On the riots, goodness knows how this will play out, but it does seem that, while the left are just outright backing them, the much bigger centre left are against them even while blaming everything on anybody but the perpetrators. This means that the centre still holds and that gravity still works in a moderating direction.

Nonetheless, the centre left seem unable to feel, or at least admit to themselves to feeling, any negative emotions towards the rioters, which leaves them with fairly uncomplex excitement (glee?) over the riots as events.

Is their "progressive" ideology forcing them to repress their fear and hatred of the people burning their cities down? Quite possibly.

Remember, these are people who have been absolutely authoritarian in response to COVID-19. They do not lack anxiety nor the will to make others validate it.

Often, suppressed fear and hatred in a very anxious person = generic excitement. That energy has to go somewhere...

It'll be interesting to therefore see how the governmental response plays out. Those in positions of power over the rioters, blue state/blue city politicians, either support or are at least excited by the looting. And, at another minimum, if they're white, don't seem like they'll ever be able to bring themselves to crush said looting - it would be openly crushing poor brown/black people.

This means that the Federal government will step in and blue politicians will need to choose between Trump and #BlackLivesMatters. A choice they are so unready to make that they've now convinced themselves that the rioters are really Russian KGB Nazis.

Maybe they can crush the riots while keeping this pretense up? It would be utterly dementing, but then the violence that smart people will do to themselves to protect their egocentric worldview is tremendous.

I suppose another play would be to shut the riots down because COVID. This would be an easy thought to sustain, but it would also require a further lockdown and that would likely lead to a number of disasters; all of which the centre left don't actually want.

Meanwhile, the right are also uncertain. The centre/mainstream part of this wing are relatively weak already and the strident section are drifting into the desire for a generic #reckoning.

Trump has often been fun but if he is the absolute best they can hope for then the status quo offers them very little of what they want and even less hope for the future if things continue.

What the right absolutely don't want however is to be the aggressors. Their conception of being good people doesn't allow it. It barely allows for it even as overheated internet rhetoric. Those on the very far right, who don't care, find this very frustrating but arguing with someone's conception of being a good person is a complete waste of time. The ego will defend itself far more effectively than some keyboard warrior will ever overcome.*

I'd watch for 3 potential turning points:

1. Federal versus local/state government tension, forcing the centre left to choose between the people burning down their cities and Trump. This could really go either way, to turmoil or to peace.

2. The advance of seemingly dementing blue conspiracy theories about the "real" people behind the riots. This would lead to peace but would be yet another step into a world of only illusion.

3. An external shock - COVID resurgence, stock market crash, trade war, Lehman-like event - that would infuse everything with even more energy, which could then throw the situation in almost any direction.

There is also a sort of fourth turning point. Trump could do like pseudo-Sinophiles wanted the CCP to do with HK. He could let them suffer. I can't see it happening but even thinking it through may give some interesting insight into why the CCP did not choose that path, even as they didn't crush the protests either.

*A lot of the Jew stuff on the far right seems to be an unconscious recognition of this fact, but it tends to utterly alienate those who don't suffer from borderline psychosis, regardless of its veracity. Then again, since I think it is total nonsense, perhaps I am biased against its effectiveness? To me it is as equally dementing as thinking Putin is the lead store smasher in Minneapolis. It is a "good" person's way out of not wanting to be an aggressor while also wanting to aggress.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Audacious Epigone

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @SFG

Replies: @Redman, @Too Long Didn't Read

If conservatives could even begin to understand the emotional distress that liberals feel about rhe existence of inequality, they would gain invaluable insight into the liberal mindset. Liberals will always fight for the underdog. It's in their DNA. It's who they are. These instincts are noble and salutary; the problem is the manipulation of those instincts on the part of radical liberal elites that see as the solution of inequality not creating more rooms for others, but birning the whole house to the ground and rebuilding it with just one room for all. They see equality as a goal that is best achieved not by uplifting the weak, but by destroying the strong.

When white liberals cry over a black man being strangled to death by a police officer, it is genuine. This instinct, that the happiness of the group is equal to the happiness of the least happy member of the group, is a huge part of the liberal mindset. And "group" to liberals is not race, or nation, or even family: it is people that they see, and interact with. White liberals were the first ones that cared about the plight of working-class white people, and they pretty much did all the job of raising their living standards through unions, the creation of the income tax, better working condition, pay leave, etc. And the fact is that most working-class white peole back in those days voted conservative didn't matter to them. Thye fought for the white working class because they were the underdogs against white plutocrats, and now they champion black people because they are seen as the underdogs kept down by white institutions,

What happens to liberals is that there is a radical wing of the liberal elite that knows that the bulk of liberals would not follow them if they were honest about their intentions. This elite is tiny, but they are extremely intelligent and intellectual, skilled at activism, and they have a deep hatred for Western Civilization They are almost entirely intellectual successors of the French thinkers, Derrida and Sartre, who proposed that the only concrete structure of human interaction are relations of power, and that government, institutions and laws are just proxies that exist to enforce the moral will of those in power. They believe that White Western Man is the only true source of relevant inequality, and that by eliminating this the prolem of inequality would be mostly solved. Salvery was not invented by White Western Man, but he enforced it on a scale never seen before. Some nations being more powerful than other is not something created by White Western Man, but with his technology the gap in power between those who have his technology ans those who not is exponentially larger. White Western Man didn't invent sexism but he raped and seduced women on an unprecendented scale, from the mass rape of brown women by Conquistadors, to making non-Western Man feel emasculated, leading to abuse of women Worldwide as a compensatory mechanism. Whatever evil there, White Western Man amplifies it. They have identified White Western Man as The Ultimate Evil of All Existence, which must be extirpated from the face of the Earth.

But they know white liberals would never follow them. White liberals don't actually have a "beef" with other white people; the beef they have is with inequality. They support a white person when that person is in a position of weakness and distress, like a poor white wairtress that got abused by her rich boss, and they oppose the white person when they are in a position of being an oppressor, like whites in the South lynching black back in the 1950's, or Wall Street brokers stealing money from middle-classs people(both white and black) through government bailouts.

If white liberals understood that this post-modern liberal elite of neo-Marxists actually wanted to exterminate white people, and all the individual freedoms of the West and replace it with a bureacratic dictatorship ruling over amorphous masses of colored people with white people and their culture exterminated, they would never support it. Not only because all true liberals strongly oppose genocide of any people, but also because white liberals have families that are white like them. Even when it comes to white conservatives, the same. White liberals were the first ones who exposed the fact that corporations and the Federal Government were poisoning the water systems of the Appalachians back in the 1960's and making people sick. Those people were over 90% white and voted mostly Republican. The rich white conservatives who owned the chemical plants couldn't care less about those poor white conservatives. Funny how the white liberals from the coasts were the only ones that cared about them.

Also, there has been enough interbreeding between liberals and conservatives over the generations that almost no families are entirely liberal or conservative. Most white liberals have conservative relatives, and they certainly don't want them to be exterminated, or raped by black criminals or murdered. Liberals are your brothers, sisters, sons, spouses, etc. You know, the whole story of not bringing up politics at dinner table. It's just that it is very distressing and confusing for liberals to exercise their pursue of equality when it is not clear who is the strong and who is the weak, and who is friend or foe.

They have been duped. They think they are pursuing equality by enfranchising blacks and rioters, but they are just "useful idiots" to an extremely intelligent and hostile radical liberal elite, mostly Marxist Jews, who use them and the rioters alike as tools in accomplishing what they really want: the fall of Western Civilization, namely European Civilization and it's satellites, like the U.S.A, and the replacement of it with a one-World amorphous "nation" where everyone will be equal except fpr themselves, who will rule all from the top. This radical liberal elite is tiny, no more than a few hundred individuals, but they are exceptionally clver, most of the them with PhDs in philisophy, professors of linguistic, editorial publishers, etc. Not only that, they have trememdous energy and motivation to work to bring about their goals, and are very diligent and patient. The old story, "steady pace wins the race"

White liberals would never support the rioting and mayhem if they knew the grand scheme behind it all, and that their loved ones, including their conservative loved ones, are targeted for disenfranchisement and extermination. Believe it, your liberal relatives love you. The reason why they do this is not because they want to harm you, but exactly because they think nothing of this will harm you, and that you are already well off and that there are other people in distress that need their help.

What is happening is an unspeakable crime. White liberals are being taken advantage off, having their most noble and most emotionally fulfilling instincts perverted and corrupted into a force of chaos by an elite that sees them as the enemy to be destroyed: they willingly do the biding of those that want to destroy them,

I predict a wave of mass suicide of white liberals in the ensuing yearas as they realize they destroyed everything they loved pursuing an equality that doesn't exist, that cannot exist, and that was created as a phantom to manipulate them into not uplifting the weak, but destroying the strong. Even when the "strong" are not strong at all, but just their friends and relatives alike, including their conservative relatives, just ordinary people trying to live their lives, lives now ruined because of their folly.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @HammerJack, @Alfa158, @Robert Dolan, @Anon

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

I will refer to them as the Tragic Vision (a term he uses in a later book)
 

Beyond The Tragic Vision: The Quest for Identity in the Nineteenth Century
 

Explanation and Power: The Control of Human Behavior
 

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Art Deco

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Talha, @The Soft Parade

Women become pregnant and gestate children and men do not. Women maintain
that, for this reason, they are the proper arbiters of the decisions about baby-having. The elephant in the room is that this is not a contention that is derived from ethics or fairness , but rather from a
position of power conferred by women's biological attributes. An illustration of why we should recognize that this is wrong is that fact that our society has sanctions against men using their biological attribute of superior physical strength to gain an advantage against women..

On the other side of the issue, though, it's also obviously neither
fair nor ethical for anyone to try to co-opt control of women's bodies and tell them whether or
not they're going to become pregnant or bring a given pregnancy to term.
So, what are we to do to try to increase fairness to men, women and children? Continue with the assumption that
men are to be treated as worker drones and the decision if and when to have children remains the province of women's judgement alone? Continue to hold men responsible for 'raising' and 'supporting' children whose production was in large part the result of decision-making arrived at via the inherent power of their
mothers' physical, gender-based advantage? This seems neither equitable or desirable.

Is it any wonder that battles of the sexes, brokering of women's favors in exchange for men's financial support, and less than healthy childhoods are so common?

i posit the following as an outline of a solution.

Since most people in America now agree that it's wrong for people to own other people, suppose that we explicitly recognize that mothers and their children are not exempt form this principle, and
that in our society, no one should be allowed to raise a child unless,
before the birth, both the mother and father have signed a contract
stating that they are each financially responsible for one half of the
child's support to age of majority. (These contracts would actually be
enforced). The contract would hold irrespective of whether the man and
woman remain together. Because of the inherent pain and risks of pregnancy
and childbirth, the contract would require a standardized amount to be paid by the
father to the mother in consideration of this work/risk. That amount would
be deemed full compensation to the mother in lieu of, and would negate,
any claim of other special rights by the mother in relation to the child and the
father. Children born outside of this type of birth agreement contract would, the desires of either
parent notwithstanding, be taken into the custody of a public agency and raised by the most caring and qualified professionals, applying the best possible practices, in well run and funded institutions set up expressly for that purpose.
Contrasting with the life experience of unwanted kids in our current dysfunctional system, very little if any stigma should, nor as it became established, would, accrue to one's being raised in an institution of the sort described above - rather it would, increasingly over time, simply be accepted as an indication that prior to one's birth one's parents were not in agreement about having a child - a lack of accord between them before one even entered the world and a part of their life stories rather than one's own - and thus a fact devoid of personal rejection or negative implications about one's intrinsic worth.

If well implemented, the result would be far less of some things we'd be well rid of: welfare moms - with unhealthy, poorly raised kids born as income-generating tools, bad marriages, unhappy/unhealthy people, and the ancillary costs to our society.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Too Long Didn't Read

Women become pregnant and gestate children and men do not. Women maintain
that, for this reason, they are the proper arbiters of the decisions about baby-having. The elephant in the room is that this is not a contention that is derived from ethics or fairness , but rather from a
position of power conferred by women's biological attributes. An illustration of why we should recognize that this is wrong is that fact that our society has sanctions against men using their biological attribute of superior physical strength to gain an advantage against women..

On the other side of the issue, though, it's also obviously neither
fair nor ethical for anyone to try to co-opt control of women's bodies and tell them whether or
not they're going to become pregnant or bring a given pregnancy to term.
So, what are we to do to try to increase fairness to men, women and children? Continue with the assumption that
men are to be treated as worker drones and the decision if and when to have children remains the province of women's judgement alone? Continue to hold men responsible for 'raising' and 'supporting' children whose production was in large part the result of decision-making arrived at via the inherent power of their
mothers' physical, gender-based advantage? This seems neither equitable or desirable.

Is it any wonder that battles of the sexes, brokering of women's favors in exchange for men's financial support, and less than healthy childhoods are so common?

i posit the following as an outline of a solution.

Since most people in America now agree that it's wrong for people to own other people, suppose that we explicitly recognize that mothers and their children are not exempt form this principle, and
that in our society, no one should be allowed to raise a child unless,
before the birth, both the mother and father have signed a contract
stating that they are each financially responsible for one half of the
child's support to age of majority. (These contracts would actually be
enforced). The contract would hold irrespective of whether the man and
woman remain together. Because of the inherent pain and risks of pregnancy
and childbirth, the contract would require a standardized amount to be paid by the
father to the mother in consideration of this work/risk. That amount would
be deemed full compensation to the mother in lieu of, and would negate,
any claim of other special rights by the mother in relation to the child and the
father. Children born outside of this type of birth agreement contract would, the desires of either
parent notwithstanding, be taken into the custody of a public agency and raised by the most caring and qualified professionals, applying the best possible practices, in well run and funded institutions set up expressly for that purpose.
Contrasting with the life experience of unwanted kids in our current dysfunctional system, very little if any stigma should, nor as it became established, would, accrue to one's being raised in an institution of the sort described above - rather it would, increasingly over time, simply be accepted as an indication that prior to one's birth one's parents were not in agreement about having a child - a lack of accord between them before one even entered the world and a part of their life stories rather than one's own - and thus a fact devoid of personal rejection or negative implications about one's intrinsic worth.

If well implemented, the result would be far less of some things we'd be well rid of: welfare moms - with unhealthy, poorly raised kids born as income-generating tools, bad marriages, unhappy/unhealthy people, and the ancillary costs to our society.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Too Long Didn't Read

In CCD (Confraternity if Christian Doctrine -- Catholic religious education if your mom was enough of an independent thinker not to send you to Catholic school) the lay instructor of junior high students told us it was the Reed Sea, not the Red Sea, and that winds would rise up across that marshy puddle to push the waters aside.

Water into wine? The Gospel parables are obvious moral tales and not reality, but there was a lot going on there in Cana. Jesus' mom nagged him into this miracle and Jesus snapped at her, "Woman, what has this to do with me? My hour has not yet come." Mary, The Mother of God "takes" this back talk and tells the people serving at the wedding banquet, "Do whatever he tells you."

This is quite a family drama going on, expressed in a small number of words, between Jesus and Mary, isn't it? Mary must know a thing or two at this point on Who Her Son Really Is to drop the hint, "They have no wine", I mean, she wasn't slipping him a couple of gold pieces and telling him to go into town and purchase a large quantity of wine to keep the party going. But when told, "Woman . . . My hour has not come", I mean, what guy calls is mom, "Woman", Mary isn't knocked off her stride demanding this miracle of Him even if it doesn't fit into the Divine Plan of what is to unfold in his earthly ministry. She tells the servants "Do whatever he tells you." The whole of Christian teaching on prayer and, yes, not being shy about what you ask for and persisting in the asking is all in that exchange.

But then comes the penultimate moment when after Jesus instructs the servants to draw some of the water, a lot of water filling some big containers, and take it to the head waiter without telling them that it came from those water jars for tasting to see "if it was good", the head waiter tastes it to be really, really good wine and remarks to the bridegroom that the custom is to reserve the cheap wine for when the guests have gotten a buzz on, but bro, you've got this reversed.

So Jesus' hour of initiating His Divine Plan had come inasmuch as it really impresses his disciples, and the "saving the best for last" is metaphorical of the Lord sending his prophets, but saving the best, his own Son, for last. So everyone, and I mean a lot of parish priests with all of their seminary training, dwelling on the miraculous aspect of pouring water into a jar and out comes wine, but the whole episode is laden with symbolic and metaphorical meaning that goes "woosh" over a lot of people's heads. You also have to remember that this account is in John, and the Gospel of John is different from the other Gospels. It starts out "In the beginning was the Word (Logos) . . .", continues with "We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" and spends the rest of this work offering various evidences and demonstrations of this initial statement.

Multiplication of the loaves and fishes -- don't know what to make of that one.

Jesus actually died on the cross, not just went into a coma or a swoon to be rescued later by his followers but died? A recent writer, a believer, yes, but someone knowledgeable about the art of modern medical examiners stated the account of Jesus being stabbed and water and blood coming out is a proof to us 20 centuries later that Jesus was dead at this point. This account of Jesus being wounded by a Roman soldier has been preserved over this gulf of time with all kinds of strange theories for this being some kind of miracle, with modern forensic science telling us that after death, fluid accumulates in the chest, and blood and clear fluid coming out of the stab wound is one of those time-of-death signs known to science only recently in connection with trying to solve murder cases.

What happened to Jesus' body? It went, "poof", gone, the Empty Tomb in how the Gospel of Mark ends, the burial sheets just laying there being the hope and underpinning of the belief system of Christians everywhere and over time.

So what about Jesus in the Resurrection, who preached to his followers over the next 40 days? This Jesus asked Thomas to probe his wounds, including that nasty stab wound in the chest, but we don't really know if Thomas ever touched Jesus after seeing Jesus and believing at that point. Jesus, I guess, ate with the disciples, but he had the ability to enter and leave a locked room, it seemed, at will. So what exactly was the nature of Jesus after his death is a faith mystery as is what the disciples experienced, because I believe Paul later states that Jesus didn't appear to everybody and anybody, just to a select few, and to some, it took them a while to get clued in. That Jesus died as much as anyone is determined to be dead by modern science, and an anachronistic proof of this is preserved in Scripture because there would be no reason for the writers thousands of years ago to make up something that they couldn't figure out what it meant, is an underpinning of Christian faith as is the Empty Tomb, with everything else in between something that you could describe as metaphor rather than mythical?

Is belief in just one supernatural event, the Empty Tomb, contradicting being a scientist or a research engineer? A scientist, maybe, but an engineer is allowed to believe in anything provided the bridge stays up and the rocket doesn't blow up, the lights stay on and the car goes 6000 miles between oil changes. If one believes in one supernatural event, and yeah, yeah James Randi and the professional skeptics, can one believe in other supernatural events? Hebrew scholar and Christian apologist Michael Heiser has a lot to say that he disbelieves in what the UFO enthusiasts say about Daniel and Ezekiel because 1) what the UFO enthusiasts have to say contradicts what he, Michael Heiser knows about the mythological symbolism of the Ancient Near East and 2) the UFO enthusiasts are clinging to a materialistic explanation of everything and excluding supernatural explanations of accounts in the Bible, much as anyone experiencing anything today and now touching on the supernatural is derided.

Watch some of Michael Heiser's videos, he has much to say about how a supernatural explanation is consistent with what people in the Bible experienced and how such experiences would be related in Hebrew and Aramaic and that the Ancient Astronauts people don't know what they are talking about.
Of course the "scientific" explanation is that the Bible is all made up. Is it?

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @J.Ross

I made this list. The criteria is that the man listed was famous at any time from 1950-2000, and had four or more biological children. A lot of men not listed still had three. The list :

Elijah Muhammad : 23
‘Screamin’ Jay Hawkins : 33+ (perhaps over 60)
Ray Charles : 12 (!!!)
Sammy Davis Jr. : 4
Harry Bellafonte : 4
James Meredith : 4
Richard Pryor : 7
James Brown : 13
BB King : 15
Richard Roundtree : 5
Sidney Poitier : 6
Fats Domino : 8
Miles Davis : 4
Roscoe Orman : 4
Otis Redding : 4
Chuck Berry : 4
Flip Wilson : 5
Oscar Peterson : 6
Sam Cooke : 6 (would have had more)
Louis Farrakhan : 9
Khalid Abdul Muhammad : 5
Benjamin Chavis : 8
Malcolm X : 6 (would have had more)
MLK : 4 (would have had more)
Ralph Abernathy : 5
Jesse Jackson : 6
Gordon Parks : 4
Andrew Young : 4
Willie Brown : 4
Joe Louis : 6
Bobo Brazil : 6
Muhammad Ali : 9
George Foreman : 10
Mike Tyson : 8
Evander Holyfield : 11
Floyd Mayweather Sr. : 5
Floyd Mayweather Jr. : 5
Kimbo Slice : 6
Joe Jackson : 11
Jackie Jackson : 4
Jermaine Jackson : 7
Stevie Wonder : 9 (!!!)
Berry Gordy : 8
Quincy Jones : 7
James Ingram : 6
Barry White : 9
Isaac Hayes : 14
Bob Marley : 9 (not an American, technically, but still).
Philip Bailey : 7
Ramsey Lewis : 7
Curtis Mayfield : 10
Jackie Wilson : 9
Al Green : 6
Lou Rawls : 4
Bill Cosby : 5
Ahmad Rashad : 5
Montel Williams : 4
Demond Wilson : 6
Ben Vereen : 5
Robert Guillaume : 5
Lawrence Fishburne : 4
Larry Holmes : 5
Ernie Hudson : 4
Fred Williamson : 6
Morgan Freeman : 4
Yaphet Kotto : 6
Eddie Murphy : 10
Phillip Michael Thomas : 11
Denzel Washington : 4
Cuba Gooding Sr : 4
Wesley Snipes : 5
Doug Williams : 8
OJ Simpson : 5
Travis Henry : 11
Calvin Murphy : 14
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar : 5
Michael Jordan : 5
Scottie Pippen : 5
Karl Malone : 7
Shaquille O’Neal : 5
Jason Caffey : 10
Willie Anderson : 9
Dwight Howard : 5
Royce White : 5
Shawn Kemp : 7
Emmitt Smith : 4
William ‘Fridge’ Perry : 4
Chad Johnson : 4
Willis McGahee : 9
Deion Sanders : 5
MC Hammer : 5
Bobby Brown : 7
P Diddy : 6
Master P : 7
LL Cool J : 4
Snoop Dogg : 4
MC Ren : 5
Dr. Dre : 6
Warren G : 4
Coolio : 10
Eazy-E : 11
Kurupt : 6
Kokane : 8
DMX : 15
Ginuwine : 7
Flavor Flav : 7
T.I. : 6
Run DMC : 6
Swizz Beatz : 5
Lil Wayne : 4
Ol’ Dirty Bastard : 4 (would have had more)
Ghostface Killah : 4
John Singleton : 7
Ice Cube : 4
Steve Harvey : 4
Eddie Griffin : 9
Tracy Morgan : 4
Kanye West : 4

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Reg Cæsar, @Prester John, @Ed, @Anonymous, @El Dato

Replies: @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri, @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder, @Dr. X, @tyrone, @Peter Akuleyev, @Too Long Didn't Read, @anon215, @Anonymousse, @HA

This picture says it all.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81eUX8nFf%2BL._AC_SY679_.jpg

Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @Too Long Didn't Read

"Maybe you know some concrete examples where diversity was a strength. I don’t."

The writings of J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur. He discussed:

1. that what meant to be an "American" was in flux, with a yet to be determined standard in which to assimilate;

2. how civic integration the active involvement in civic missions like shared work projects -and-

3. why these shared work projects had emphasized ecological improvement.**

**The author discussed land practices—specifically, the draining of swampland by which immigrants from Europe labored collectively in this endeavor. Why? To create suitable pasture rather than be subject to "a terrifyingly chaotic land of death that caused Europeans to degenerate".

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @syonredux, @Mr. Anon

So we have the ability to enrich impoverished Americans right now, without consequence, and we’re not doing it. If this is the case, and the MMTers are correct, then the current level of civil unrest is quite understandable and a lot more should come.

 

The Sons of the American Revolution Underclass has got its marching orders from the high command and they are ready to grab the electronics of the American Empire and dislodge the ruling class of the American Empire from power. They'll eat chili and beef stew cold from a can with a plastic spoon and they'll swill some cheap beer and they'll be ready to go! They Are Sure To Be Ready!

Remember, the money grubbers after the American Revolution or the American Colonial Secessionary War from the British Empire started up with their fancy and nasty Mammonite games almost immediately upon the ratification of the US Constitution. Alexander Hamilton and his type of money-grubber bankers and financial swindlers got word that the paper money paid out to soldiers in the American Secessionary War from the British Empire would be paid for in whole instead of at a much lesser amount and they bought up as much as they could from soldiers and others holding the paper currency.

Hamilton and money-grubbing skanks screwed over guys who got shot at by lobsterbacks and smelt the gunpowder from pepper shot or grape shot or maybe grape nuts and bolts -- hard to say really. These soldiers thought there was no chance to get their loot in full and they sold those sonofabitches on the cheap and the damn swindling bankers and scam artists knew damn well they would be redeemed in full by the new United States government.

If you are a bit Scotch-Irish like I am by way of Givens you should also know that Hamilton screwed over the Scotch-Irish in Pennsylvania by taxing whiskey as a test case to prove that the new government could tax the hinterlands and make it stick.

OUTRAGE!

Now the Sons of the American Revolution Underclass is hopping mad about monetary extremism and monetary swindles run by those crooked crooks who control the corrupt and crooked Federal Reserve Bank.

I have made myself the leader of the SAR Underclass and I say we attack at dawn like a full force gale -- LEGALLY and RHETORICALLY attack folks, don't get too excited.

Debt

Demography

Monetary Extremism

Mass Legal Immigration and Mass Illegal Immigration

None but SAR Underclass on watch tonight! -- George Washington never said that, but he might if he were alive today and saw the bankers and the debt games being played. Remember, Washington had debts too running his plantation and Washington was hopping mad at his financial factor in London who lived like a king while structuring Washington's debts.

The SAR Underclass will mount up their boots and walk to the sounds of the guns!

Maybe they could borrow some new cars from the 600 hundred dollar unemployment scam swindle aristocracy and roll to the sounds of the guns!

Victory Awaits the SAR Underclass!

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Do I need to write a short encyclopedia here ?

1. Whites- no Asians- created most of the "world" as we know it.

Part one- Greeks & Romans

* Homer. Virgil. Booth pre-eminent epics. Apart from them, you got 2 Indian epics (Mahabharata & Ramayana) & possibly Persian Shanameh, ca. 1000 A.D. Plus European Beowulf, Icelandic sagas, Spanish poem on Cid. No Chinese, Japanese, African, Mayan, Arab epics.

* mathematics. Greek did much, Romans not so much. essentially Greeks (Pythagoras) invented science, a combination of hypotheses & observation, and mathematics especially. Indians have invented zero & decimal notation, and Chinese matrix calculus plus numerical methods in solving higher power equations. But mathematics as a science, a unified field of knowledge- not a patchwork of solutions- is the Greek achievement. Euclides (one of the most important books in history), Archimedes (he discovered integral calculus which has later been forgotten), Diophantus and equations, conic sections etc etc., Eratosthenes, Apollonius, Ptolemy.. You got numerous histories & encyclopedias of math at library.nu. Africa did nothing, Egypt was good only in elementary geometry, and Arabs built on Greek science- they simplified- not discovered- trigonometry., along with Chinese.

* drama. Only universal, global dramatic form begins with Greeks (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripedes) and their Roman copycats (Seneca). Later it flourished in England ( Kit Marlowe, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, ..later Congreve, Sheridan, Wilde, Shaw, ..), France (Racine, Corneille, ...Jarry, Camus), Spain (Lope de Vega, Calderon), Norway (Ibsen), Sweden (Strindberg), Germany (Buechner, Hauptmann, Brecht, ..), Russia (Gogol, Chekhov, Gorky,..) etc. Arabs- no drama. Chinese & Japanese - peculiar dramatic forms like no-theater which are essentially rituals. India- Sakuntala is the best example of something that is perhaps closest to the dramatic form West has invented. Summary- drama is 90% Western.

* Lyric poetry. Virtually all cultures have it. Just, Western poetry is immensely wider in scope & inventiveness- even if it loses much in translation- in comparison with Arab (Ibn Farid), Persian (Hafiz, Rumi, Omar Hayyam,..), Chinese (Li Po, Du Fu).

* history writing. Essentially, apart from Western, there are two history schools- Chinese and Arab-Islamic. Indians did not develop proper chronology due to their concept of cosmos, and Africa- even the Egyptian part- is hardly worth mentioning. Ancient Western world gave us Herodotus, Thucydides, Tacitus, Livy, Polybius, Plutarchus, Procopius ..and Christian West-apart from rather imaginative works that could now hardly be considered history - Gibbon, Michelet, Ranke, Mommsen, Parkman,..
Iranian Rashid-ud-din, working for Mongol Khan & S'sma Ch'ien are virtually only non-Western historians worth reading,

I'll just put a few lines, no mammoth lecture.

1. human civilization exists for ca. 10,000 yrs, in proper sense ca. 5500 yrs.
A few great civilizations have risen & fallen during those times, at least two (Chinese and Indian), transformed, still exist- but it was the European West that created global civilization & global values & fully unified the world. Your "white man" has created global world.

2. this European civilization is a blend of at least three ingredients: Graeco-Roman heritage, Christianity & Enlightenment with rational & scientific discourse coming to the fore front.

3. it was "white man" (actually, European peoples) who gave the world the way it defines itself:
* phonetic alphabet (borrowed from Phoenicians, but adapted to Roman script)
* mathematics & other sciences (Indians gave us zero and Chinese invented matrix calculus and a few other things, but as a unified human venture, science is completely Western)
* democracy & idea of a free individual
* the global high culture, form epic to the novel (non-European epics of worth are Mahabharata, Ramayana and Shahnameh, no actual novel outside European culture except Lady Murasaki strange and unique achievement)
* polyphonic music no other culture can compete with
* visual arts no other culture can compete with
* all ideologies, from feminism, communism, fascism, eugenics, universal human rights,..
* all inventions that changed the face of earth (cannons, steam machine & Industrial revolution, the locomotive, vaccination, strict hygiene, universities (in the Middle Ages), hospitals, antibiotics,
electric power,computer, mechanical clock, planes, cars, TV, laser, A-bomb, wash machine, satellites,..)
All other cultures & races contributed immensely less than the "white" European &
American civilization. I think any rational person cannot dispute this.

Point 2.

Why this thread at all ? Various "white" peoples (Greeks, Romans, Iranians,
Americans, French, Italians, Germans, Russians, English, Spanish,..):
* invented the most of endurable culture (math, sciences, philosophy, arts,..). Chinese and Indians cannot compare, and Africans are not anywhere near.
* engaged in most warfare in the world (hands down, Genghis Khan, but you're an exception from the rule that goes from Alexander and Caesar to the WW1 and WW2 )
* integrated the globe by conquering, one way or another, Americas, Asia and Africa
* still- with adjunct members from East Asia (China, Japan) rule the world.
Can one imagine an army of blacks fighting in Verdun or Stalingrad? No, nor do can I.

Point 3.

Blacks are constantly beaten in all martial arts & fighting sports:
Ultimate Fight, K, Boxing, Kick-boxing, Kyokushinkai, Thai boxing... name it. They enjoyed temporary period of glory due to combination of Eastern Bloc boxers absence & relegation of boxing to a thug subculture Whites during the 1960s to 1980s despised & evaded. Since this ceased- Blacks are beaten, by Whites from Russia, Germany, USA, Netherlands, Brazil,....literally used for floor wiping.


Conclusion

In comparison to the Whites, ALL races are:
+physically
+aesthetically
+intellectually
+creatively
+ethically
+organizationally
+volitionally
...

Inferior.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

The unforgivable fact of 2020 is that white men have done most of the great things of the last 600 years. This deeply angers many nonwhite people today that their ancestors didn’t accomplish much.
 

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

¶ 1/2. Sorry, bloke, I got as far as "When you were..." and dozed off. B.t.w., tell @Hibernian not to laugh at just everything---but Leprechauns do LOL at almost anything.

¶2/2. Seriously, thanks for the chiding. I will see if I cannot check my White verbosity, just as I have had to check my White privilege.

Replies: @Pierre de Craon, @Too Long Didn't Read

Replies: @anon, @bruce county, @Too Long Didn't Read, @anon, @ThreeCranes, @Anonymous

Some advice to all of you, from Politeness Man. (National Lampoon readers if a certain age may get the reference.)

I have actually had a number of encounters with gang bangers that went well because I’d follow Miss Manners. One example. I had a baby in a stroller. A black gang banger was too close to the door. I accidentally ran over his foot with a baby carriage. He gave me the nastiest stare I’ve ever seen. I immediately apologized. Not a profuse “don’t hurt me “ but just “sorry”. That showed him the respect Politeness Man gives to his fellow man, and there was no escalation.

Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @John Derbyshire, @Too Long Didn't Read, @Buffalo Joe, @E. Rekshun, @Ganderson

Wolfe's world-view seems to lack the moral & national center. He, like Gore Vidal and some others, sees the growing depravity of post 60's America, but is not sure where it leads to. Also, although he had very well noticed fragmentation of American society, it is questionable whether he had any mature attitude toward it.

For so different authors like Henry James, Henry Adams, Jack London, H.P. Lovecraft... Americanism was Anglo-Saxonism expanded.

For Hemingway, Faulkner, perhaps Dreiser (in some phases), Americanism is Europeanism with English veneer.

For Heinlein... not sure. A new nation, but Western-Euro derived. A latter day Whitman.

For most American Jewish authors- a melting pot good for them; their ethnic affiliations somehow retained (more or less), but they're urban, mobile, rootless, ...no deep national roots. Mailer, Bellow, Roth, ... no deep currents of American-dom, although many of them knew about them, but could not identify with.

Wolfe is blurred about all this. I'm sure he enjoyed a good life, made fun of idiocies he witnessed, but- did he feel painful national consciousness of Adams, Hawthorne, Faulkner or, perhaps, some still alive authors I'm not quite sure about ?

I think not. His zest of living lay with the carnival of American life in past half a century. Perhaps he sometimes contemplated: Apres moi, le deluge. But then he dispelled darker thoughts....

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Bugg

It's been largely a dead letter since David Lange called the US' bluff over nuclear (armed or powered) warships in NZ waters.

As Lange made clear, the treaty obligations were largely one-way, and everyone knew it. NZ and Australia were expected to commit resources when the US asked, irrespective of the interests of Australia or NZ... where as US support for the junior treaty partners was only ever likely if it was in the US' direct interest. (Much the same as WWII: the US presence in Australia was solely so that they could use Aus as an airstrip, a supply depot and a brothel - they committed fuck-all troops and matériel to PNG or the Solomons).

At the end of the day, ANZUS exists because cronies of the political class can aspire to SES-level sinecures, and the really lucky ones can get 7-figure scraps from the defence-procurement table.

(Disclosure in case Gueleiter Potatohead-the-Corrupt-DrugCop and his Sicherheitsdienst is reading: my younger sister was a defence bureaucrat until she got tapped to be a Senior Advisor to Gillard while Gillard was PM - advising on defence procurement. She left that role - and tripled her salary - to be CEO of a consulting 'NGO' mostly funded by Raytheon and Thales: the firm is a machine designed to vacuum up pots of defence money, and fuck-all else. She has very very very different opinions to me and is not in any way a source of input to my musings).

Replies: @dfordoom, @Too Long Didn't Read

Really ? Three years ago ? You fuck wit , some people worship a f**king Jew that rumor has it died 2000 years ago . Is the crime of the death an innocent man diminished by time ? No , the spilt blood of the innocent cries out for justice till the end of time .

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @loren, @By-tor, @AnalogMan

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Alden, @Anonymous, @GoRedWings!

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

"The students and parents who pay to go there want their ticket punched so they and their children do well in life."

Let's hope the one good outcome of this descent into stupidity is that universities lose their stranglehold on being the ticket to a decent life. If enough people lose patience and say they're not paying for this crap then the universities will have to downsize and the power of the DIE group will wither away rapidly.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Now substitute the word COVID for the word Cancer—given time, can medical science decode the genome for a disease like cancer? And then replicate the results, as in, finding the cure? If yes, then that’s the best news of the new century.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Jack D

Except what we have now isn’t sustainable. Dumb people have more kids than smart people. Smart women especially have fewer kids. That means we are burning through human capital. It would not surprise me if mental illness near the top of society (FloydFest) was the result of crazy women having more kids than sane women.

Neither political party is any good. Both would be better if the US were whiter. I won’t go into any detail, because I am sure everyone commenting here knows this. Outside the west and East Asia, there are no first world peoples.

I know conservatives hate t hear it, but global warming is real, and we need to cut net carbon emission to zero. Even if we didn’t, fossil fuels will not last forever. We have fracked oil and gas now, but it will run out (at least run out of the cheaper stuff), and without oil and gas exports our economy would be even weaker than it is now. It will take a lot of grain and brawn to get to a green economy. Even if global warming wouldn’t hurt the US directly, do trust the political class to keep out all of the three hundred million refugees climate change will create in the next thirty years? That is 300,000,000. Even 10% of them is 30 million new Democrats.

Midwestern farmers were gifted by God and glaciers with fantastic topsoil. Poor farming practices mean a good chunk has already run off into the rivers. They’re also running through aquifers at a prodigious rate. That’s two ways farming is unsustainable. Without fossil water, the Midwest is the Great Grass Desert.

Even the third world economies are unsustainable. They depend on cheap food produced by the US, either through the marketplace or charity. They depend on vaccines produced in the first world. If the West keeps getting dumber, the third world dieback will destroy countries, sending yet more refugees our way.

Right now, at least last year, the US real estate market was propped up by developing world buyers looking for both returns and a bolt hole for when the government turns its all-consuming gaze upon them, or when the economy crashes there. This is unsustainable, as money might realize that a stable China offers a better home for their money and selves than an America that is more than half minority, and sinking fast. Like other assets but more so, real estate is worth what someone will pay for it, and homebuyers will have less money to buy it, because the US economy will have shrunk considerably due to the workforce having a much lower IQ, caused by dysgenic and immigrants and their progeny. I don’t know for a fact, but I think that the US stock market is significantly buoyed by Chinese money. Certainly a lot of dollars flow there every year.

Let’s say China only buys US government bonds with their dollars. Do you buy the Laffer Curve? It wasn’t that long ago that it was religion on the right, I have no idea if it still is. Let’s say you do but into it. Then the US government cannot pay for itself. We depend on Chinese lenders to finance the government, and without them, the government shrinks drasticalky or taxes go up a lot, shifting us to the right on the curve.

Those are just a few ways the US is unsustainable economically, environmentally, and politically. We absolutely depend on having smart and reality-based white men. We will do so in any conceivable future that is not a complete dystopia.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Alice in Wonderland, @ben tillman

Liberals have an enormous problem with the concept of order, hierarchy and authority. In a way, it makes sense: studies show that, the more cognitively capable and well-educated a person is, the more they find authority and order suffocating, irrational and oppressive. But proles NEED it. They remain toddlers for life and cannot live responsible adult lives. Once upon a time, it was accepted that elites were the "grown ups" of Society, and that the little people were their "children" that the elites had an obligation to care of, but had, in exchange for that protection, behave properly and not demand things that they cannot understand or use responsibly. Like Augustus Caesar told his good friend, Agrippa, before taking his first Consulship:

"Giving power to the people is like giving a butcher's knife to a child or a madman. To yield power is not a blessing, but a burden."

Elites fail to discipline Society for the same reason parents nowadays refuse to discipline their children: the mistaken belief that we are all the same, that a child or a moron have the same degree of sentience and abiltiy to self-determine that that of a 25 year-old man with a 150 IQ, They don't.

Hence, pupils spitting on their teachers, teenagers deciding they are actually of the othe gender and getting irreversible surgery that they will regret latter, obese people eating themselves into death by stroke at 45 because fat-shaming is wrong, girls getting anal tattoos, or fucking 20 different men and then getting pregnant with no concern because she can just kill the kid or give it to social services to be raised with other people's tax money since she thinks her sexual gratification cannot be denied, youths being extremely weak and pathetic and unprepared for the World because they believe no one has the right to violate their "safe spaces"

You want a short and sweet answer to what is the cause of ALL the social misery we are going through now? Four words: lack of parental authority. I repeat: LACK. OF. PARENTAL. AUTHORITY. Both at home and especially at the level 0f Society with elites being too shy and too full of self-guit to put the children in their place.

One of the things I find fascinating about Steve Sailer is why isn't he pointing out that *absolute* collapse of American's big Blue Cities into Third World squalor and utter anarchy? I know conservatives hate liberals and don't care about the demise of those big blue urban centers. But pointing that out would serve as vindication of the disastrous consequences of liberal policies extended to the whole of Society. Upper middle-class liberal professionals can eschew rules and order because they tend to be intelligent and responsible, so they can live like that without their lives descending into chaos. But applying the "throw rules and authority out of the window: it it feels good, do it." to the whole of Society is DISASTROUS. And this is what makes urban upper middle-class liberals so stupid: they don't realize that average unintelligent people with more impulses than brains cannot live liberal/libertariasn lives without causing enormous amount of harm to Society and, especially, to themselves.

Liberals have an enormous problem with the concept of order, hierarchy and authority. In a way, it makes sense: studies show that, the more cognitively capable and well-educated a person is, the more they find authority and order suffocating, irrational and oppressive. But proles NEED it. They remain toddlers for life and cannot live responsible adult lives. Once upon a time, it was accepted that elites were the "grown ups" of Society, and that the little people were their "children" that the elites had an obligation to care of, but had, in exchange for that protection, behave properly and not demand things that they cannot understand or use responsibly. Like Augustus Caesar told his good friend, Agrippa, before taking his first Consulship:

"Giving power to the people is like giving a butcher's knife to a child or a madman. To yield power is not a blessing, but a burden."

Elites fail to discipline Society for the same reason parents nowadays refuse to discipline their children: the mistaken belief that we are all the same, that a child or a moron have the same degree of sentience and abiltiy to self-determine that that of a 25 year-old man with a 150 IQ, They don't.

Hence, pupils spitting on their teachers, teenagers deciding they are actually of the othe gender and getting irreversible surgery that they will regret latter, obese people eating themselves into death by stroke at 45 because fat-shaming is wrong, girls getting anal tattoos, or fucking 20 different men and then getting pregnant with no concern because she can just kill the kid or give it to social services to be raised with other people's tax money since she thinks her sexual gratification cannot be denied, youths being extremely weak and pathetic and unprepared for the World because they believe no one has the right to violate their "safe spaces"

You want a short and sweet answer to what is the cause of ALL the social misery we are going through now? Four words: lack of parental authority. I repeat: LACK. OF. PARENTAL. AUTHORITY. Both at home and especially at the level 0f Society with elites being too shy and too full of self-guit to put the children in their place.

https://youtu.be/HKCfu4UJQiQ

Replies: @Kronos, @Anon, @Too Long Didn't Read

She’s NOT in college to to “meet a husband.”

If you're in college and not on the lookout for someone to build a life with, you're doing it wrong.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @vhrm

Replies: @rebel yell, @Too Long Didn't Read

Your idiocy results from the fact that you stupidly equate "working in fields" with "being occupied with agriculture."

"Agriculture" does not exist. It is simply a modern term for large-scale industrial farming. Traditional people who raise plants and animals on their clods of earth are not "occupied in agriculture," they are simply living.

The people "occupied" in modern agriculture extend far beyond the farmer, who is nowadays simply an overpaid tractor jockey with a government subsidy. You must now count the engineers and workers who designed and built his tractor. Then there are the people involved in the production of ammonia fertilizers (the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen via the Haber process alone consumes 2% of global energy production). Haber requires a methane feedstock, so you must include a proportion of those working in the natural gas industry. Then there is the mining, processing, and transportation of phosphate rock. Don't forget the railroads, trains, roads, and trucks required to move all this stuff around, and their own production requirements, e.g. steel and other metals, concrete, asphalt, and lots of petroleum and coal. The engineers required to design all this stuff are themselves a high-value product whose existence presumes an extensive (and expensive) education, and all the inputs that requires. And nobody could consume any of this food without more transportation, grocery workers, warehouse workers, and truck drivers bringing it to them. We still haven't mentioned the canning industry, food processing, packaging, frozen storage, electricity generation, so on and so forth. Are you starting to see a pattern here, you stupid little anal polyp? How many people do you think are really "occupied in agriculture" now?

The only clearly false assertion is the one that holds that you have any right to outgas your flatulatory opinions among thinking adults. Go back to your sandbox you twit, and do not presume to speak to me again.

Replies: @Cloudbuster, @Too Long Didn't Read

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Antifa was heavily involved in the riots in Brooklyn, Manhattan and no doubt, most LA area antifa associates were in the rioting mobs in downtown LA.

Why be so obtuse about this? Why are you arguing that antifa isn't heavily Jewish just because some Persian Jews in Beverly Hills support Trump? For their own selfish ethnic reasons, by the way. Imagine a right wing, white, Christian President who was critical of Israel's ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian Christians and who sought good relations with Iran. These Persian Jews would not be supporting him, they would be calling for him to be murdered.

It's also worth noting that Jewish privilege is why the pro-Trump Jews in Beverly Hills have have not come under massive media attack. Imagine a high profile, white, Christian urban neighborhood in the middle of huge liberal city that tried to have Trump rallies. The media would be focused like a laser on destroying it. We would read a constant stream of articles about how it was a racist enclave of hate that was excluding blacks and there would be calls for cutting its funding and maybe dissolving its local government. We would be seeing pieces in prestige media arguing that public housing needed to be built there to atone for the legacy of white, Christian privilege.

Why do you think Beverly Hills Trump supporters are not being subjected to a national media hate campaign?

Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Too Long Didn't Read

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @JM

This is a wonderfully thoughtful, earnest, practical comment not burdened by ideology, ignorance, arrogance, undue emotion, or wishful thinking. Can’t say the same even of all my own comments. Please comment more here.

Ending mass immigration, and thereby ending the unsustainable increase in our population, would be an important factor in making people’s lives here less miserable. This is without regard to the race or culture of the immigrants, a separate issue.

We have an ever-increasing population in the USA largely due to mass immigration, and this has nothing to do with “blaming” or “hating” immigrants of any background. This drastic increase in population comes in the face of evolving automation and artificial intelligence that will eliminate the need for more and more jobs currently done by human beings.

That can lead only to more poverty — and not just poverty, but the quite accurate sense that one has little chance of getting out of poverty. With that comes constant fear about how to simply subsist, not prosper, a feeling that effort and persistence don’t pay off, and resentment at those ever fewer people who own and control the Earth’s resources and society’s resources and power. A feeling of pointlessness and no fair chance is a recipe for drug abuse.

What about a population that is not ever increasing, and that eventually starts to gradually decline? That would decrease the number of people who lack the skills or aptitude to do the decreasing number of jobs not capable of being done well by machines, robots, or software. It could also restore some of the bargaining power — “leverage” — that the mass of people have against much wealthier, more powerful owners of capital.

Speaking of the extreme concentration of wealth, resources, and power in fewer and fewer hands — and the hopelessness, anger, and material hardship that causes the majority of people in time — that will exacerbate drug abuse too.

Without going to some extreme such as communism, we would do well to tax away the most extreme concentrations of wealth and power inequality and provide a guaranteed basic income and medical/dental care. This is unaffordable if we keep increasing the population of people who do not have, and are unlikely to attain, the abilities and skills needed to grab one of the diminishing number of jobs that pays for a decent life devoid of want and fear.

We cannot afford to be as compassionate and generous as we need to be when the ratio of taxpayers to tax-consumers gets worse all the time. Progressives and labor leaders used to know and acknowledge this. Resources in this world, and in an economy, are not infinite, and promising something to an essentially limitless number of people leads to hyperinflation, poverty, and collapse. Drug abuse flourishes in those scenarios, as we are about to see.

People who know they will never live like degraded filthy animals as “homeless” to be avoided and feared and stepped over in disgust, may be less likely to abuse drugs. Same when people don’t have to live in pain, limited function, limited mobility because they can’t afford needed medical care.

Perpetual fear of starving or badly suffering from hunger or lack of medical care naturally leads to suspicion, tension and the use of theft, violence, and trickery to grab from someone else. This is true even if almost everyone is of the same race, speaks the same language, adheres to materially the same culture, and observes the same religious doctrines and practices. The tension and resentment of others will tend to be even more intense when people don’t have much in common to fall back on in terms of racial, religious, cultural, or linguistic identity, personal and family history, values, and affections. A balkanized society where one cannot trust, cannot even make small talk due to language and cultural barriers, will not tend to decrease drug abuse.

If drug abuse is tied in substantial part to hopelessness, legal policies and cultural movements that spread traits, beliefs, and behaviors that furnish hope and a sense of purpose are in order.

Specifically, encouraging belief in a loving, just God (though not necessarily a particular religion) would tend to furnish some sense of hope in the face of life’s challenges.

Encouraging and creating social pressure in favor of long-term monogamous marriage and the raising of at least one child (not necessarily many children) would tend to do this too. For most people, there seems to be no adequate substitute for loving and being loved by a child, nor for the hope and sense of noble mission that can come from raising and sacrificing for a child. Nothing else seems to give most people a stake in the future of their society and the world like having one’s own beloved flesh and blood does. In turn, having a family to rely on materially and emotionally, however flawed that family may be, makes people feel less alone in the world, less likely to turn to drugs.

In short: give people hope, a fair chance, freedom from deprivation, and stop forcing them into increasingly crowded, balkanized, untrusting environments.

Change immigration policy as well as dysgenic welfare policy to stop increasing (and work on decreasing) the supply of people destined never to earn a decent living in the marketplace;

give people a sense of fair play, a sense that they are cared for and respected, and take away their constant fear (and sometimes physical suffering) by providing a basic income, basic medical care, and bare-bones housing, so long as they act in civilized fashion and do what work they can to pitch in (even “make-work” projects);

strongly encourage belief in a just, loving God and the dignity of every person and soul, and work against (and deplatform) forces denigrating such belief;

strongly encourage and subsidize every sane, non-retarded person in conceiving and raising one or two of his own children, so he has a sense of purpose, can love and be loved, and can support and then be materially supported by his child or children — and remove anti-family, anti-natalist, anti-healthy-sexuality influences from government, media, and especially schools.

All of this will tend to lessen despair and prevent more people from feeling the need to invite debilitating drugs to fill the spiritual void. Prohibition hasn’t done this and cannot do this. But neither can popular “culture” that glorifies drug use or downplays the devastation often wrought by many drugs beyond alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, and caffeine (and sometimes by alcohol too).

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Right, Trump is the American alt-right's own Bin Laden, a master false flag bearer deployed to sell the necessity of heavy-duty counter-attack. But just after 9-11 and Irak intervention real Islam has been spreading anyway like wildfire. What you call in under false flags follows under real ones, that's karma. Was there Islamic presence in the US before 9-11? Hell no, the main fear among Televangelists was that the US were to become progressively Hindus through New Age. Islam was a Black delinquents' thing. From 9-11 onwards hinduism has melted away and Islam has been the religion of both most immigration from overseas, and of even far more conversions at home, while in Irak proper what arose as a result was ISIS and the Taliban have come out as clear victors of the US forces in three countries, not just Afghanistan. France is about to be militarily conquered and turned into an Islamic country, and that will not take place under false flags.

Same thing with Trump. What comes behind are real Southern-style Klansmen, and now that the narrative of massive election fraud has been accepted, now that the Constitution has been trampled upon, now that democracy is a despicable word for both proud Globalists and sore Trumpists, the new real Klansmen will promise to deliver Americans from democracy and humanistic values. The elite know the law of karma and they put a real Black Muslim from Africa in charge of the country so as to pay in advance. They will put likewise a real white racist Klansman and the Stars and Bars he will fly over all buildings will not be false. The repression of the alt-right will be swift but short-lived, and hit very wrong targets (mostly Republican politicians refusing the gleichschaltung, and Televangelists known to have been the nucleus of the populist movement) while the new Klansmen will just present themselves as world-wide combatants against democracy and democratic values for the restoration of biological hierarchies, and be as numerous under the Dem's purview as under the latter's official adversaries.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

"The coulters, sailers et al who noisily jockeyed to yoke their wagon to an ascendant trump are suddenly full of i told you sos. Strange."

Yeah, I hear you -- given their concerns about immigration, rallying around another McCain or Romney or some sure-fire winner like that would have made SO much more sense.

Say what you will of Trump, he gave the deplorables a chance to roar. Whatever happens to him, some politician is eventually going to remember what got him elected and decide he could go for another round of that.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Replies: @Icy Blast, @botazefa, @Elsewhere, @peterike, @Too Long Didn't Read, @Reg Cæsar, @Eric Novak, @Justvisiting

To acknowledge that the tradeoffs exist one would have to acknowledge that there are differences between the sexes.
 

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

Obviously everyone in a position of responsibility already realizes that the US has a massive problem dealing with the descendants of the survivors of slavery, and that there is not a whole lot of point in simply saying that blacks are stupid and violent.

But let's suppose that this idea is widely accepted and acknowledged. What policy changes would improve the quality of life for both black and white people living today? What is Steve's plan?

Many years ago, I think it was Leonid Breschnev who suggested that the USA ought to create an autonomous homeland for blacks within the territory of the USA.

Certainly the USA is large enough that a place the size of Israel could be carved out and hardly missed at all. (You could probably do this in sparsely populated North Florida.)

Of course when the idea was floated, it was met with shock in the US and immediately dismissed as ludicrous.

But what is Steve's plan?

The issue is certainly not without precedent in the hemisphere. Look at countries like Guyana and Trinidad that are divided 50/50 between Blacks and Asians, with a smattering of while elites. Or Jamaica and Venezuela, which have some of the highest murder rates in the world.

But then there are also black-ruled jurisdictions within the hemisphere that are less murderous. For example, it might be worth studying why Curacao has the lowest crime rate of the Caribbean islands.

And then we can look at countries like Haiti and the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico and see what it is that makes them so lawless, and what differences they have.in common.

Why does Puerto Rico have a murder rate (about 20 per 100,000 annually) much higher than any place in the US except for possibly Washington, DC? What can we learn from this?

Why does Puerto Rico, which is American ruled, have a murder rate about double that of both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. What is going on the in Greater Antilles?

If Steve has a solution, cannot the US and other countries in the region benefit from it?

The current plan in the US is to encourage as many blacks as possible to get an education, obtain responsible government jobs with benefits, become home owners, and so on, and to hope that the young, single testosterone-addled men will eventually mature a bit once they hit the age of about 35 to 40 and are released from prison.

But what improvements can we make? Does Steve really have any contribution to make to criminology?

I don't have any answers, but based on my experience working with young criminals in prisons, I would say that breaking up the influence of gang membership on young single men from poor homes would be very important, and also removing the obvious profitability from dealing in illegal intoxicants and prostitution.

Replies: @Old and Grumpy, @BB753, @Jack D, @lord francis bacon, @stillCARealist, @Pop Warner, @Voltarde, @SunBakedSuburb, @Too Long Didn't Read, @Daniel Williams, @Alfa158, @Anonymous, @AnotherDad, @Anonymous, @Perspective, @RoatanBill

1.) Browser: best choice is Brave.
 

2.) Learn to use tor
 

3.) Web search: Duck Duck Go is the best in my opinion, but anything that isn’t Google is OK–fragmenting the market keeps the search engines honest.
 

5.) ... think about Protonmail ...
 

6.) Don't ever use an app to access something on your phone that you could just access through the phone's web browser.
 

7.) ... monero is better design than bitcoin
 

9.) Run linux instead of Microsoft Windows or Apple iOS.
 

10.) ... use open-source software unless it is just totally inadequate.
 

11.) You can also get linux smartphones such as the PinePhone if you are really hardcore, and this avoids dealing with Apple and Google.
 

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Dissident

Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Too Long Didn't Read, @Bardon Kaldian

I don't consider fatal diseases (what medical literature calls 'incompatible with life') to be desirable or valuable, nor does anyone - can you show a scholarly article saying otherwise? In contrast, many people object to the disappearance of individuals with down syndrome via prenatal screening (that results in ~90% abortions) because it is not a fatal disease, so clearly there is an genuine objection here to viewing down syndrome as being undesirable or unvalued compared to someone without the same condition:

Related to this point, Skotko warns that promoting “choice” as medical progress in the context of prenatal screening may lead to the “disappearance” of people with Down syndrome [52]. Skotko’s argument is important to consider in light of termination statistics from around the world. A report from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register claims that in 2012 in England and Wales, 90 percent of 1,259 fetuses diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome were terminated [53]. Moreover, in England and Wales, the annual rates for termination after a Down syndrome diagnosis between 1989 and 2012 have ranged from 88 percent to 94 percent [5]. In addition, 10 out of 18 European countries are reported to have an average termination rate of 88 percent after a diagnosis of Down syndrome [54]. Finally, termination rates of 95 percent in certain areas of Australia [55] and 74 percent in select US states are reported [5, 56]. Within this context, and drawing on our claims as outlined above, one may argue that prenatal screening represents a form of eugenics and that the “choice” promised by such techniques is not necessarily a (free) choice at all. Force is not involved in prenatal screening decision making (except in presumably rare but understudied familial circumstances) but, arguably, eugenics does not require force. One can claim that even making screening available for Down syndrome and other genetic conditions is already, by definition, suggesting that they are not valued reproductive outcomes [57-59].

 

The same author of this article makes the same point as me that it's inaccurate to lump down's syndrome with fatal diseases and despite warning about prenatal screening for down syndrome he cautions "we argue that it is unhelpful and offensive to pregnant women and medical services or systems that they use to equate all prenatal screening and testing to eugenics".

It appears though you are going to continue dishonestly lumping down syndrome with fatal diseases because you have no argument against the former being undesirable.

Replies: @Oliver D. Smith, @Too Long Didn't Read

Godiva chocolates is closing its stores in the United States.

For years now, friends and we have used Godiva stores as a go-to resource for special gifts, always appreciated and enjoyed on both ends. As recently as this Christmas, one neighbor went to a Godiva shop and then gave us a beautiful gift of chocolates.

No more.

Thanks a lot, dumbasses, for destroying our culture. As you so fondly like to say, "This is why we can't have nice things." Yes, you're damn right. YOU are now the reason why we can't have nice things. Are you happy now?

https://www.godivachocolates.eu/images/gene/prod/zoom/goch000262_03_godiva-discovery-hamper.jpg

Replies: @Desiderius, @epebble, @The Alarmist, @Mike Tre, @MGB, @Anon, @Known Fact, @Too Long Didn't Read, @Reg Cæsar, @3g4me

John Ford’s last great film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) enjoys the status of a classic. I find it a deeply flawed, grating, and often ridiculous film... John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, both fine actors given the impossible job of playing men in their 20s, even though they were aged 54 and 53 at the time. It just doesn’t work... The film is poorly paced as well, burning through screen time... Shinbone was built on a soundstage. Ford was known for shooting on location because he loved authenticity. But Shinbone’s cleanliness and newness—its clear artificiality—were quite deliberate representations of progress and the end of the frontier.
 

In a way, the West had a second life through the Western. Already by the time the first Western movie hit the screen, the Wild West was mostly thing of memory. The West had already become 'old'. But the Western genre made it 'young' again, and a very handsome John Wayne was there almost from the beginning, especially as the star of Raoul Walsh's magnificent THE BIG TRAIL. It was as if Manifest Destiny reborn, happening all over as American Saga in the form of the Western. The West was old but the Western was young, and in movies like STAGECOACH John Wayne conveyed that youthful spirit of the frontier. Indeed, John Wayne aged along with the Western. By the time he made THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, he'd aged along with the genre that was soon on its last legs. And John Ford was even older.

So, LIBERTY VALANCE takes on different meanings depending on the context with which one watches the movie. Minus any context, one will notice many 'flaws' that may even seem ridiculous. Why didn't John Ford insist on using makeup to make Wayne and James Stewart look younger? Why do they look VISIBLY OLDER than the characters they're playing? And yet, this 'flaw' becomes a point and takes on meaning if seen as Ford's commentary on the Western and his place in it. As a story of recollection, it's taking place inside the soundstage of Ransom Stoddard's crusty old mind. It's sort of like a ghost-play. It's also as if Stoddard has forgotten how young they were and revisits those young days trapped in an old-man mentality. Thus, what seems slow-paced and even boring has to be seen as unfolding at an old-man's mental pace. It's a narrative with cobwebs. Stoddard has to rummage through the closets and attics of his mind to recall how things had been. Also, there's added tension because Stoddard's intention is to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but personal memory is never a sure thing. The stage-like quality of the movie conveys this: the past has to be reconstructed to be deconstructed. Also, as the story is essentially subjective, drawn from Stoddard's memory, and shows the limitation of Stoddard's perspective. He's a man of words & ideas and never felt at home in the actual Wild West. He was too busy building order out of it, and the narrative and the setting are ordered and arranged like so many toy houses and train set. However, for a story that is largely subjective recollection, there are scenes without Stoddard. How could Stoddard know of them if he wasn't there? At best, he could have heard of what happened elsewhere or surmised with his own intuition(and limited imagination). Or, maybe John Ford just used the age-old convention where the flashback, though initiated as subjective memory, turns into a kind of omnipotent survey of the past. But then, LIBERTY VALANCE is less about actual facts of the West than about a certain myth. In the end, all the details of something, true or not, matter far less than the key issue of myth. And the element of myth was inseparable from the West and especially the Western. In a way, a Western trying to be real or truthful is a fool's game as its very essence is the myth. Pull on the loose thread of truth from the Western fabric and the whole thing comes apart. This was because the Western was constructed as a myth than as history, and John Ford played as big a role, maybe the biggest, as anyone else. Initially, in movies like THE BIG TRAIL, the Western had yet to be formulated into a genre or convention and could be lots of things. Indeed, CIMARRON, unjustly overlooked, features so many real-life aspects of the Old West. For the Western to live on as popular entertainment, it had to dispense with too-much-truth and too-many-details and be streamlined more into myth of movement and heroism. With STAGECOACH, John Ford contributed to the formulation of the Western into a tight genre, but he also remained true to the original vision of the Western as a sprawling and unruly genre with big cast of characters, which is why THE SEARCHERS is such a rich movie: it's about far more than Cowboys and Indians. Ford generally showed more of life and community than fixating on the 'lone hero'.

One of the central myths of the West was the good guy winning at the end, but of course, it wasn't so. Often the bad guys won, and the West grew out of corruption, compromise, and tyranny as much by morality, community, and civilization. The Western Myth says there was this Wilderness full of savage Indians and unruly outlaws who made it difficult for good decent hardworking folks. But then, some redemptive hero or upright sheriff came to town and cleaned things up, and the good triumphed over the bad. But in truth, those with power generally kept the power, got to appoint the lawmen, and cut deals with politicians. In the West, the big ranchers won over the 'sodbusters', especially as the land there wasn't much good for farming.
This was suggested by HIGH NOON where the good folks in town want Will Kane(Gary Cooper) gone. Why have him stick around and fight for honor and pride when what the town needs is Good Publicity that will attract investment? Frank Miller may be a bad egg, even a rotten egg, but his ilk will always be around and may even loosen things up for business as profits are associated with vice. It's like Pottersville is a more 'happening' place than Bedford Falls in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. So, the Western Myth is just that, a fiction for the most part. It was not the case of mostly good folks terrorized by a handful of wicked folks who were vanquished by the hero who then rode off while the good folks finally had their community. Rather, civilization came with the power, corruption, compromise, and violence. Indeed, it is the very forces of business and progress who hire the goons in MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER to be rid of the 'independent' businessman. (And today, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Wall Street work with Deep State to crush the opposition, slander dissidents, and suppress critics.)

Many conservatives were offended by HIGH NOON though it later came to be loved by them. For classicists like Howard Hawks, it wasn't only an affront to the American Way but the Western genre. He hated the way the hero acted, filled with doubt and desperately hoping for support. And finally, he killed Frank Miller with the help of his wife who scratched the bad man's face. Ford may have agreed with Hawks in some respects, but he had his own doubts about the West and the Western, and it surfaced in THE SEARCHERS but especially with the later three: SERGEANT RUTLEDGE, CHEYENNE AUTUMN, and THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. The Woody Strode movie SERGEANT RUTLEDGE is the most blatantly political one. An innocent upstanding Negro military man is charged with rape, and etc. It's a bit too stiff and preachy. Some see CHEYENNE AUTUMN as a kind of atonement on part of Ford who often featured Indians as shooting ducks but also formed a bond with Indian communities who respected him. It's a good movie but, like SERGEANT RUTLEDGE, marred by the heavy-messaging. Ford was good as a sentimental moralist but didn't fare well as a preacher or pontificator. Of the three movies, LIBERTY VALANCE works best because the message is slowly revealed and reflected on than just pushed in front of us.

It's been said it's impossible to teach an old dog new tricks, and this was true enough of John Ford(but not so with John Huston, but then, he was always young-and-lion at heart). John Ford understood this about himself and didn't try to keep with new trends. That said, he was aware of what was happening in world cinema, and his later movies, while resolutely and unmistakably Fordian, reflected on the changes. Thus, THE SEARCHERS is more complex than his earlier movies, and some might even say LIBERTY VALANCE borders on a kind of experimentalism, a kind of Ford's version of CITIZEN KANE and RASHOMON(or even LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD).
In style, one might say it's even stiffer, stodgier, and stuffier than Ford's earlier movies, but the very deliberateness suggests Ford's intentions were artistic than economic. It's more threaded than threadbare. Andrew Sarris rated it higher than LAWRENCE OF ARABIA(which he detested) and even JULES AND JIM(which he loved), but then, he was a Ford-nut. Also, just when many cineastes in America were favoring Foreign Cinema(as art) over the American(as tired entertainment), French critics(who would turn out to be very influential), argued that the Hollywood 'auteurs' were not only great entertainers and genuine artists but remarkably personal, experimental, and innovative in their own right, thereby relevant and inspirational to New Cinema.
So, the man who shot THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE was far more than he let on. Though Ford to the end claimed he was nothing more than a maker of Western movies, part humility and part pride in the common-man, but the care put into works like MY DARLIING CLEMENTINE and THE SEARCHERS show he took film-making very seriously. He was a drunk but no slouch. At any rate, perspective shaped one's view of Ford. For those who didn't take him seriously as an artist but acknowledged his skills as entertainer, his earlier works were the best for their relative simplicity and straightforwardness. It's like Pauline Kael loved early Hitchcock and could tolerate an early Ford, but she had little use for later and more elaborate Hitchcock and even less for movies like THE SEARCHERS that some of her colleagues were beginning to take seriously. From the vantage point of Ford-as-entertainer, LIBERTY VALANCE is the work of a tired old crank. It seems stiff and stodgy. But from the vantage point of Ford-as-artist, the work seems stark and striking in its barrenness. It's like a musical artist going unplugged or picking up an acoustic guitar with minimum accompaniment after working with a band and electricity. Also, LIBERTY VALANCE, with its unmistakable studio-setting, which renders it more like theatre than cinema, reminds us of the artificiality of all cinema, whether shot in a warehouse or in actual locations. So, even as LIBERTY VALANCE seems less real and 'authentic', it could be said to be more honest in the make-believe-ness of the movies.

When Ford first used James Stewart in TWO RODE TOGETHER(which I haven't seen), he surely had in mind the latter's roles in Anthony Mann Westerns that significantly deviated from the 'classic style'. They were like Noir Westerns, far darker and twisted. And Stewart played it neurotic, bordering on unhinged over trifles. WINCHESTER 73 boils down the violence to childhood psychology, kids fighting over toy guns. Not just 'boys will be boys' but 'men will be boys'. Granted, Stewart already displayed amazing range in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, surely one of the greatest movie performances, ranging from light comedy to the darkest tragedy. Mann and Hitchcock, especially in MAN FROM LARAMIE and VERTIGO, picked up this side of Stewart. (Stewart in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH also played someone faced with the crisis of uttering the truth.) They used Stewart like the homo-preacher was going to use Joe Buck in THE MIDNIGHT COWBOY. There was an All-American straightness to Stewart but also an element of hysteria to the can-do boy-wonder exuberance. Mann picked up on this one-man Dr.-Jekyll-and-Mr.-Hyde quality about Stewart who plays straight-man to his own repressed craziness bursting forth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RzdKzVTAcs&ab_channel=BlaiseRadley

In the Western Comedy DESTRY RIDES AGAIN, Stewart played a lawman who doesn't carry a gun, at least initially. By the time Mann got around to casting Stewart, things got a lot darker, and this may have owed to Mann making his mark in Film Noir before he moved onto Westerns. While actors like Marlon Brando profoundly changed movie to movie, the classic Hollywood stars carried their careers like a baggage. They weren't just playing the latest roles but representing the entirety of their screen persona. So, by the time Stewart signed onto Ford movies, he couldn't help but carry over the changes to his stardom in the 1950s, especially under Hitchcock and Mann, and this adds to the meaning of LIBERTY VALANCE.

From the beginning, the American West was rife with myth, not least because it was part wild and wild settled. It was settled enough for messages to get out by horse, train, and telegraph, but wild enough that tall-tales and legends could win out over facts and truth. It's like the opening of EXCALIBUR. Dark Ages give rise to legends and myths because stories, unverified, take on a life of their own, transformed as they go from person to person who embellish them with their own imagination, lapses, and biases. In a way, the Wild West was like the history of Western Civilization itself from barbarism to civilization in truncated form over less than a century. It had elements of the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Modernity. Some of the wildest, most savage, and most pristine land were transformed within two or three generations into the Modern World.
In the established part of the world, the truth could be just as false. Indeed, at the end of LIBERTY VALANCE, it is the media elites of Shinbone, now a completed town, who reject the fact and keep with the legend. And it's hardly different today with the myth of MLK who was really a lout and punk as well as the spokesman of a great movement. And who can forget the myth of John F. Kennedy'? (Also, the JFK conspiracy theories, far from favoring facts over falsehood, have only added to the myth of 'Camelot'.) Still, if the powers-that-be determine the Narrative, whether mostly true or not, in the developed/established world, the power of narrative was far more democratic and unruly in the Wild West, a kind of worldwide-web-on-horseback, and so many tales and legends proliferated. In a way, the newspaper man in LIBERTY VALANCE is a courageous champion of freedom and truth, but he also represents the coming of the institutionalization of information, with all its problems as well as advantages. It's like the media conglomerates today make a lot of noise about misinformation and disinformation on the internet(which is an understandable concern) but use their great power and reach to spread their own 'fake news' and PC nonsense, like BLM and 'mostly peaceful riots'. And who can forget WMD. And the official story on 9/11 seems far from complete. Ideally, the powerful will defend truth against falsehood, but in truth, the powerful push whatever, factual or false, that favors its power. That being so, it's better that the masses have their own power to lie as well. Lies vs Lies is still better than Only-These-Lies.

In a way, LIBERTY VALANCE is a study in futility. After all, most Americans got used to the Western Myth. Most Americans knew that all those stories of Billy the Kid in books and movies weren't the real truth. Same went for Jesse James(though his story was more Southern than Western). Europe had its Dark Ages, and the Near East was a place of God and gods in the Ancient World, but America was founded on Christian probity, material ambition, and rational politics(based on the Enlightenment). Those had great advantages but lacked in the stuff of myth. Granted, even the rationalist underpinning of Americanism had its own lore and myth, like the fake story of young George Washington chopping the cherry tree but vowing not to lie to his father. But because America was founded on rationalism, it envied the Old World with its deep history where gods, dragons, fairies, and heroes once dwelled. And yet, the Wild West provided an opportunity for such tales to develop. While Western heroes weren't exactly knights with magic swords and Western villains weren't exactly dragons or monsters with horns, their stories happened in a world where most information spread as tall-tales or songs.
So, given that the very appeal of the West and especially the Western was based on its mythic content, one may wonder why a work like LIBERTY VALANCE was necessary. It wasn't as if anyone took the Western as the real story of the West. And yet, it mattered to John Ford because he was perhaps the most important practitioner of the myth. Also, even if people consciously knew that the Western is myth than real history, it still exerted tremendous influence on Americans(and people around the world) in how they regarded America. In a way, all the more so precisely because myths are more appealing than mere history. It's like the appeal of so much of Black History is more myth than reality. In a way, Black America serves as something akin to the Last Frontier or the New Dark Ages where strange tales and mythic lore can rise because things are so crazy, murky, and chaotic in them parts. But even as blacks on the street are 'democratic' in their power to spin their own lies, it is the powerful Jewish-controlled media that select whichever of those lies are most useful to the Establishment. In 2020, it was evil 'racist' white cop killed saint George Floyd in TRUMP'S AMERICA. And the same is done with events in the Middle East and Ukraine, which seem as distant to Americans as the Wild West once did to Americans in the established Eastern cities. Just as those in NY media picked and chose the Wild West narratives that were useful to themselves, the current oligarchs of American Media pick and choose only those narratives in Syria and Ukraine that suit their agenda. "Assad gassed his own people." More things change, more they remain the same. So, what's been true of the Western Narrative has been true since the beginning of time and shall be to the end of time. After all, there are four Gospels, and they don't exactly agree on all the details. Also, even academics who obsess over 'texts' and 'subtexts' are less interested in the truth than on how the power used those 'texts' and how the current power should manipulate the 'text' to push a certain agenda. Today's academic put power above truth. Truth is everything and anything, and man lives with power, not truth. Power selects certain truths and mixes them with useful myths to create an alloy of authority. But then, what is higher than power itself? The gods, or what is considered holy and sacred. In the Current Year, the holies are Jews, Negroes, and Homos, and so, the big idea is that power must be summoned and solidified to serve those gods.

To those interested in 'textual' arguments, LIBERTY VALANCE is useful because it reduces everything and everyone into what is now called a 'trope'. It has all the elements of past John Ford westerns and even seems something like a 'highschool reunion' for the old gang(like in PEGGY SUE GOT MARRIED). But they're so much reviving their older screen personalities as wearing them as 'conventions'. It's like everyone is carrying a cardboard replica of themselves. It's John Wayne as 'John Wayne', and the same goes for the rest of the gang. It's old John Wayne playing young John Wayne, which is both poignant and awkward.

Consciously or not, Martin Scorsese, a great admirer of John Ford, made a couple of films that have something in common with LIBERTY VALANCE. The controversial THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, or The Man Who Would Not Be Christ. In the fantasy sequence, 'Jesus' came down from the cross and chose the life of a normal Jewish man with wife and family. Later, he comes upon 'Paul' and accuses him of spreading lies. He, 'Jesus', didn't die on the cross. But 'Paul' says it doesn't matter what happened as long as the legend sticks as myth and fills so many lives with happiness. In other words, 'Jesus' doesn't need to die on the Cross for the myth of Christianity so spread and dominate the world. The myth is bigger than the man. And yet ultimately, 'Jesus' cannot accept this. No matter how successful and powerful Christianity may become and change people's lives, it would be based on a lie if he didn't die on the cross, and so, he returns to the cross and accepts his fate. A similar kind of logic underlies MEET JOHN DOE where a powerful social movement grows from a lie, that a certain John Doe chose to kill himself as protest against the inhumane world. The lie is exploited by the powerful as 'truth' but then 'exposed' as a lie when 'John Doe' turns against them. But then, 'John Doe' decides to really kill himself to give the movement a foundation in truth.
The other Martin Scorsese film on Man vs Myth is THE IRISHMAN. Though almost certainly based on a lie(especially on how Jimmy Hoffa was killed), it examines the contrast between the world of appearances and of the world of shadows(or disappearances). In the end, the film is less about how-Hoffa-died than how a man squares himself to himself, his family, and finally God in terms of what he knew, what he felt, and what he did. Quentin Tarantino, a harsh critic of John Ford, did something opposite to LIBERTY VALANCE with ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD. If Ford was aiming for the truth hidden by the myth, Tarantino fantasized a myth over the ugly reality of what really happened to Roman Polanski's wife. Tarantino is his own Noodles, the camera is opium pipe, conjuring a fantasy of what-might-have-been. But then, he's a very pomo creature.

Ford thought that drunkards and men with funny voices were hilarious... There is also a great deal of scene-chewing overacting and overbroad parody that often seem downright cartoonish. Beyond these lapses of taste...
 

https://youtu.be/wSUTWGQ8n7M?t=103

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance also contains Left-liberal messages on race. For instance, Devine’s Marshal Link Appleyard is married to a Mexican woman... This must have been Ford’s preference... Wayne’s character Tom Doniphan has a loyal negro sidekick named Pompey (Woody Strode). Pompey even endures the indignity of being refused service at the saloon, but Doniphan stands up for him, although he does refer to him as “my boy Pompey.” ...Ransom Stoddard (Stewart) teaches reading and civics to a class of white adults, plus Pompey and a brood of Mexican children. (All the children in Shinbone are nonwhite, a poignant sign that white civilization has not yet been established there. Now such classrooms are signs of white civilization in decline.) Lawyer Stoddard teaches that the fundamental law of the land is the Declaration of Independence, which holds that “All men are created equal.” The Declaration, of course, is not the fundamental law of the land. That would be the Constitution, which says nothing about all men being created equal.
 

Doniphan-and-Pompey is a traditional relationship of that time. LIBERTY VALANCE takes place after slavery has been abolished, but if the South had won the Civil War, Doniphan could be Pompey's master. (Ironic that a former slave would be named 'Pompey' after the great Roman general. It either suggests Americans are ignorant of history or hints at black ascendancy in the future.) The thing is, apart from social distinctions, there is a personal bond between Doniphan and Pompey that go beyond the political. Doniphan is surely no racial egalitarian(and even Ransom is rather condescending to Pompey who is later given 'pork chop money'), but he's generally not a mean person(when he doesn't have to be) and much appreciates Pompey as his loyal sidekick, his Tonto.
Of course, Pompey might be happier joining with Liberty Valance. Then, he could be a wildass ni**a, the mode of most blacks these days. I read somewhere that 20% of all cowboys were black, and most Westerns never took this into account. Among them, there must have been some crazy fellers so different from Pompey. Sergio Leone brought out the dark side of Woody Strode in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. There, he is a menacing badass ni**a than a loyal servant.

A lot of children in Shinbone are Mexican because Southwest had a sizable Mexican population. Indeed, parts of the SW had already been settled by Mexicans and taken from Indians long before white folks arrived in numbers. Unlike the Great Plains and Northwest where white man took the land from savage Indians, the story of the Southwest was about white man taking the land from the semi-civilization already established by Mexicans, from whom Anglos also picked up lots of cowboy tricks.

While the Constitution isn't the same as the Declaration of Independence, the spirit of the latter is reflected in the letter of the former. After all, laws aren't just laws but guided by a spirit. If guided by monarchical spirit, laws reflect royal authority. But the US Constitution was guided by the spirit of the Declaration, and it's why the direction of American History and its Laws has been toward securing more rights and equal protections to all regardless of race, creed, and color.

Ford did not, however, identify with outsiders against America’s WASP ethnic core because he was Jewish. Instead, he did so as an Irish Catholic.
 

Judging from Ford’s cavalry trilogy—Fort Apache (1948), She Wore the Yellow Ribbon (1949), and Rio Grande (1950)—the West could not have been won without the help of golden-hearted, silver-tongued Irish drunkards. These stereotypes seem rather broad and offensive today, but Ford—a heavy drinker himself—obviously regarded them affectionately and thought their inclusion to be progressive.
 

The film’s message is deeply anti-liberal. Indeed, although Ford could not have known it, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance illustrates many of Carl Schmitt’s criticisms of liberalism.
 

Played to cartoonish excess by Lee Marvin, Liberty Valance is a cold-blooded murderer and thief. He’s also a drunkard and a petty bully. The entire town of Shinbone lives in terror of him. He’s the kind of man who needs killing, so decent people can plant crops, raise children, and sleep at night.
 

It seems odd that an American movie would have a villain named Liberty. Isn’t America the land of liberty? But Liberty Valance is not really an American. He’s a man of the Wild West. America is a Republic with laws. The West is the state of nature. Liberty Valance represents the liberty of savages in the state of nature, where one man’s liberty is exercised at the expense of another’s.
 

For no sensible reason except that he likes her, Tom(John Wayne) awakens Hallie, who works as a waitress at a local eatery, to help tend to Stoddard’s wounds.
 

Incidentally, there's a scene with a woman nursing a man in SERGEANT RUTLEDGE as well, and it might have been Ford's way of, wink-wink saying, THE NEGRO IS GONNA ROB US OF OUR MANHOOD. Unlike scrawny James Stewart, Woody Strode was a well-built guy, so there could have been sexual tension when the white woman tends to him though the times discouraged that stuff when it was made. On the one hand, Ford as an Irishman with bitter national memories, sympathized with Negroes who faced discrimination. But he was also mindful of racial differences. On the set, he often mocked John Wayne's manhood as movie-fake and pointed to Woody Strode as the Real Athlete of the bunch.

Rance doesn’t see any difference between force used by criminals and force used by decent men against criminals. He’s an idealist who apparently thinks the laws can magically enforce themselves.
 

(Ransom) is spindly, priggish, progressive zealot. He reminds me of Barack Obama.
 

Rance’s role in the community, however, is distinctly feminine. In a land where men wear guns and settle problems for themselves, he refuses to wear a gun and expects the law to settle disputes . . . somehow. Thus in the Ericsons’ restaurant, Rance wears an apron while washing dishes and occasionally waiting tables. (Obama also allowed himself to be photographed in an apron.) When Rance learns that Hallie can’t read, he takes on another stereotypically female role: schoolmarm.
 

Plenty of men in the West wore aprons. Sure, Western movies focus on the gunslingers, but most men did regular work to build the West. Butchers wore aprons. Grocers wore aprons. So many men wore aprons. It was not a woman's thing. It's like what Nixon's pa says in the movie:

Nixon's Ma - "Could thee at least remove that apron, Frank?"

Nixon's Pa - "This blood pays the bills, Hannah. I'm not ashamed of how I earn my money."

The problem of the Western Formula was it so over-emphasized the men-with-guns that it relegated to insignificance all the men who did the real work to make the West work. Naturally, we want to see men with guns than men with aprons & ladles, but the earlier Westerns did have a wider and more embracing vision of the West. The real West wasn't about men-with-guns and men-with-aprons but men-with-aprons-and-guns, and womenfolk learned how to use guns too, like the woman in RED RIVER. It's like the guys in GOODFELLAS both cook and kill. Paulie has a system of slicing garlic. And Clyde nearly got crushed by a man in an apron. In MIDNIGHT COWBOY, Joe Buck is someone who works with an apron but goes off to New York to play cowboy stud, a gunslinger with the ladies. He chases after the myth and runs from reality. In New York, he sees other men like himself working with aprons in restaurants. He is one of them, a regular Joe, but has been poisoned by the myth that dreams come true for the cowboy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQV6CijIzrc&ab_channel=ShakemodeProductions

https://youtu.be/ajxXy1t7Fzc?t=168

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBR0Dug9sIo&ab_channel=MattFreeman

Of course, a Western could deviate too far from the men-with-guns narrative. There was a recent one called FIRST COW(which should be called FA**OTY MOO) that was 'gayish' or 'homo-social'(as its writer calls it) as shit. It was about two fellas, one Jewish and one Asian, in the Wild West stealing milk from a cow to... get this, bake muffins. It is the fa**otiest thing I ever did see, though I turned it off after 30 min. I didn't see BROKEBACK MOUNTIN', but even two cowpokes poking each other's bung is less 'gayish' than the idea of two guys out in the rough frontier having nothing better to do than bake muffins with stolen milk. Can anyone imagine Gary Cooper and Richard Widmark forming a team to milk a cow in the middle of the night to go bake cupcakes? It's the sort of tooty idea only a comfy city-slicker can cook up in his own world of creature comforts. "Gee, what if a sensitive Jewish guy met a naked Asian guy pursued by Russians(!!) and formed a 'homosocial' bond where they pick flowers and bake muffins together?" Total pukeville, but a favorite among critics, but they're a pansyass bunch who probably went off to get a muffin at Starbucks after the screening.

How is teaching someone how to read being a 'schoolmarm'? The hero of VIVA ZAPATA is ashamed he can't read. And the Viking leader in 13TH WARRIOR learns to scribble some lines from an Arab. Word is Power. Granted, teaching womenfolk(except for lesbians) to read beyond perusing personal letters(like Laurie in THE SEARCHERS) may not have been a good thing as most woman-minds aren't fit for real thinking and easily get confused. It's like what the girl says in KINGS OF SUMMER about her 'woman-brain'. Incidentally, if the tough guy loses the girl to the idea-guy in LIBERTY VALANCE, it's the opposite in KINGS OF SUMMER, more along the Arthurian Tale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhto3fS6itk&ab_channel=IvanCastro

This too is an attitude more commonly associated with women. Ford clearly thinks that manliness is connected with a willingness to fight over matters of honor.
 

Pro-Law stance of Ransom is essentially beta-male-ish as force is used by legal institutions to secure rights and protection for all men. Still, even though Ransom is physically beta-male, he has alpha-male ego when it comes to pushing others to follow his lead.
Legalism can be advantageous or disadvantageous to whites. Clearly, laws based on equal protection eroded white power and privilege in the South vis-a-vis the Negro. But laws of equal protection, if properly applied, can be good for whites because individual fights for honor between blacks and whites will favor the blacks. If a Negro and a White fight over a steak, the chances are the black guy will win 9 times out of 10 or even 19 times out of 20.
Honor as a personal code is a wonderful concept. For example, if you give your word, the honorable thing is to keep it. But in the Western setting, honor wasn't so much a matter of personal ethos as proving one's worth by guns or fist. But force doesn't favor the good over the bad. A good decent man can lose a gunfight to a total son of a bitch. Such 'honor' is really a matter of might-is-right, and naturally, Ransom has to oppose it. But would most white males want such an 'honor' culture living with blacks? Most times when white guys decide to fight Negroes for 'honor', they get beat up and lose their 'honor' of manhood, which is why it led to White Flight. Also, the reason for higher death rates in the black community is they fight over 'honor' of who done 'dissed' whom. They shoot each other over who stepped on whose gym-shoes. They are crazier than Wild Bill of Walter Hills movie where people are beaten or killed over 'hats'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZy7fW9IO0s&ab_channel=Movieclips

Rance furtively buys a gun and sneaks off to practice shooting. Why the deception? Because he can’t really reconcile it with his self-image and the image he has established with the public.
 

There’s also a love triangle in the mix. Tom is in love with Hallie. Everybody sees it. But he hasn’t screwed up the courage to propose. It is his one failing of nerve as a man.
 

Rance is pretty much zilch as a man, certainly nobody Tom would regard as a rival.
 

But Rance is no longer a child. He has faced death in a duel over honor.
 

When Tom sees them together, he knows that he has lost Hallie. He gets staggering drunk and burns his own house down in self-pity.
 

...when he shot Liberty Valance, he became a man and a hero. It also launched his political career. But none of this sits well with Rance’s puritanical idealist streak. He feels that he bears the “mark of Cain” and is perhaps unworthy of public office.
 

I wonder, though, if Tom’s story is even true. Did it really happen, or did he make it up to spare Rance’s feelings?
 

(Ransom) no longer thinks his public esteem is based on killing, but shouldn’t he be bothered that it is based on a lie? Perhaps he can live with the lie by telling himself that he is doing good things for the people. But couldn’t he say the same thing about killing Liberty Valance?
 

The deeper truth that Rance evades is that, for civilization to come to the West, somebody needed to shoot Liberty Valance. It doesn’t really matter who.
 

Also, it does matter who kills whom. After all, outlaws, thugs, and criminals are always killing one another. But when a thug kills a thug, the thug is once again triumphant. Had Valance been killed by another Valance, thug would be replaced by thug. So, it matters who does the killing and why. Doniphan is half-Ransom and half-Valance. Like Ransom, he's a good guy and sides with the good people in town. Like Valance, he relishes the wild anarchy of the West where a tough guy is king-of-the-hill, a natural nobleman. He doesn't use his might for evil, but he rather likes might-is-right as it favors his kind of skills. Doniphan is someone who could have thrown his lot with the Valances of the world, but he chooses Ransom, even though he could have had more fun and better relations as a partner of Valance who respects other tough guys. So, that Doniphan kills Valance is significant as it symbolizes the struggle in the heart of power between the good and evil. In killing Valance, he kills a part of himself. It's like the circular opening scene of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID that suggests Garrett's killing of Billy the Kid was essentially killing himself. But if killing the outlaw is a good thing in LIBERTY VALANCE, it is a bad thing in PAT GARRETT.

The possibility that the story is false is supported Ford’s frank exploration of noble and ignoble lies later in the movie. Although the newspaper editor has pried the story out of Rance by insisting on his “right to the truth,” once the tale is told, he burns his notes and tells Rance he will not print the truth. “This is the West, Sir,” he says, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
 

But why replace the truth with legend? What’s wrong with the truth? The superficial truth deals with who shot Liberty Valance: Tom or Rance? If Tom shot Liberty, he can’t be punished now because he’s dead. Rance, of course, kept the secret. Perhaps there would be legal consequences for that. But the real need for deception has to do with the deeper truth: somebody needed to shoot Liberty Valance so that civilization could come to the West,
 

Liberalism seeks to do away with force and fraud in human relations.
 

Of course, 'liberalism' has many meanings. It could mean classical liberalism or libertarianism. It could mean the New Deal and Big-Governmentism. It could mean high taxes and social-democracy. It could mean the Welfare State and Great Society. It could mean the Nanny State where the state passes ever more rules and regulations(about guns and smoking) to make us do what's right. Or, nowadays, it could mean Neo-Liberalism where the globalists oligarchs, deep state elites, and ivory tower operatives all conspire to gain more control via monopolization, more wars, and hate propaganda against whomever they hate. Currently, what is called 'liberalism' is just Jewish Supremacist Gangsterism with globo-homo and magic-negro as gods.

Liberalism, in short, depends on illiberal men and extralegal violence for its very survival. But, instead of questioning their own ideological premises, liberals simply lie about this fact.
 

This is why we need fascism that is most honest in exploring and explaining how power really works, but fascism was disgraced by the Ridiculous Fascism of Mussolini and Ludicrous Fascism of Hitler who turned fascism into mindless personality cults.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

That's old. Here is where it now stands:

https://www.inquirer.com/news/kenyatta-johnson-indictment-city-council-dawn-chavous-charged-universal-companies-kenny-gamble-20200129.html

He was indicted in Jan. 2020 for a "pay to play" type scheme. I assume nothing has happened because of Covid. I have no idea why the taxpayers are paying his legal bills. Taking bribes was not part of his official duties.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @HammerJack, @HammerJack

'..the immigrants usually serve three main functions: cheap labor to replace native groups, settlement in the ‘frontier’ (periphery), and control over the natives and their land. These dynamics generally result in the maintenance of hegemony..’
 

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Audacious Epigone

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @petit bourgeois, @Jack D, @Patrick McNally, @Alden, @restless94110

The MEN OF UNZ should start their own site wehatewhitewomenbecausewenevergotlaidinourlives .com

When I was young the sure tell if a man was gay was his disdainful attitude and nasty remarks about women. Very similar to the comments the MEN OF UNZ make about women.

The MEN OF UNZ just danced for joy when a Muslim immigrant terrorist bombed a concert in Manchester UK and murdered 22 concert goers mostly young British girls. The White women hating MEN OF UNZ rejoiced when White woman Tessa Majors was murdered by 3 black 8 th graders. Who were hidden by their families and only turned in by a store owner whose store the thugs often raided.

The MEN OF UNZ again rejoiced when short thin mid fifties Deborah Staggs was attacked and had 26 bones broken by a young black man 8 inches taller and 80 pounds bigger than Deborah.
The MEN OF UNZ defend Jeffrey Epstein extortionist blackmailer crooked financier embezzler probably Israeli spy because he did what the MEN OF UNZ really want to do, control and use a harem of 11-17 year old girls for sex and sadistic pleasure.

Some of the gay MEN OF UNZ are vociferously d defending former less than mediocre NFL player Adams who killed 6 Whites.

Replies: @AndrewR, @YetAnotherAnon, @Sean, @Too Long Didn't Read

We need an epidemiology and health expert and statesman like Trump at the helm in a time like this to coordinate efforts to get the world vaccinated and distribute bleach. It can't be left to amateurs

The drug companies are saying that their manufacturing processes are so complex that they cannot be duplicated by generic manufacturers and that in any case the shortage of vaccines is due to a worldwide shortage of materials like chemicals and glass vials and bio-bags to grow viruses in.

But then I remember Amazon saying that it would be impossible to charge sales tax to customers, because every county in the US has different tax rates, and trying to implement this would bring their computers to a standstill. But in the end they figured it out. Well done, Amazon.

I remember the cell phone companies saying that it was impossible to transfer numbers from the phone of one company to another, but eventually they figured out how to do it. Well done, T-Mobile.

But why is AstraZeneca selling its vaccines at cost, and other companies at a much higher price? Are there no economies of scale?

And what about SinoPharm, Sinovac, and Gamaleya, makers of the Спутник V vaccine? Shouldn't they be asked to share their vaccines with the world? They already are? Damn commies spoiling it for everyone!

And why is Russia turning to factories in Taiwan for quicker roll-out of Спутник V?

In recent years, Chinese vaccine companies have turned from largely making products for use domestically to supplying the global market, with individual firms gaining WHO preapproval for specific vaccines — seen as a seal of quality. With the pandemic, Chinese vaccine companies have exported hundreds of millions of doses abroad.

Chinese vaccine makers have been quick to expand capacity and say they can meet China’s domestic need by the end of the year.

Ah, but America has a lot more people than China, right?

And why are Lionel Messi and the rest of the Argentinian national soccer squad getting the Chinese Sinovac vaccine (the same one I had)? What happened to the Monroe Doctrine that what happens in the Americas stays in the Americas.

It is all so damn complicated, but it seems to me that making vaccines is a growth industry, even if for a relatively short time, a bit like building stadiums for an Olympic Games, that should employ millions of vaccine makers and givers for four years and that fortunes will be made by those who are the first to figure out how to make billions of doses.

Trump may no longer be in office, but he should certainly get some credit for getting the pandemic off the ground and helping to create all these jobs.

Why should we not have expensive boutique vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna, as well as cheaper public options like AstraZeneca and Sinovac? They can compete with each other in TV commercials and by sponsoring sports events and Tucker Carlson. We can have vaccine teams at US international airports welcoming travelers and offering them vaccination on the spot.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read

So, Jenner abusing cocaine (and god knows what other chemicals) and being under the screws of a master manipulator for 30 years had no influence on his late life desire to go tranny? Got it.
 

If every cocaine abusing hen pecked hubby turned trans, the shoe stores would be carrying a lot more size 12 high heeled shoes.

I can't speak to Jenner's reasons, background, etc. I'm sure he has and will continue to do that.

While disgust and even hatred here for The Other is strong in many commentators, it is best not to use manufactured stereotypes in place of evidence. Who would you prefer in the White House (or Cali gubernatorial manse), Caitlyn or Slo Joe/Newsom?

Jenner herself (I always have to pause to use the right gender pronoun) has far better political philosophy than Nonsense Newsom.

Also I have seen/read anecdotal evidence that many actual lesbian women tend to be more conservative than perhaps, the norm. Certainly more than male gays. I doubt that can be attributed to T levels or hormones. They may not be outspoken on this, but it is sometimes seen. Perhaps they realize that their psuedo "man's world" is best experienced in a law & order environment and viewing personal achievement before racial/gender leveling by Big Sister. Not sure if there is any hard research on this.

Okay, maybe you don't want your son/daughter to marry a transgender person. But no one is asking you to do that. If Cait can find a somewhat macho smart Hispanic politician to run as Lt. Governor on her ticket, they might just upend the hopelessly inept Dem monopoly in Cali.

Or would some here prefer to stew about the strange person who happens to agree with their ideas?

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Mike Tre

Replies: @Discordiax, @Too Long Didn't Read, @Clyde, @Anon, @Alexander Turok

Years ago I watched a movie starring Tom Berenger about a group of Irish soldiers who deserted the U.S. army and enlisted in the Mexican army. I wonder if Canelo is descended from one of those micks.

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Paleo Liberal

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @Bumpkin

For you and John Mason, no, you 2 don't get it. You need all aspects of immigration control. You don't put mosquito screens on 75% of your windows and figure that's good enough.

What's the point in deporting anyone, if you don't control the southern border? They come back MANY times, in fact - just read any story on illegal aliens that have been arrested, and many of them note that the guy has been deported one or many times before.

Yes, you need non-corrupt immigration authorities at the airport. You need more customs men at the container ports - oh, that costs too much? - raise the money with tariffs. How do you get non-corrupt ones? You have to hire legacy Americans. Oops, but that's discrimination!

Visa entry AND EXIT control, as China has, also must be implemented. PeterIke, a regular commenter here, gave us 5 points under this Peak Stupidity post that I'll just paste in, with his retroactive permission:

********************************
1. Cancel all Chinese student visas. Why are we educating 350,000+ Chinese every year and allowing them to take up seats in many of our best universities?

2. Cancel all Chinese work visas. Why do we allow Chinese nationals to work in our industries? OF COURSE they're spying.

3. Cancel all Chinese immigration, period. Revoke all green cards and visas.

4. Stop allowing Chinese to park money in American real estate. Don't allow them to invest in it at all. Force them to sell what they already own at a loss or confiscate it.

5. Continue and expand Trump's policies of targeted import tariffs. Start re-patriating one manufacturing industry after another.
*********************************

Substitute any other nationalities you want or just strike out "Chinese".

Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @The Alarmist, @Joe Stalin, @Too Long Didn't Read

I wonder if some of these journalists are playing both sides. You know, adopt a pro-Antifa stance, sell some of your footage to the left, but then sell some the violent stuff to the right anonymously. You make more money that way.

Btw, has it occurred to anyone that the mass refusal to work for crap wages when unemployment pays better, is the modern equivalent of a General Strike? This is what happens when non-union workers get mad at being worked to death for terrible pay. Some of the people in our service industry work jobs that are just as nasty and stressful as those 10-hour-a day-factory jobs in the late 1800s. Those jobs got the whole union movement rolling along. But in this day and age, the Democrats will just open the borders to create one big, massive multimillion strike-breaking mob to take the jobs of any workers who try to create unions again.

Replies: @Anon, @dfordoom, @S. Anonyia, @Too Long Didn't Read

Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Too Long Didn't Read

It is difficult to be fair to both races, because white people would rather be judged on the color of their skin, whereas Black people would rather be judged by the content of their character.

Did I get that right? No wait, it is the other way round!

When it comes to affirmative action in education and hiring, promoting young black people from affluent black families based on the color of their skin seems wrong to White folks who don't get tribal customs. Shouldn't they be promoted based on the wealth of their parents, like normal folks?

Can't we just have a complete reset, and give affirmative action to people in need, orphans, cripples, waifs, and strays, and so on, regardless of skin color.

For example, it makes much more sense to give basketball scholarships to Whites, because Blacks can easily get on the team without really trying, whereas whites need a lot of remedial coaching to get anywhere near a three-pointer or a slam dunk.

But perhaps there should also be college paralympic scholarships for people in wheelchairs. During my employment I met many young black men in wheelchairs whose youthful athletic careers as runners and jumpers had been cut short by catching police bullets in the spine while out on a training run or while shopping.

Remember that for every George Floyd who was murdered, there are dozens who have been maimed.

And colleges could also give scholarships for gender-free sports and put up competitive teams where there is no sexual qualification at all.

I remember many years ago when my niece was a very talented young soccer goalkeeper on a scholarship at, well, I won't name the university, but I believe its founding father was Colonel Sanders and its sports teams are known as the Fried Chicks.

Although she was an international quality goalkeeper, my niece had to share first team duties with an alternate whose main qualification was that she was very quick to drop to her knees and catch the balls of the head coach with her mouth. A useful trick to be sure, but she had a tendency to let the opposition score by spreading her legs at the wrong moment instead of spreading her arms.

And yet if she had been given a Sexual scholarship, she might have contributed greatly to the student body with no detriment to the women's soccer team.

Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Too Long Didn't Read

In the days since election results gave the world Donald J. Trump and the rise of demagoguery, some Zionist organizations have moved in quickly to exploit the air of uncertainty and fear in the Muslim community by offering questionable solidarity and so-called interfaith support. "

"Zionist organizations, which have a history of silencing Muslims on the issue of Palestine as well as dividing our community in efforts to create a “political firewall around Israel,”1 also have engaged in Islamphobic activities. However, now they are all too ready to announce their solidarity with the Muslim community. The American Jewish Committee (AJC), which is known to be intricately involved in the dissemination of Islamophobic rhetoric and policies, announced in November the creation of the Muslim Jewish Advisory Council2, co-convened by the Islamic Society of North America. The council’s purpose, according to the AJC’s website is to, among other things, develop a coordinated strategy to address anti-Muslim bigotry and anti-Semitism in the U.S.AJC Chairman David Harris, who sits on the newly formed council, wrote in 2002 that Arabs and Muslims in the United States were a “physical threat” to Jews; that the demographic growth of Muslim Americans posed a “long-term political threat;” and exhorted Jews to distinguish between ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ American Muslim.6 After 9/11, Harris commissioned a private census of American Muslims in attempts to discredit the estimated 6 million to 8 million Muslims living here. “‘Six million has a special resonance,’ Harris wrote in a May 21 article in Jerusalem Report magazine. ‘It would mean that Muslims outnumber Jews in the U.S. and it would buttress calls for a redefinition of America's heritage as 'Judeo-Christian- Muslim,' a stated goal of some Muslim leaders,’” the AP reported on Oct. 27, 2001.7

Harris wrote about the demographic count he commissioned from a University of Chicago professor in a blog post on Aug. 19, 2002: “Whatever the actual number, however, what is indisputable, given current immigration policy, is that the Muslim population in the U.S. is likely to grow quite rapidly in the coming years.”8 Just a few months later, on Jan. 9, 2003, the AJC issued a statement supporting then-President Bush’s "Registration of Certain Nonimmigrant Aliens from Designated Countries Program,"9 commonly referred to as the Muslim registry”https://www.ampalestine.org/newsroom/ajc-calls-muslims-a-%E2%80%98demographic-threat-%E2%80%99-actively-involved-islamophobic-activities

Replies: @Too Long Didn't Read, @AnonStarter