points

    My Friend: No, everyone on my Facebook ftom California is voting for Trump

    Me: Well yeah like minded people tend to know each other. Let me ask you this do you have any Hispanic FB friends in California?

    My friend: No, they are all white so what.

    Me: (thinking but not telling him) This particular friend of mine has to have an IQ below 100.

  29. @Jus' Sayin'...

    ...as there is the current Republican party competing with it...
     
    The current establishment of the Republican Party is not competing with the current establishment of the Democrat Party. The establishments of both the Democrat and Republican Party represent exactly the same interests. On the other hand, the engaged bases of each party have interests that diverge radically from one another and from the common interests of their parties' establishments. For at least two decades, and probably significantly longer, the USA's party system has been on the verge of a breakdown and a major restructuring.

    The result will likely be a short-lived intermediate period with three major political parties: (1) a dominant populist party, composed of the middle class base of the current Republican Party and a large part of the White, Christian, native-born base of the Republican Party; (2) a large left wing party composed of the current Democrat Party establishment plus those elements of the current Democrat Party, which Steve Sailer characterizes as the "coalition of the fringes; and (3) a short-lived rump party composed of the current Republican Party's establishment.

    The latter will be short lived because it will not appeal to any large voter base and its political impotence will soon cause the current fat cat supporters of the Republican Party establishment to withdraw all their financial support.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    I am already looking forward to the 2024 GOP primaries. Will there be any Presidential candidates that the establishment does not approve of? If so will Republican primary voters get behind those candidates like they did Trump?

    I am curious on how Mike Pence will do. On one hand Trump voters might like him because he was Trump’s loyal VP. On the other hand some might realize that he is much more of a GOPe guy than a nationalist-populist.

  30. @Lowe
    @songbird

    There is a lot of historical evidence showing the elites were concerned about anarchism and communism. The Palmer Raids are the first item that comes to mind.

    The rich are not concerned about that today, and they're right not to be. Non-white people don't make effective armies, etc.

    Replies: @songbird

    Anarchists didn’t have broad support. I think that is implicit in the wall analogy.

    Maybe, they were worried about that support crystallizing? Well, maybe. But I think they were more concerned with the direct consequences of terrorism. More boobytraps and bombs, than being seized by mobs.

  31. GOP can absolutely out promise democrats, this already happened, in 2020.

    Mainstream corporate dem plan for Coronavirus stimulus was like 500 in tax credits, some in the GOP were pushing for $2000 checks. The compromise was 1200. GOP (Mostly Trump) has been trying to push for more checks, and dems response is f— off.

    White libs are going to discover “muh fiscal responsibility” in the next few years as the woke austerity party starts to fully express itsself. Dems will 100% for sure make cuts to social security if they get the chance. You think they’re going to keep paying out to racist white boomers who literally can’t do anything IRL about it? Lmao

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Not My Economy

    Your remark has unloosed a minor thunderstroke in my imagination.


    GOP can absolutely out promise Democrats, this already happened, in 2020.
     
    Until 2000 or so, having been raised by a managerial-class father (a better man than I), I believed that 20th-century Democrats were motivated by destructive envy. I believed that industrial labor unions unjustly demanded increased wages for decreased production. I believed other such things.

    White libs are going to discover “muh fiscal responsibility” in the next few years as the woke austerity party starts to fully express itsself. Dems will 100% for sure make cuts to social security if they get the chance.
     
    Somewhere along the way, long after the 1970s were over, I somehow became a 1970s Democrat. And so, in a way, did much of the Republican Party.

    When did that happen? I don't remember flipping and yet, here I am—perhaps alongside you—standing on the opposite side.

    Replies: @Not My Economy

  32. @Dumbo
    @dfordoom


    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

     

    But what does it matter if the Republican party or any "right-wing" party survive? Who cares?? High immigration does something worse, changes the demographics and the culture of a country. I don't care about politicians, of course they will find a way to survive. I care about countries and their historical ethnic majorities surviving.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    But what does it matter if the Republican party or any “right-wing” party survive?

    It doesn’t matter at all to me. I’d love to see them destroyed. The point I was making is that so far there’s no real evidence that immigration has damaged mainstream “right-wing” parties. They’re doing extremely well in electoral terms, which means they have no incentive to change and they have no incentive to adopt “populism” – I expect that for the foreseeable future they will continue to be the same scum that they are now.

  33. @Almost Missouri
    @dfordoom


    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful. ... In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections
     
    That ain't success. That's hanging on to power by your fingernails. The Democrats won five out of five presidential election 1932-1946 by much larger margins. The Democrats held the House of Representatives for a 40-year unbroken streak 1955-1995 and but for four anomalous years, a 62-year streak 1933-1995. That's "very successful".

    The UK's Conservative [sic] Party favors mass immigration, multiculturalism, LGTPedo crap, anti-white legislation and globalism. The more genuinely conservative rightwing parties are effectively illegal and banned. So, not successful.

    You'll know Australian politics better than I, but in any case I wasn't under the impression that Australia "had very high non-white immigration", at least not compared to the US and UK.

    And this doesn't even consider the fact that the permanent bureaucracies are overwhelmingly Leftist, so only the policies of Leftwing governments get persistently implemented.

    Nor does it consider that while every election the Left goes even further Left, the Right goes further Left too, so today's "victory" for the "Right" is actually just a victory for yesterday's Left.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    That ain’t success. That’s hanging on to power by your fingernails.

    As far as political parties are concerned, winning is winning. At the moment the “right-wing” parties are still winning so they’re not going to change.

    The UK’s Conservative [sic] Party favors mass immigration, multiculturalism, LGTPedo crap, anti-white legislation and globalism.

    True. They’re scum. But my point was that they are winning.

    The more genuinely conservative rightwing parties are effectively illegal and banned. So, not successful.

    The truth, as depressing as it might be for many commenters here, is that such alternative parties on the Right have attracted very little electoral support. When people are given the chance to vote for such parties (such as One Nation in Australia or various far right parties in Britain) they do not do so.

    But the points I was making related to the electoral success of the establishment mainstream parties of the Right (which I despise as much as you do). Those parties are doing extremely well when it comes to winning elections. There was an expectation in Britain that the huge surge in immigration would make the Conservative Party unelectable. In fact the Conservatives have now won four successive elections. The theory that immigration would give Labour permanent government has so far turned out to be totally incorrect.

    Nor does it consider that while every election the Left goes even further Left, the Right goes further Left too, so today’s “victory” for the “Right” is actually just a victory for yesterday’s Left.

    Only if you define politics purely in terms of social/cultural policies. In terms of economic policies both sides are moving further Right. Of course I agree that social/cultural policies are very very important.

    What has changed in politics since the 1960s is that the mainstream parties of both the Left and the Right have embraced right-wing economic policies and social liberalism.

    What’s really depressing is that this has been extremely successful for the mainstream parties of the Right.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @dfordoom


    What has changed in politics since the 1960s is that the mainstream parties of both the Left and the Right have embraced right-wing economic policies and social liberalism.
     
    Right-wing economic policies have only become ascendant if you consider corrupt crony capitalism to be right-wing. Things like current Fed policies and periodic government bailouts of big business are not a product of free market capitalism.

    As a libertarian, I believe in class analysis with the two classes being those who gain wealth by selling goods or services out on a free market versus those who gain wealth either directly or indirectly from the government. The former class has been shrinking and it may now have reached the point there are not enough of them left to elect candidates.

    Socialists have their own form of class analysis. The failure of Communism became obvious in the eighties with both China and the Soviet Union moving away from it. This was a traumatic experience for the American left. They had to drop the Marxian class analysis and switched over to a socialism based on race and gender. They could have gone back to old time labor union socialism. The old labor union leaders didn't want to destroy capitalism. They just wanted better pay for the workers and were often socially conservative. What made this impossible was that by the eighties declining numbers of U.S. factory jobs had weakened and shrunk labor unions. The labor unions left were ones like the big public schoolteacher unions. Their members had gone through college and been brainwashed into believing the new race and gender based socialism, now called the "woke left".

    Since the old labor union dominated Democrat party has been replaced by the woke left and the old more libertarian Taft type of Republicanism has been replaced by the crony capitalist Republicans, what to do? I don't think there is a solution but if there is one it would have to be what A.E. suggested above, maintaining the viability of a two party system by having the Republican party advocate limiting the welfare state to natives. Steve Sailer has also suggested this and given it a name, "citizenism". The only other possibility I can think of is for the shrinking number of whites to form a coalition with one of the increasing minorities such as John Derbyshire's Ice People vs. Sun People, i.e. Asians and whites on one side and blacks and Hispanics on the other side.

  34. @Mikael_
    While dfordoom is completely correct in your cited comment,
    he/she forgot to extend the line of thought to the non-elites:

    Somewhere between late 1970's and early 90's the majority of working class people decided they also see no reason to be fearful anymore, for example that immoral behavior would lead to serious negative reverberations for them, down the road.
    And as today's problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues, that had an even bigger impact on the direction of our country (and the whole West.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Somewhere between late 1970’s and early 90’s the majority of working class people decided they also see no reason to be fearful anymore, for example that immoral behavior would lead to serious negative reverberations for them, down the road.

    I’m not sure that the majority of working class people decided any such thing. It depends of course on what exactly you mean by working class, and what exactly you mean by immoral behaviour.

    And as today’s problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues

    An interesting assertion but very dubious. If “immoral behaviour” no longer has consequences that is certainly not the result of decisions made by ordinary working class people. It wasn’t working class people who made the decisions about how the police and the courts would deal with crimes such as drug offences, or made the decisions to introduce no-fault divorce and to legalise abortion or to legalise homosexuality or to remove the stigma of illegitimacy or to remove the stigma attached to pre-marital sex or any of the other decisions that have changed society so radically.

    Those were all top-down decisions.

    • Replies: @Mikael_
    @dfordoom

    By working class I mean the vast majority of Americans who wouldn't be able to cover a $500 unexpected outlay (as most of the middle class has been bled dry over the last 20 years.)

    Here the definition or 'moral' I agree 100% with:


    Existentialists say: Immoral things are precisely those things that you CANNOT get away with. That's why people have identified them as immoral! The consequences of enacting will inevitably bear back on you, or the people you love.
     
    And Jordan B.Peterson continued:

    Modern relativists like to think of morality like something that's just arbitrary, like it's a cultural construction. [...] But the Existentialists just undercut all that, they say "well, what's immoral are those things -that you could change- that you do, that result in outcomes that are catastrophic for you." That's it, that's what immoral is. So that's universal, because it doesn't really matter what the details are.
     
    Working class people decided by their actions, not by making a well thought-through decision and then announcing it.

    Don't twist my words, please. I stated that working class people acted if is their immoral actions had no consequences. I didn't say that assumption was correct.
    You are implying the courts even could fix all (major) countries' ills. That's a kind of superhero fairy tale belief. And where do the impartial, wise judges come from?
    What do you think the 'march through the institutions' exactly means??

    Replies: @dfordoom

  35. @dfordoom
    @Almost Missouri


    That ain’t success. That’s hanging on to power by your fingernails.
     
    As far as political parties are concerned, winning is winning. At the moment the "right-wing" parties are still winning so they're not going to change.

    The UK’s Conservative [sic] Party favors mass immigration, multiculturalism, LGTPedo crap, anti-white legislation and globalism.
     
    True. They're scum. But my point was that they are winning.

    The more genuinely conservative rightwing parties are effectively illegal and banned. So, not successful.
     
    The truth, as depressing as it might be for many commenters here, is that such alternative parties on the Right have attracted very little electoral support. When people are given the chance to vote for such parties (such as One Nation in Australia or various far right parties in Britain) they do not do so.

    But the points I was making related to the electoral success of the establishment mainstream parties of the Right (which I despise as much as you do). Those parties are doing extremely well when it comes to winning elections. There was an expectation in Britain that the huge surge in immigration would make the Conservative Party unelectable. In fact the Conservatives have now won four successive elections. The theory that immigration would give Labour permanent government has so far turned out to be totally incorrect.

    Nor does it consider that while every election the Left goes even further Left, the Right goes further Left too, so today’s “victory” for the “Right” is actually just a victory for yesterday’s Left.
     
    Only if you define politics purely in terms of social/cultural policies. In terms of economic policies both sides are moving further Right. Of course I agree that social/cultural policies are very very important.

    What has changed in politics since the 1960s is that the mainstream parties of both the Left and the Right have embraced right-wing economic policies and social liberalism.

    What's really depressing is that this has been extremely successful for the mainstream parties of the Right.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    What has changed in politics since the 1960s is that the mainstream parties of both the Left and the Right have embraced right-wing economic policies and social liberalism.

    Right-wing economic policies have only become ascendant if you consider corrupt crony capitalism to be right-wing. Things like current Fed policies and periodic government bailouts of big business are not a product of free market capitalism.

    As a libertarian, I believe in class analysis with the two classes being those who gain wealth by selling goods or services out on a free market versus those who gain wealth either directly or indirectly from the government. The former class has been shrinking and it may now have reached the point there are not enough of them left to elect candidates.

    Socialists have their own form of class analysis. The failure of Communism became obvious in the eighties with both China and the Soviet Union moving away from it. This was a traumatic experience for the American left. They had to drop the Marxian class analysis and switched over to a socialism based on race and gender. They could have gone back to old time labor union socialism. The old labor union leaders didn’t want to destroy capitalism. They just wanted better pay for the workers and were often socially conservative. What made this impossible was that by the eighties declining numbers of U.S. factory jobs had weakened and shrunk labor unions. The labor unions left were ones like the big public schoolteacher unions. Their members had gone through college and been brainwashed into believing the new race and gender based socialism, now called the “woke left”.

    Since the old labor union dominated Democrat party has been replaced by the woke left and the old more libertarian Taft type of Republicanism has been replaced by the crony capitalist Republicans, what to do? I don’t think there is a solution but if there is one it would have to be what A.E. suggested above, maintaining the viability of a two party system by having the Republican party advocate limiting the welfare state to natives. Steve Sailer has also suggested this and given it a name, “citizenism”. The only other possibility I can think of is for the shrinking number of whites to form a coalition with one of the increasing minorities such as John Derbyshire’s Ice People vs. Sun People, i.e. Asians and whites on one side and blacks and Hispanics on the other side.

  36. The problem with “socialism” is its a bunch of Yale brats. The DSA is more concerned about legalizing sex work and infanticide than with fighting for normal worker’s rights. Not to mention you can’t really have labor laws if 1/3 of your work force is undocumented people illegally in the country.

    The Ivy brat squad only likes the trade union movement because they covet leadership positions in their progressive trade unions, where as chief union bureaucrats they can compete with their business school rivals in management over who can shit on workers more. Their idea of “American Progress” is taking the cancer from stage III to stage IV.

    Only real economic nationalism can save us now, and I suspect it will only come from the right or from an alternative left that doesn’t hate America, the Flag or the Bible composed of actual working people.

  37. @advancedatheist
    Despite all the propaganda about the horrors of communism, the existence of the Soviet Union at least offered an alternative model of society which America's elites had to take into consideration in their treatment of our working class (and overwhelming white) population at the time. Apart from white nationalism, I don't any other model on the scene today which worries our elites enough to improve the lives of white working Americans.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Lowe, @dfordoom

    Despite all the propaganda about the horrors of communism, the existence of the Soviet Union at least offered an alternative model of society which America’s elites had to take into consideration in their treatment of our working class (and overwhelming white) population at the time. Apart from white nationalism, I don’t any other model on the scene today which worries our elites enough to improve the lives of white working Americans.

    I agree completely. It’s always a healthier situation when there are competing systems. That way the elites cannot tell us that we have to put up with the present system because there are no alternatives.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    @dfordoom

    The "competition" offered by the Soviets was purely Potemkin.

    The realities of the alternative were mass murder, starvation, and terror. True, the depth and the extent of such realities were, to a large extent, purposely concealed.

  38. @Anonymous
    The lefties these days are definitely pro-level buzzkills, but so are the righties. None of you political junkies want anybody to have any fun. And God forbid anybody enjoys sport fucking.
    A pox on both your houses!

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The lefties these days are definitely pro-level buzzkills, but so are the righties.

    To some extent that’s true. Modern western society, especially the Anglosphere and even more especially the United States, has become hyper-moralistic. Hyper-moralistic about everything. Everybody wants to mind everybody else’s business. Everybody wants to launch moral crusades.

    The Cultural Left has the power at the moment but if the Cultural Right had power they would be just as oppressive.

    I think it’s a legacy of Protestantism. It’s cultural Protestantism. Even atheists still conform to cultural Protestantism.

    • Replies: @TelfoedJohn
    @dfordoom


    I think it’s a legacy of Protestantism. It’s cultural Protestantism. Even atheists still conform to cultural Protestantism.
     
    When I was in Australia I saw a bumper sticker saying “Thank God it was the criminals and not the Puritans”

    Replies: @Anon, @Liberty Mike, @dfordoom

  39. @dfordoom
    @Anonymous


    The lefties these days are definitely pro-level buzzkills, but so are the righties.
     
    To some extent that's true. Modern western society, especially the Anglosphere and even more especially the United States, has become hyper-moralistic. Hyper-moralistic about everything. Everybody wants to mind everybody else's business. Everybody wants to launch moral crusades.

    The Cultural Left has the power at the moment but if the Cultural Right had power they would be just as oppressive.

    I think it's a legacy of Protestantism. It's cultural Protestantism. Even atheists still conform to cultural Protestantism.

    Replies: @TelfoedJohn

    I think it’s a legacy of Protestantism. It’s cultural Protestantism. Even atheists still conform to cultural Protestantism.

    When I was in Australia I saw a bumper sticker saying “Thank God it was the criminals and not the Puritans”

    • Replies: @Anon
    @TelfoedJohn

    The American colonies were just as much a dumping ground for convicts as Austrailia was. The recent demythologizing of early American history is not all blackety-blackety-black this and that. There are some pretty interesting themes emerging that I didn't learn in school.

    , @Liberty Mike
    @TelfoedJohn

    Yet, a mate gets a beatdown and possibly a trip to the camps for refusing to don a face diaper.

    , @dfordoom
    @TelfoedJohn


    When I was in Australia I saw a bumper sticker saying “Thank God it was the criminals and not the Puritans”
     
    I want one of those bumper stickers!

    It's a sentiment with which I fully agree. It seems that convicts are a much better basis for a functional society than Puritans.
  40. @dfordoom
    @MBlanc46


    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted.
     
    If you look at Anglosphere countries which have had very high non-white immigration the parties of the Right are doing just fine. In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections and look like they're about to make that four out of six. In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.

    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful.

    The parties of the Left are not likely to start splitting. They're already struggling so that's the last thing they're likely to do in countries with rigid two-party systems such as the US.

    Any major political re-alignment is probably decades away. If it happens at all.

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri, @Neuday, @Christopher Porritt, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    ” In countries like Britain …. the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically” ???
    The Conservative party in Britain is in no way “conservative” – since 2010 they have transformed into liberals. Conservative Prime Minister Cameron introduced gay marriage. A large proportion of Conservative MP’s are liberal on social issues (Abortion, Capital Punishment, Transgenderisms).With the Coronavirus pandemic Prime Minister Johnson has transformed into a tinpot dictator. Fiscal conservativism has been abandoned and the budget deficit is rocketing skywards. There is still a reasonably large constituency of social and fiscal minded conservatives but all the major political parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists) ignore them.

  41. @dfordoom
    @MBlanc46


    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted.
     
    If you look at Anglosphere countries which have had very high non-white immigration the parties of the Right are doing just fine. In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections and look like they're about to make that four out of six. In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.

    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful.

    The parties of the Left are not likely to start splitting. They're already struggling so that's the last thing they're likely to do in countries with rigid two-party systems such as the US.

    Any major political re-alignment is probably decades away. If it happens at all.

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri, @Neuday, @Christopher Porritt, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    No. What happened was whites started moving to conservative parties as brown, black and yellow immigrants arrived and took their place in liberal parties. Thus a balance was maintained, maybe even a slight edge to conservative parties.

    But we’re running out of whites to move right, and there’s an endless supply of non-white immigrants to add to the liberal parties. The tipping point for the United States nationally will come over the next decade, and we’ll be on our way to looking politically like California.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    We wouldn't be running out of whites if they didn't split. Whites who are young, educated, coastal and/or female tend to vote the same as blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

  42. @dfordoom
    @MBlanc46


    It is almost certain that there will be party political re-alignment within a decade or two. There is simply no place for the Repubs as constituted.
     
    If you look at Anglosphere countries which have had very high non-white immigration the parties of the Right are doing just fine. In the US the Republicans have won three out of the past five presidential elections and look like they're about to make that four out of six. In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.

    These parties of the Right have absolutely zero reason to change. They are at the moment electorally very successful.

    The parties of the Left are not likely to start splitting. They're already struggling so that's the last thing they're likely to do in countries with rigid two-party systems such as the US.

    Any major political re-alignment is probably decades away. If it happens at all.

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri, @Neuday, @Christopher Porritt, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.

    Except that the goal of right wing politics isn’t to have an empty suit on “our team” instituting the next phase of globalism, it’s to preserve our people and prosperity by instituting right-wing policies, which never, ever happens. Genuine right wing parties are extinct in the anglosphere and only starting to make a comeback in continental Europe.

    In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.

    Why not just pretend that AOC is actually right wing and declare total right wing dominance of all politics everywhere? This is the most clueless definition shell game nonsense I’ve ever heard, if you think right wing politics is dominant in Britain of all places you’re clueless. You’re only projecting the ‘paranoia’ of cuckservatives losing power on the ‘right wing’, the actual fear was that all efforts toward nationalism, protectionism, and natalism would be gravely damaged by immigration, and that’s been proven completely correct; you’d be stupid to argue otherwise.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    This is the most clueless definition shell game nonsense I’ve ever heard, if you think right wing politics is dominant in Britain of all places you’re clueless.
     
    The point I was making was that the mainstream establishment parties of the Right (the British Tories, the Republicans, the LNP in Australia) are at the moment more successful in terms of winning elections than the mainstream establishment parties of the Left (British Labour, the Democrats and the LNP in Australia). This is contrary to the confident predictions that were being made that these parties would become politically irrelevant. This is contrary to the confident expectations of the mainstream establishment parties of the Left.

    Of course these parties are not to your taste. They're not to my taste either. They are neoliberal scum and they are very very socially liberal.

    The real point I have been patiently trying to make is that these parties (which the vast majority of people still see as the parties of the Right and which still attract the votes of people who identify as being conservatives and on the political Right) are at this stage so electorally successful that they have no incentive to change. They have no incentive whatsoever to adopt the kinds of nationalist, populist, socially conservative policies that people here would like them to adopt. They have no incentive to transform themselves into the kinds of right-wing parties that you would like them to be.

    My point is that these parties will, for the foreseeable future, continue to be exactly what they are now.

    The fact that they are in reality economically neoliberal socially liberal parties is true but it is not relevant to the point I was trying to make.
    , @dfordoom
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive


    Except that the goal of right wing politics isn’t to have an empty suit on “our team” instituting the next phase of globalism,
     
    The problem you face is that for the mainstream establishment parties of the Right the goal is to be successful enough electorally to win fairly often, which means lots of opportunities to get their snouts into the trough. And lots of opportunities to play the power games that politicians love so much. That might not be your idea of the goal of right wing politics but it is their idea.

    The mainstream establishment parties of the Right haven't had any actual principles for decades.
  43. @Not My Economy
    GOP can absolutely out promise democrats, this already happened, in 2020.

    Mainstream corporate dem plan for Coronavirus stimulus was like 500 in tax credits, some in the GOP were pushing for $2000 checks. The compromise was 1200. GOP (Mostly Trump) has been trying to push for more checks, and dems response is f--- off.

    White libs are going to discover "muh fiscal responsibility" in the next few years as the woke austerity party starts to fully express itsself. Dems will 100% for sure make cuts to social security if they get the chance. You think they're going to keep paying out to racist white boomers who literally can't do anything IRL about it? Lmao

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Your remark has unloosed a minor thunderstroke in my imagination.

    GOP can absolutely out promise Democrats, this already happened, in 2020.

    Until 2000 or so, having been raised by a managerial-class father (a better man than I), I believed that 20th-century Democrats were motivated by destructive envy. I believed that industrial labor unions unjustly demanded increased wages for decreased production. I believed other such things.

    White libs are going to discover “muh fiscal responsibility” in the next few years as the woke austerity party starts to fully express itsself. Dems will 100% for sure make cuts to social security if they get the chance.

    Somewhere along the way, long after the 1970s were over, I somehow became a 1970s Democrat. And so, in a way, did much of the Republican Party.

    When did that happen? I don’t remember flipping and yet, here I am—perhaps alongside you—standing on the opposite side.

    • Replies: @Not My Economy
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It was a pretty neat trick they pulled to get managerial class guys to think that because they were highly paid labor, their interests were aligned with capital. And predictably they are about to pull the exact same scam on the much dumber new generation managerial class with a slight woke rebrand.

    Anyway

    (clears throat)

    https://twitter.com/MiaFarrow/status/1320370708078362624

    Replies: @dfordoom

  44. @TelfoedJohn
    @dfordoom


    I think it’s a legacy of Protestantism. It’s cultural Protestantism. Even atheists still conform to cultural Protestantism.
     
    When I was in Australia I saw a bumper sticker saying “Thank God it was the criminals and not the Puritans”

    Replies: @Anon, @Liberty Mike, @dfordoom

    The American colonies were just as much a dumping ground for convicts as Austrailia was. The recent demythologizing of early American history is not all blackety-blackety-black this and that. There are some pretty interesting themes emerging that I didn’t learn in school.

  45. @dfordoom
    @advancedatheist


    Despite all the propaganda about the horrors of communism, the existence of the Soviet Union at least offered an alternative model of society which America’s elites had to take into consideration in their treatment of our working class (and overwhelming white) population at the time. Apart from white nationalism, I don’t any other model on the scene today which worries our elites enough to improve the lives of white working Americans.
     
    I agree completely. It's always a healthier situation when there are competing systems. That way the elites cannot tell us that we have to put up with the present system because there are no alternatives.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike

    The “competition” offered by the Soviets was purely Potemkin.

    The realities of the alternative were mass murder, starvation, and terror. True, the depth and the extent of such realities were, to a large extent, purposely concealed.

  46. @TelfoedJohn
    @dfordoom


    I think it’s a legacy of Protestantism. It’s cultural Protestantism. Even atheists still conform to cultural Protestantism.
     
    When I was in Australia I saw a bumper sticker saying “Thank God it was the criminals and not the Puritans”

    Replies: @Anon, @Liberty Mike, @dfordoom

    Yet, a mate gets a beatdown and possibly a trip to the camps for refusing to don a face diaper.

  47. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Not My Economy

    Your remark has unloosed a minor thunderstroke in my imagination.


    GOP can absolutely out promise Democrats, this already happened, in 2020.
     
    Until 2000 or so, having been raised by a managerial-class father (a better man than I), I believed that 20th-century Democrats were motivated by destructive envy. I believed that industrial labor unions unjustly demanded increased wages for decreased production. I believed other such things.

    White libs are going to discover “muh fiscal responsibility” in the next few years as the woke austerity party starts to fully express itsself. Dems will 100% for sure make cuts to social security if they get the chance.
     
    Somewhere along the way, long after the 1970s were over, I somehow became a 1970s Democrat. And so, in a way, did much of the Republican Party.

    When did that happen? I don't remember flipping and yet, here I am—perhaps alongside you—standing on the opposite side.

    Replies: @Not My Economy

    It was a pretty neat trick they pulled to get managerial class guys to think that because they were highly paid labor, their interests were aligned with capital. And predictably they are about to pull the exact same scam on the much dumber new generation managerial class with a slight woke rebrand.

    Anyway

    (clears throat)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Not My Economy


    It was a pretty neat trick they pulled to get managerial class guys to think that because they were highly paid labor, their interests were aligned with capital.
     
    Years and years ago I went from a unionised factory job to an office job. The low-level office workers with whom I worked were paid significantly less than the people in the factory job I'd been in, their working conditions were significantly worse and they enjoyed a significantly lower level of benefits. But those low-level office drones all thought that unions were totally evil and totally unnecessary.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  48. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @dfordoom

    No. What happened was whites started moving to conservative parties as brown, black and yellow immigrants arrived and took their place in liberal parties. Thus a balance was maintained, maybe even a slight edge to conservative parties.

    But we're running out of whites to move right, and there's an endless supply of non-white immigrants to add to the liberal parties. The tipping point for the United States nationally will come over the next decade, and we'll be on our way to looking politically like California.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    We wouldn’t be running out of whites if they didn’t split. Whites who are young, educated, coastal and/or female tend to vote the same as blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

  49. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @dfordoom


    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.
     
    Except that the goal of right wing politics isn't to have an empty suit on "our team" instituting the next phase of globalism, it's to preserve our people and prosperity by instituting right-wing policies, which never, ever happens. Genuine right wing parties are extinct in the anglosphere and only starting to make a comeback in continental Europe.

    In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.
     
    Why not just pretend that AOC is actually right wing and declare total right wing dominance of all politics everywhere? This is the most clueless definition shell game nonsense I've ever heard, if you think right wing politics is dominant in Britain of all places you're clueless. You're only projecting the 'paranoia' of cuckservatives losing power on the 'right wing', the actual fear was that all efforts toward nationalism, protectionism, and natalism would be gravely damaged by immigration, and that's been proven completely correct; you'd be stupid to argue otherwise.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    This is the most clueless definition shell game nonsense I’ve ever heard, if you think right wing politics is dominant in Britain of all places you’re clueless.

    The point I was making was that the mainstream establishment parties of the Right (the British Tories, the Republicans, the LNP in Australia) are at the moment more successful in terms of winning elections than the mainstream establishment parties of the Left (British Labour, the Democrats and the LNP in Australia). This is contrary to the confident predictions that were being made that these parties would become politically irrelevant. This is contrary to the confident expectations of the mainstream establishment parties of the Left.

    Of course these parties are not to your taste. They’re not to my taste either. They are neoliberal scum and they are very very socially liberal.

    The real point I have been patiently trying to make is that these parties (which the vast majority of people still see as the parties of the Right and which still attract the votes of people who identify as being conservatives and on the political Right) are at this stage so electorally successful that they have no incentive to change. They have no incentive whatsoever to adopt the kinds of nationalist, populist, socially conservative policies that people here would like them to adopt. They have no incentive to transform themselves into the kinds of right-wing parties that you would like them to be.

    My point is that these parties will, for the foreseeable future, continue to be exactly what they are now.

    The fact that they are in reality economically neoliberal socially liberal parties is true but it is not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  50. @TelfoedJohn
    @dfordoom


    I think it’s a legacy of Protestantism. It’s cultural Protestantism. Even atheists still conform to cultural Protestantism.
     
    When I was in Australia I saw a bumper sticker saying “Thank God it was the criminals and not the Puritans”

    Replies: @Anon, @Liberty Mike, @dfordoom

    When I was in Australia I saw a bumper sticker saying “Thank God it was the criminals and not the Puritans”

    I want one of those bumper stickers!

    It’s a sentiment with which I fully agree. It seems that convicts are a much better basis for a functional society than Puritans.

  51. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @dfordoom


    The predictions that high immigration would doom parties of the Right seems to be mostly right-wing paranoia.
     
    Except that the goal of right wing politics isn't to have an empty suit on "our team" instituting the next phase of globalism, it's to preserve our people and prosperity by instituting right-wing policies, which never, ever happens. Genuine right wing parties are extinct in the anglosphere and only starting to make a comeback in continental Europe.

    In countries like Britain and Australia the parties of the Right are completely dominant politically.
     
    Why not just pretend that AOC is actually right wing and declare total right wing dominance of all politics everywhere? This is the most clueless definition shell game nonsense I've ever heard, if you think right wing politics is dominant in Britain of all places you're clueless. You're only projecting the 'paranoia' of cuckservatives losing power on the 'right wing', the actual fear was that all efforts toward nationalism, protectionism, and natalism would be gravely damaged by immigration, and that's been proven completely correct; you'd be stupid to argue otherwise.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    Except that the goal of right wing politics isn’t to have an empty suit on “our team” instituting the next phase of globalism,

    The problem you face is that for the mainstream establishment parties of the Right the goal is to be successful enough electorally to win fairly often, which means lots of opportunities to get their snouts into the trough. And lots of opportunities to play the power games that politicians love so much. That might not be your idea of the goal of right wing politics but it is their idea.

    The mainstream establishment parties of the Right haven’t had any actual principles for decades.

  52. @Not My Economy
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It was a pretty neat trick they pulled to get managerial class guys to think that because they were highly paid labor, their interests were aligned with capital. And predictably they are about to pull the exact same scam on the much dumber new generation managerial class with a slight woke rebrand.

    Anyway

    (clears throat)

    https://twitter.com/MiaFarrow/status/1320370708078362624

    Replies: @dfordoom

    It was a pretty neat trick they pulled to get managerial class guys to think that because they were highly paid labor, their interests were aligned with capital.

    Years and years ago I went from a unionised factory job to an office job. The low-level office workers with whom I worked were paid significantly less than the people in the factory job I’d been in, their working conditions were significantly worse and they enjoyed a significantly lower level of benefits. But those low-level office drones all thought that unions were totally evil and totally unnecessary.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    those low-level office drones all thought that unions were totally evil and totally unnecessary.
     
    Because the price of everything they needed that went through union hands was jacked up by extortionate union wages.

    When semi-skilled labor gets paid more than degreed professionals working in the same industry, it's always union extortion involved.

  53. @dfordoom
    @Mikael_


    Somewhere between late 1970’s and early 90’s the majority of working class people decided they also see no reason to be fearful anymore, for example that immoral behavior would lead to serious negative reverberations for them, down the road.
     
    I'm not sure that the majority of working class people decided any such thing. It depends of course on what exactly you mean by working class, and what exactly you mean by immoral behaviour.

    And as today’s problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues
     
    An interesting assertion but very dubious. If "immoral behaviour" no longer has consequences that is certainly not the result of decisions made by ordinary working class people. It wasn't working class people who made the decisions about how the police and the courts would deal with crimes such as drug offences, or made the decisions to introduce no-fault divorce and to legalise abortion or to legalise homosexuality or to remove the stigma of illegitimacy or to remove the stigma attached to pre-marital sex or any of the other decisions that have changed society so radically.

    Those were all top-down decisions.

    Replies: @Mikael_

    By working class I mean the vast majority of Americans who wouldn’t be able to cover a $500 unexpected outlay (as most of the middle class has been bled dry over the last 20 years.)

    Here the definition or ‘moral’ I agree 100% with:

    Existentialists say: Immoral things are precisely those things that you CANNOT get away with. That’s why people have identified them as immoral! The consequences of enacting will inevitably bear back on you, or the people you love.

    And Jordan B.Peterson continued:

    Modern relativists like to think of morality like something that’s just arbitrary, like it’s a cultural construction. […] But the Existentialists just undercut all that, they say “well, what’s immoral are those things -that you could change- that you do, that result in outcomes that are catastrophic for you.” That’s it, that’s what immoral is. So that’s universal, because it doesn’t really matter what the details are.

    Working class people decided by their actions, not by making a well thought-through decision and then announcing it.

    Don’t twist my words, please. I stated that working class people acted if is their immoral actions had no consequences. I didn’t say that assumption was correct.
    You are implying the courts even could fix all (major) countries’ ills. That’s a kind of superhero fairy tale belief. And where do the impartial, wise judges come from?
    What do you think the ‘march through the institutions’ exactly means??

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mikael_


    Don’t twist my words, please. I stated that working class people acted if is their immoral actions had no consequences.
     
    No, I was merely asking you to define your terms more clearly. Which you've now done.

    I'm not sure "immoral" is the word I'd choose. You seem to be referring to behaviours that I'd describe as foolish and ill-considered.

    I still don't agree with you, although I think you're partially correct. People do foolish things because they're human. Whether society has a responsibility to discourage or even prevent people from doing foolish things that will hurt them is a subject we can debate from now until Doomsday.

    The fact is that societies do have rules that are intended to impose penalties for foolish (or immoral if you prefer) behaviours. Many of these rules have been relaxed to the point where there are no longer any consequences. For example, adultery. Adultery used to be something that could have very serious consequences (such as finding yourself divorced in very unfavourable and unpleasant circumstances). Nowadays it has few negative consequences. The relaxation of those rules was done from the top down.

    You are implying the courts even could fix all (major) countries’ ills. That’s a kind of superhero fairy tale belief. And where do the impartial, wise judges come from?
     
    No, but I did imply that in many cases things were better (not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but better) when courts imposed penalties on immoral behaviours such as drug usage.

    I'm not sure what your point is here - are you saying that because the courts work badly we should just scrap them? That's more or less what the BLM crowd is saying - the police behave badly so we should get rid of the police.

    If there's no hope of ever making the courts work better then we may as well give up hope altogether.
  54. @dfordoom
    @Not My Economy


    It was a pretty neat trick they pulled to get managerial class guys to think that because they were highly paid labor, their interests were aligned with capital.
     
    Years and years ago I went from a unionised factory job to an office job. The low-level office workers with whom I worked were paid significantly less than the people in the factory job I'd been in, their working conditions were significantly worse and they enjoyed a significantly lower level of benefits. But those low-level office drones all thought that unions were totally evil and totally unnecessary.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    those low-level office drones all thought that unions were totally evil and totally unnecessary.

    Because the price of everything they needed that went through union hands was jacked up by extortionate union wages.

    When semi-skilled labor gets paid more than degreed professionals working in the same industry, it’s always union extortion involved.

  55. Democrats promise X to everyone living in the US or able to find a way here; Republicans respond by promising X+ exclusively to American citizens.

    These kinds of tradeoffs can happen, but people need to feel the pinch first.

    One issue right now is that the GOP, as presently constituted, refuses to either reform healthcare or spend more on healthcare, not out of any real fiscal concern, but solely out of principle. This is most obvious when you see all the GOP governors who refused to accept Federal Medicaid expansion money, with no explicit quid pro quo.

    The only reason the GOP has been able to get away with this and still win elections is that the perception in the US (unlike most of Europe) has been that when the left talks about things like expanding and reforming healthcare, it’s only talking about subsidizing the poor choices of the lowest of the low and not doing a thing for the middle class, not even the lower-middle class.

    As far as the man on the street can see, there’s no relationship between the government deciding to spend more money on something and his being personally impacted. And this can easily be true even for many people above the median income and IQ. The US just prints money and runs up deficits forever, without any seeming consequence.

    Other countries can’t do this, so at a certain point, people start to have to think about tradeoffs. “If I want to keep my healthcare, we have to spend less on X boondoggle, or provide less healthcare to Y group”.

    I have no doubt that the US will reach that point eventually, and it will be a very interesting political moment (and also probably an unhappy moment to be American), but I don’t think you can make people think too hard about tradeoffs until that moment is reached. And the truth is that the two biggest tradeoffs will be young vs. elderly (which does have an implicit racial component), and butter vs. guns.

    Spending infinity dollars in Iraq was fairly unpopular when it was just a crappy and stupid thing the US was doing that didn’t actually affect 99% of the population, but if people are even given a clear choice between more healthcare for themselves or more carrier battle groups, the latter seems like electoral suicide.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Wency

    Yeah, if it's guns or butter and the people of the country feel an attachment to the country and its leaders, they'll entertain trade offs. Once they lose that attachment, they'll never choose guns if it means giving up butter. Fortunately for the empire, it has the ability to conjure money up to fund both guns and butter. It has that ability for now, anyway. Once it loses that ability, things are going to get really bad really fast.

  56. @Mikael_
    @dfordoom

    By working class I mean the vast majority of Americans who wouldn't be able to cover a $500 unexpected outlay (as most of the middle class has been bled dry over the last 20 years.)

    Here the definition or 'moral' I agree 100% with:


    Existentialists say: Immoral things are precisely those things that you CANNOT get away with. That's why people have identified them as immoral! The consequences of enacting will inevitably bear back on you, or the people you love.
     
    And Jordan B.Peterson continued:

    Modern relativists like to think of morality like something that's just arbitrary, like it's a cultural construction. [...] But the Existentialists just undercut all that, they say "well, what's immoral are those things -that you could change- that you do, that result in outcomes that are catastrophic for you." That's it, that's what immoral is. So that's universal, because it doesn't really matter what the details are.
     
    Working class people decided by their actions, not by making a well thought-through decision and then announcing it.

    Don't twist my words, please. I stated that working class people acted if is their immoral actions had no consequences. I didn't say that assumption was correct.
    You are implying the courts even could fix all (major) countries' ills. That's a kind of superhero fairy tale belief. And where do the impartial, wise judges come from?
    What do you think the 'march through the institutions' exactly means??

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Don’t twist my words, please. I stated that working class people acted if is their immoral actions had no consequences.

    No, I was merely asking you to define your terms more clearly. Which you’ve now done.

    I’m not sure “immoral” is the word I’d choose. You seem to be referring to behaviours that I’d describe as foolish and ill-considered.

    I still don’t agree with you, although I think you’re partially correct. People do foolish things because they’re human. Whether society has a responsibility to discourage or even prevent people from doing foolish things that will hurt them is a subject we can debate from now until Doomsday.

    The fact is that societies do have rules that are intended to impose penalties for foolish (or immoral if you prefer) behaviours. Many of these rules have been relaxed to the point where there are no longer any consequences. For example, adultery. Adultery used to be something that could have very serious consequences (such as finding yourself divorced in very unfavourable and unpleasant circumstances). Nowadays it has few negative consequences. The relaxation of those rules was done from the top down.

    You are implying the courts even could fix all (major) countries’ ills. That’s a kind of superhero fairy tale belief. And where do the impartial, wise judges come from?

    No, but I did imply that in many cases things were better (not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but better) when courts imposed penalties on immoral behaviours such as drug usage.

    I’m not sure what your point is here – are you saying that because the courts work badly we should just scrap them? That’s more or less what the BLM crowd is saying – the police behave badly so we should get rid of the police.

    If there’s no hope of ever making the courts work better then we may as well give up hope altogether.

    • Agree: iffen
  57. You already forgot around what this discussion started?
    Let me remind you:

    today’s problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues

    I stand by that stance,
    and all your counter-examples only showcase where the laws were changed after a majority of individuals had changed their thinking about the rules they want to live by already years beforehand.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mikael_



    today’s problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues
     
    I stand by that stance,
    and all your counter-examples only showcase where the laws were changed after a majority of individuals had changed their thinking about the rules they want to live by already years beforehand.
     
    I think that may be true in some cases, but I'm not convinced that people just spontaneously change their thinking about the rules they want to live by. I think that to a large extent such changes are promoted and encouraged from the top down. Often aggressively promoted.

    It's depressingly easy to change people's thinking. And it's very very easy to change their thinking from the top down.

    Replies: @Mikael_

  58. @Mikael_
    You already forgot around what this discussion started?
    Let me remind you:

    today’s problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues
     
    I stand by that stance,
    and all your counter-examples only showcase where the laws were changed after a majority of individuals had changed their thinking about the rules they want to live by already years beforehand.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    today’s problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues

    I stand by that stance,
    and all your counter-examples only showcase where the laws were changed after a majority of individuals had changed their thinking about the rules they want to live by already years beforehand.

    I think that may be true in some cases, but I’m not convinced that people just spontaneously change their thinking about the rules they want to live by. I think that to a large extent such changes are promoted and encouraged from the top down. Often aggressively promoted.

    It’s depressingly easy to change people’s thinking. And it’s very very easy to change their thinking from the top down.

    • Replies: @Mikael_
    @dfordoom

    I agree with what you wrote.

    But what is the solution to fix the mess?
    One can
    a) use top-down to 'easily change people’s thinking', but that requires to put the right people at the top, which can be torpedoed, as they can as easily be changed again - and who controls the controllers?
    b) use the slow and painful bottom-up approach to try to let the regular folks form a morality that they (somewhat) understand in its reasoning. Major advantage: after you achieved that, even a malicious top level guy won't be able to quickly sway the majority of people into immoral acts.
    Which is IMPO the Christian way.

    I circle back to my mention of ‘march through the institutions.’
    What happened there? It was a bottom-up approach too, but in that case with malicious intent. Sure, I never stated bottom-up is any guarantee for good outcome.
    So it will take the same time -about a generation- to "fix" things again, in the optimal case.

    But any hope for a superman able to cut corners to speed up that process will very likely fail, and almost ensure an even worse situation replaces the current one.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  59. @TelfoedJohn
    Listen to Aipac Chopra’s mirthless laugh in this tweet. It’s designed to distract from her emptiness. There’s nothing inside her except a few catchphrases and identity labels.
    https://twitter.com/colbyhall/status/1320522050902122497

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    She is the perfect tool of the neo-liberal establishment, a climber who will do whatever she is told to continue climbing, and anyone who criticizes her is racist/sexist/xenophobic(second-gen immigrant)/anti-Semitic(via marriage).

  60. @dfordoom
    @Mikael_



    today’s problems are more bottom-up that top-down issues
     
    I stand by that stance,
    and all your counter-examples only showcase where the laws were changed after a majority of individuals had changed their thinking about the rules they want to live by already years beforehand.
     
    I think that may be true in some cases, but I'm not convinced that people just spontaneously change their thinking about the rules they want to live by. I think that to a large extent such changes are promoted and encouraged from the top down. Often aggressively promoted.

    It's depressingly easy to change people's thinking. And it's very very easy to change their thinking from the top down.

    Replies: @Mikael_

    I agree with what you wrote.

    But what is the solution to fix the mess?
    One can
    a) use top-down to ‘easily change people’s thinking’, but that requires to put the right people at the top, which can be torpedoed, as they can as easily be changed again – and who controls the controllers?
    b) use the slow and painful bottom-up approach to try to let the regular folks form a morality that they (somewhat) understand in its reasoning. Major advantage: after you achieved that, even a malicious top level guy won’t be able to quickly sway the majority of people into immoral acts.
    Which is IMPO the Christian way.

    I circle back to my mention of ‘march through the institutions.’
    What happened there? It was a bottom-up approach too, but in that case with malicious intent. Sure, I never stated bottom-up is any guarantee for good outcome.
    So it will take the same time -about a generation- to “fix” things again, in the optimal case.

    But any hope for a superman able to cut corners to speed up that process will very likely fail, and almost ensure an even worse situation replaces the current one.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mikael_


    I circle back to my mention of ‘march through the institutions.’
    What happened there? It was a bottom-up approach too, but in that case with malicious intent. Sure, I never stated bottom-up is any guarantee for good outcome.
    So it will take the same time -about a generation- to “fix” things again, in the optimal case.
     
    The ‘long march through the institutions' may have been to some extent a bottom-up phenomenon but it was conducted by people who were organised, focused and highly motivated and they had a coherent plan to seize power. And they had leaders. And they always had some elite support.

    There won't be a ‘long march through the institutions' in reverse because there are no conservative groups today with that kind of focus, motivation, organisation, leadership and coherent plans. The only right-wing groups possessing those qualities are perhaps the neocons and they're much worse than the Cultural Leftists.

    The dissident right is just a bad joke. Christians are not capable of doing the job - liberal Christians are too pozzed (they're arguably the most dangerous SJWs of all). The only Christians who might be able to do it are the Evangelicals and they're too crazy.

    A ‘long march through the institutions' in reverse is of course possible in theory but there's no group capable of carrying it out.

    Replies: @Mikael_

  61. @Wency

    Democrats promise X to everyone living in the US or able to find a way here; Republicans respond by promising X+ exclusively to American citizens.
     
    These kinds of tradeoffs can happen, but people need to feel the pinch first.

    One issue right now is that the GOP, as presently constituted, refuses to either reform healthcare or spend more on healthcare, not out of any real fiscal concern, but solely out of principle. This is most obvious when you see all the GOP governors who refused to accept Federal Medicaid expansion money, with no explicit quid pro quo.

    The only reason the GOP has been able to get away with this and still win elections is that the perception in the US (unlike most of Europe) has been that when the left talks about things like expanding and reforming healthcare, it's only talking about subsidizing the poor choices of the lowest of the low and not doing a thing for the middle class, not even the lower-middle class.

    As far as the man on the street can see, there's no relationship between the government deciding to spend more money on something and his being personally impacted. And this can easily be true even for many people above the median income and IQ. The US just prints money and runs up deficits forever, without any seeming consequence.

    Other countries can't do this, so at a certain point, people start to have to think about tradeoffs. "If I want to keep my healthcare, we have to spend less on X boondoggle, or provide less healthcare to Y group".

    I have no doubt that the US will reach that point eventually, and it will be a very interesting political moment (and also probably an unhappy moment to be American), but I don't think you can make people think too hard about tradeoffs until that moment is reached. And the truth is that the two biggest tradeoffs will be young vs. elderly (which does have an implicit racial component), and butter vs. guns.

    Spending infinity dollars in Iraq was fairly unpopular when it was just a crappy and stupid thing the US was doing that didn't actually affect 99% of the population, but if people are even given a clear choice between more healthcare for themselves or more carrier battle groups, the latter seems like electoral suicide.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Yeah, if it’s guns or butter and the people of the country feel an attachment to the country and its leaders, they’ll entertain trade offs. Once they lose that attachment, they’ll never choose guns if it means giving up butter. Fortunately for the empire, it has the ability to conjure money up to fund both guns and butter. It has that ability for now, anyway. Once it loses that ability, things are going to get really bad really fast.

  62. @Mikael_
    @dfordoom

    I agree with what you wrote.

    But what is the solution to fix the mess?
    One can
    a) use top-down to 'easily change people’s thinking', but that requires to put the right people at the top, which can be torpedoed, as they can as easily be changed again - and who controls the controllers?
    b) use the slow and painful bottom-up approach to try to let the regular folks form a morality that they (somewhat) understand in its reasoning. Major advantage: after you achieved that, even a malicious top level guy won't be able to quickly sway the majority of people into immoral acts.
    Which is IMPO the Christian way.

    I circle back to my mention of ‘march through the institutions.’
    What happened there? It was a bottom-up approach too, but in that case with malicious intent. Sure, I never stated bottom-up is any guarantee for good outcome.
    So it will take the same time -about a generation- to "fix" things again, in the optimal case.

    But any hope for a superman able to cut corners to speed up that process will very likely fail, and almost ensure an even worse situation replaces the current one.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I circle back to my mention of ‘march through the institutions.’
    What happened there? It was a bottom-up approach too, but in that case with malicious intent. Sure, I never stated bottom-up is any guarantee for good outcome.
    So it will take the same time -about a generation- to “fix” things again, in the optimal case.

    The ‘long march through the institutions’ may have been to some extent a bottom-up phenomenon but it was conducted by people who were organised, focused and highly motivated and they had a coherent plan to seize power. And they had leaders. And they always had some elite support.

    There won’t be a ‘long march through the institutions’ in reverse because there are no conservative groups today with that kind of focus, motivation, organisation, leadership and coherent plans. The only right-wing groups possessing those qualities are perhaps the neocons and they’re much worse than the Cultural Leftists.

    The dissident right is just a bad joke. Christians are not capable of doing the job – liberal Christians are too pozzed (they’re arguably the most dangerous SJWs of all). The only Christians who might be able to do it are the Evangelicals and they’re too crazy.

    A ‘long march through the institutions’ in reverse is of course possible in theory but there’s no group capable of carrying it out.

    • Replies: @Mikael_
    @dfordoom


    There won’t be a ‘long march through the institutions’ in reverse because there are no conservative groups today with that kind of focus, motivation, organisation, leadership and coherent plans.
     
    Correct.
    Either such groups will form or the US will die, and in consequence almost all of the "West" -incapable of independent thought- with it.

    Maybe Jordan B. Peterson and 'his disciples' can turn the ship around (I am one but too old.)
    I see the highest survival probability in Russia and the Christian Orthodox church.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  63. @dfordoom
    @Mikael_


    I circle back to my mention of ‘march through the institutions.’
    What happened there? It was a bottom-up approach too, but in that case with malicious intent. Sure, I never stated bottom-up is any guarantee for good outcome.
    So it will take the same time -about a generation- to “fix” things again, in the optimal case.
     
    The ‘long march through the institutions' may have been to some extent a bottom-up phenomenon but it was conducted by people who were organised, focused and highly motivated and they had a coherent plan to seize power. And they had leaders. And they always had some elite support.

    There won't be a ‘long march through the institutions' in reverse because there are no conservative groups today with that kind of focus, motivation, organisation, leadership and coherent plans. The only right-wing groups possessing those qualities are perhaps the neocons and they're much worse than the Cultural Leftists.

    The dissident right is just a bad joke. Christians are not capable of doing the job - liberal Christians are too pozzed (they're arguably the most dangerous SJWs of all). The only Christians who might be able to do it are the Evangelicals and they're too crazy.

    A ‘long march through the institutions' in reverse is of course possible in theory but there's no group capable of carrying it out.

    Replies: @Mikael_

    There won’t be a ‘long march through the institutions’ in reverse because there are no conservative groups today with that kind of focus, motivation, organisation, leadership and coherent plans.

    Correct.
    Either such groups will form or the US will die, and in consequence almost all of the “West” -incapable of independent thought- with it.

    Maybe Jordan B. Peterson and ‘his disciples’ can turn the ship around (I am one but too old.)
    I see the highest survival probability in Russia and the Christian Orthodox church.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mikael_


    I see the highest survival probability in Russia and the Christian Orthodox church.
     
    Russia yes.

    The Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania, etc) are doomed.
  64. @Mikael_
    @dfordoom


    There won’t be a ‘long march through the institutions’ in reverse because there are no conservative groups today with that kind of focus, motivation, organisation, leadership and coherent plans.
     
    Correct.
    Either such groups will form or the US will die, and in consequence almost all of the "West" -incapable of independent thought- with it.

    Maybe Jordan B. Peterson and 'his disciples' can turn the ship around (I am one but too old.)
    I see the highest survival probability in Russia and the Christian Orthodox church.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I see the highest survival probability in Russia and the Christian Orthodox church.

    Russia yes.

    The Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania, etc) are doomed.

    • Agree: Mikael_

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS