I was in the Imperial Capital yesterday and that meant sitting in traffic for long periods. I tuned into talk radio and some guy was going on about how Trump is not a conservative. He was not being critical, he was simply making a point. The people who hold the rights to Official Conservatism™ have declared Trump outside their club. A caller claimed that Trump is a liberal because that’s the only other option, if you are not a conservative. I was not paying close attention, but there’s no denying that Trump does not fit into either bucket.
Of course, most people don’t fit neatly into either bucket and that’s mostly because the labels have meanings that no longer make sense. Hillary Clinton is a liberal, a Progressive! That’s supposed to mean she is a socialist that wants to take from the rich and give to the poor. Not only does she live like royalty, she had the backing of the nation’s billionaires, as well as the billionaires from other nations. It’s a very strange world where the socialist is the preferred candidate of the Billionaire’s Boys Club.
That’s one of the many things revealed about this recent election. The party of the working man is no such thing. They are the party of government hoping to rally the not working men to their banner. When Democrats talk about “working families” they really mean welfare queens with five kids from five strange men they met at a party. This has been true for a long time, but it is now so blazingly obvious that even the staunchest of union men have to accept it. Still, the Democrats retain the label “party of the working class.”
I’ve written a lot here about the ridiculousness of calling the modern Right “conservative” on the grounds that they have managed to conserve nothing. When looked at in the tradition of Western conservatism, it is even more ridiculous to keep calling these people “conservative.” Bill Kristol, for example, is just an old school liberal with a propensity for violence. The National Review crowd is a Buckley Mystery Cult at this point. It’s impossible to tease anything out of that dog’s breakfast of assertions that resembles a political philosophy.
Even the terms Right and Left have outlived their usefulness. Most people don’t know the origin of these terms and just assume they mean Socialist versus Capitalist or Liberal versus Conservative. Like so much else about Western politics, these terms come down to us from the French Revolution. The aristocrats sat on the right side of the Assembly and the commoners sat on the left side. Ever since, radicals and trouble makers have co-opted the term “Left” because they want to pretend they are on the winning side of history and champion of the people.
Calling modern Progressives “the Left” turns history on its head. Progressives are the champions of privilege and advocate what amounts to the return of active and passive citizenship. They and their attendants will be the active citizens while the rest of us, including whoever happens to wander in from who knows where, will be the passive citizens. The only difference is the 18th century aristocrats were honest about what they wanted. The modern aristocrat prefers to lie about his intentions.
Of course, the trouble makers on the alt-right are hardly the defenders of the status quo. They can’t even be called supporters of the status quo ante. The examples from history are simply used as a critique of the current year and the people fond of saying “current year.” The alt-right is thoroughly modern, drawing on information from genetics and cognitive science, while the Progressives are still stuck in the age of blank slatism, that is both anti-science and regressive. It is the Progressives who cannot get past 1955.
As the great Walter Williams was fond of saying, the radicals are the people arguing for the rollback of the welfare state. The radicals are the ones arguing for the ending of foreign adventurism. The radicals are the ones questioning the prevailing orthodoxy on race, sex and culture. The people being purged from social media would have been much more at home with the Jacobins than the defenders of the Ancien Régime. Given their skepticism regarding global capitalism, many of the alt-right would be better termed alt-left.
It may not seem important to fret over labels and terminology, but language is the primary tool of war. Progressives weaponized the word “racist” to the point where it became a Medusa head they could wave around, turning their opponents into stone. Even mentioning the word race causes so-called conservatives to cry. If this thing that is rumbling through the West is something bigger than a minor disruption in the force, we’re going to need new words and labels that work to the benefit of the new radicals.
More important, sabotaging the verbal weaponry of the other side. The new twitter feature that lets users block key words is a no- so subtle attempt to ban certain words and phrases. After all, if you ban the word, you ban the idea behind the word. That’s just as good as banning the person behind the idea. The challenge for the trouble makers will be to evolve an esoteric way of saying the same things. Winning the war of words is just a proxy for winning the war of ideas. One is a reflection of the other.
This goes back a lot of years for me, but I believe it really comes down to the Government Party vs. everybody else. The problem is that the Government Party (like any State Party) is actually pretty small in terms of total numbers. They tend to cluster around Government centers of gravity (N. VA, of course, military bases, large Government hubs like Denver, etc.) which gives them a disproportionate impact on media, culture, and where the money flows. It really does come down to money in the end. To swell their numbers, they’ve even made up an entire “race” category:… Read more »
Thank you.
Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. George Orwell, 1984
The human race divides itself politically into those who want to be controlled, and those who don’t–
Robert Heinlein
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
“Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can’t conquer a free man; the most you can… Read more »
I read that book when I was a kid… Jack Vance was great.
“There is an old song which asserts ‘the best things in life are free.’ Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted … and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.” – Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
“…for this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God…”
Signed,
Your Heavenly Father, Creator of EVERYTHING in the universe!
in II Peter 3.5
The whole internet as an alternative legitimate source of truth and information is about to face a big test. Tech-savvy people have been carefully going over the Wikileaks releases, and have been finding serious suggestions of ped0phi1ia centering on the Podesta brothers, John and Tony (recall that John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman, was a focus of the Wilileaks). This stuff is explosive, and seems to have links to child trafficking out of Haiti and Jeff Epstein’s little island hideaway. Zero Hedge commenters are linking to Reddit and 4chan threads investigating the evidence, as is Remus at the Woodpile Report. This… Read more »
The only part i disagree with is the bleach bit part. that was the barn door shutting after the barn had been disassembled and removed!
Z,
One thing I’ve noticed about your commenters is that for the most part they seem to be fully invested—”plugged in”, if you will—into the political system. The System, as the hippies called it.
They don’t seem to realize that they’re living in full-blown Weimerica.
And Weimar problems demand Weimar solutions….
bull shit, you dirty old fukk.
I like Dirt People. It’s obviously non-elite, but it’s also confusing, tactically ambiguous, scary and off-putting all at the same time. We shouldn’t even try to define it, as that will put us all in a box. Let the crazy liberals have a go at it. It will drive them even crazier.
Actually, our culture is getting rid of a lot of words and terms. We may be back to just grunts soon. I’ve got a copy of David Copperfield by my work desk. Read a few pages the other day and it’s clear that we are destroying literacy in this country. I’m tasking myself to read more challenging works. (And I have actually had someone tell me I use big words.)
I think it’s time we get rid of the notion we can put people and ideas into boxes. The Left loves to label you, so they can easily dismiss you.
In thinking about it, I think we should call ourselves the Steak Eaters Club. No vegans/vegetarians allowed 😉
I don’t care if someone comes from Vega as long as they believe in individual liberty and less federal control of my/our life.
There is always a right and left in democracy. The left is the party of disorder and the party of power. Of course that’s not the labeling: the labeling is always “fairness”, “equality”, “inclusion”, “progress”, etc. But think about “change”: how does one make a change without the power to do so? And after change happens: how does one make sure that it’s sustained without a new bureaucracy to enforce it? Of course there are changes which are self-enforcing… but then you’ll realize that the left does not make such changes. Their changes always require a bureaucracy, police, education. As… Read more »
Nailed it.
Even a political Linnaeus couldn’t save the Humpty Dumpty that you just pushed off his perch. Actually, even the classification from the french revolution doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. That is part of the reason the Classical (Marxist) interpretation of that event had to be abandoned in the seventies (but is still taught in the universities and kept alive by commie writers). Nobles were found on both left and right. The Jacobins were part of the Mountain, guys who sat high up in the assembly because they were not running things in the beginning, but were the social critics the… Read more »
For lack of a better term, I call myself a Realist. Old-school philosophy majors will wince at that, but I have no idea what else to call it. There are certain facts that one must bow to, if one wants an internally coherent worldview. Such as: there is a minimum IQ required to maintain a technological society; IQ is strongly correlated with race; some races on average fall below that threshold. Such as: Human societies are baboon troops writ large (I often joke to my liberal acquaintances that I’m the only guy they know who really believes in evolution); therefore,… Read more »
I use the term “biological realist” rather than “race realist” as it is more accurate, but much harder to attack. It also covers all the other stuff like sex, evolution and ethnicity.
And abortion. It’s not that the Government Party doesn’t know that’s a baby. It’s that they do not care. The biological realist understands the child to be a child, and that it is being discriminated against simply because of what it looks like and where it happens to live.
Natural Law
I often refer to different genetic groups as “breeding groups” for the same reason.
“Realist” ?
Be careful there, back in the ’60s & 70s there was to be a far left newsletter called “The Realist” published by Paul Krassner. Wouldn’t want anyone confusing us with him.
The Realist didn’t start out as a lefty rag. Paul began as a New York free speech guy, but he started liking to hang out with the west coast hippies and did a political 180 circa 1962.
Or with Paul Kersey
I have never heard of Paul Krassner before today. See, this is why I come here: I learn stuff.
Indeed, it is doubtful that a nation with an average IQ below 90 can even maintain the technology that exists currently, let alone improve it.
Expression will never be stopped. Just wear a red hat and it conveys much these days. Instead of naming things and people by name, use euphemisms. “The Wookie” has a whole new and well understood meaning. Those who want to play whack-a-mole with all of this will never prevail. They will exhaust themselves in the effort.
“The Flying Monkeys haven’t been seen much these last few days”. See how easy this is?
Use of euphemisms flexes our creativity and wit, it spreads culture and amusement. Like superior satire, it is clear, while deniable. It is amusing and fun, one of Alinsky’s requirements.
From Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” (I have it in my quotes file): “The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they… have always held… The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretense that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most effective way to this end is to use the old… Read more »
What’s funny about Twitter’s “new” feature is they aped it from Gab, wholesale.
Faggot Jack has no ideas; he just knows how to ban people.
And in theory, such an overarching ability to block “bad” speech one’s way would eliminate the need to ever ban anyone.
…But we all know Jack ain’t gonna do things that way.
Can’t have a speech Holocaust if you don’t Holocaust.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
There’s nowhere to go for the leftist with words meant to label any and all people with a different worldview.
The return of the dark ages is upon us. When ideas antithetical to the status quo are being actively suppressed and punished, the resurrection of alchemy, the language of transformation, cannot be far behind.
While our current popes, cardinals and bishops are busily resurrecting the whipping posts and the fires of purity, heretics must once again resort to speaking of converting base metals into gold.
Or it could be an opportunity. The more the opposition tries to restrict free speech, the bigger we can make the discussion space. It’s like playing go on a board of infinite size. Their need for control keeps heading them into an intellectual ghetto of their own making. Our desire for free exchange of ideas just opens new spaces for debate.
Hi El, I would really like to agree with you but as the recent mass purge of the right on twitter shows it is we who are being driven to the ghettos of the interwebs. Any platform which is 95% right wing can have no significant influence on the normies. The left controls the major platforms, the only silver lining to this black cloud is their implicit support for the moribund freedom of association.
Freedom of association for large platforms controlling our speech. Not so much Christian bakers. Civil rights suit time?
That’s a good point, AT. Let’s see how this Gab thing works out. If it turns out to be a twitter killer, my theory might have some legs.
At this point Gab is our best hope, but we can’t force lefties and normies to play, they need only remain on a sanitized twitter/facebook. The large platforms have freedom of association unlike Christian bakers. I am uncomfortable forcing my presence on the unwilling, I guess I should try to get over that.
the left controls the major platforms *today*
after a little anti-trust and a few class action lawsuits…they won’t.
This, today’s post, is what makes you a must read.
I had thought that transnational progressivism was a good name for the other side but it did not stick. The “Plutocrat-Managerial alliance” is probably accurate, but too wordy and without any roots in everyday political discourse… not likely to stick. If we call the anti-cult of modern liberalism alliance Realists, why not just go full propagandist and call the other side Fantacists or the Utopians. After all, it is they who want to fit biologically diverse humans to their Procrustean bed. What little I know about how evolved systems work suggests to me that even if they try genetic engineering,… Read more »
I’ve kinda liked Utopianist for awhile, it accurately describes their desire to bring about a perfect society, and their faith that they can pull it off if the rest of us are willing or can be forced to pay the cost. As a bonus it also encompasses the fundamentalist libertarians.
“The new twitter feature that lets users block key words is a no- so subtle attempt to ban certain words and phrases. After all, if you ban the word, you ban the idea behind the word.” The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc… Read more »
The American public mind has been so dumbed down by our schools and media, I’m not sure spending a lot of time and efforts on words will help. Though I agree that labels have come to mean things that they are not, maybe it’s more important to start acting, rather than more talking. That is the great neoliberal strategy, nice words about ideals they’re *trying* to achieve: “Just give us another decade or two to get there, we’re trying!” Meanwhile, the dirt people squabble among themselves as the elite continue to loot us and wage wars that the media does… Read more »
Good points, and I think that is one reason Trump pulled off his miracle. No one accuses him of eloquence. Words don’t roll off his tongue with the facility of a trial lawyer. But you get the sense, listening to him, that being able to manipulate speech isn’t his primary aim, as it is for most progressives. He may not find the perfect formulation, but he gets his meaning across and quite a bit of it is sincere. It’s a rare quality in a political candidate and enough people responded.
You wish they were merely dumbed down. It’s a fairly straightforward matter to educate an ignorant child.
I’m referring to adults who’ve been propagandized by media, government, schools, think tanks and institutions for decades. Is it that straightforward? Also, how do we fix our lying media without making them state-owned, which eventually will become problematic in much the same way? The whole point of exporting all our jobs and importing all these illegal immigrants over the past several decades is to make a huge pool of cheap labor and desperate, controllable people. They have succeeded in this and it could not have happened without the media’s help. How do we turn that around without getting control of… Read more »
The media would be powerless if the populous was well enough educated. The enemy have taken over the schools and dumbed the people down enough for the media to effectively bullshit them.
yes, but it is nigh on impossible to educate a child after their brain has been damaged by leftist propaganda. do you think many of the sjw types are going to become normal productive citizens? if you do, we need to play poker real soon now 😛
Read an article today in which we were referred to as “Multi-generational European Americans”. Lot of words to avoid use of the terrible racist term “white”.
And that’s why I was, and still am, Classical Liberal Jeffersonian; very small fedgov, decentralized power, no foreign entanglements, and lots and lots of individual liberty. Is this AltRight? Don’t care. And I strongly disagree with trying to define a movement that’s growing in size and gaining in momentum. That’s defining a thing which is not yet at fruition and definition now, potentially limit growth and scope of the coalition, and it is, a coalition. Let it grow undefined, unabated, I say.
Linked article at #Gab.ai
@ProGunFred
#AltRight
It is not by coincidence that the Greeks invented both rhetoric and democracy. As Plato instructed, rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men. The democratic mind is either in greater need of that type of rule, or more vulnerable to it. The lower caste of rhetoric is propaganda.
We don’t need new words;: when such words become associated with greatness the enemies of liberty will simply appropriate them for their own–again. The past is a treasure of definitions. Cede nothing, win everything.
Thomas Saatz–The battle for the world is a battle for definitions.
Two thoughts: 1) The term I like the most is “radical center”. To me this means pragmatic and center-right, but iconoclastic at the same time, with an “attitude” and a willingness to fight. 2) The way they are trying to conflate the “alt-right” with”racism” is from the same playbook they used to discredit the Tea Party. Alt-right to me has nothing to do with racism. At worst, it is politically incorrect and racially insensitive, but it is not “racist”. To me, it is just a way of looking at the world where you march to your own drummer in terms… Read more »
Back in the 90s, Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis wrote for a newsletter called Middle American Radicals, it had the same flavor as the alt right. Preservation of white people and white nations are job #1 in the alt right. If you want to call that raysism go right ahead, we own raysisms fam.
I’m not the first person to say this, but I don’t mind repeating it. If Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc. want to look out for their own interests as racial or religious groups, why shouldn’t whites? I also find those who say it doesn’t matter what “race” America becomes through immigration, including those on the right, clueless, ignorant and befuddling.
The problem with capitalism and business in general, is that it’s all about to change, in ways that we can’t imagine. That’s why I’ve mostly abandoned it as a viable issue. Socialist, Capitalist, what will any of that mean when Automation does all the work? As a system it’s a dead man walking. Right now I’m more interested in measures that will mitigate the chaos and destruction from the transition. If a little socialism teamed with trade barriers and restricting immigration makes does that job then who cares.
I like Jeff Goldstein’s term for the side I’m on, “outlaws”. The state is a Kleptocracy ruled by snakes, grifters and slobs. The hoi-polloi, the folks grinding out a living despite the oppressive hand of the state are my homies. Screw the old bag, Clinton and her broken dream of being Queen Bee.
Twitter is going bankrupt, and is unknown to most voters. Case closed. The alt-right is largely pointing out that reality is ethnic identity and tribalism, and America’s attempt to pretend that such historical and genetic facts don’t exist is pushing the indigenous population off a cliff. Yes, the same population that created this formerly great nation, with no help at all from muslims, Africans, Mexicans, etc.The alt-right has also noticed that globalists and their financiers and political pawns have been decimating America’s vitality for a number of decades. So yes, if wanting all these lethal aspects of modernism gone is… Read more »
How does something go bankrupt that produces nothing but words?
Look at it’s stock. Huge drop in value as expressed by stock price.
http://investorplace.com/2016/11/twitter-inc-twtr-stock-buyout/view-all/#.WC5WKXH57_w
Lost in all this intellectual overthinking is one word. Constitution.
I have taken to using ‘globalist’ and ‘nationalist’.
That works. You could elaborate- “Dirty Nationalist Bastard” “Globalist Elite Motherfucker”.
I kind of like “The Basket” for the name of a new party or political bloc. Kind of like “The Mountain” (La Montagne in French), the French Revolution group headed by Robespierre, except with a different orientation and methodology; then again…
I also like “Subsidiariationist” because by default only the intelligent and articulate will be able to enunciate it correctly, but also by default, that will doom it to be a minority party.
It’s a knotty problem!
Ronald Reagan was a pragmatist. Pragmatist, realist. Fine if we need labels. But even here “realist” is causing oogly-boogly because decades ago someone coopted that for an arcane leftwing publication.
Realist is a pretty straightforward word. We need to keep words as what they are defined to mean, not allowing them to pick up a stigma because of how someone once misused them for their own purposes.
Ronald Reagan the brilliant genius pragmatist realist successfully did…what, exactly? Crack a few (rather excellent) jokes on national TV?
Did he restore patriarchy? Did he stop redistributing your money to single mothers with five different children by five different men? Did he fire 90% of Washington and otherwise shrink the size and scope of the government?
Or did he amnesty the first 3 million illegal alien Mexicans?
No one seriously referencing Ronald Reagan as the prototype for their political outlook has a political outlook with a future.
See the post by Hokkoda. Under Reagan the Federal Register shrank for the first and only time in our history. And if you don’t know what the Federal register is, I suggest you do some reading.
Sure, the official number of official government employees may have declined on the official books, thanks to the outsourcing of government to “private” business. Turns out, private companies can do all sorts of things that the government can’t do, and so the government employs a bunch of worthless incompetents in its own agencies (affirmative action hires, for instance) and then bids out the actual work to politically connected contractors. It’s why most of the real military work is now performed by PMCs, why Snowden was a contracted employee for the NSA, and why the Obamacare website cost 6 billion smackaroos… Read more »
What you are talking about is the “re-inventing government” program under Clinton/Gore. Read a few goddam things or at least link it. The Federal Register is the compilation of federal regulations. Geez.
Massive mental fart on my part.
No, it was definitely during the Reagan-Thatcher that privatization of government functions began in earnest. Outsourcing, if you like. A big part of Reagan’s shtick was running government like a business, and a big part of running government like a business was privatizing it in chunks bitten off here and there. Or contracting it out, as the case may be.
There is even a case to be made that it began tentatively with Carter, who deregulated the airline industry.
Cite a program.
“government employs a bunch of worthless incompetents in its own agencies (affirmative action hires, for instance) and then bids out the actual work to politically connected contractors.”
Precisely the business model for a certain large state transportation agency in a large and growing southern state with lots of prime ocean view real estate.
Reagan’s entire second term was a right off, due to his dementia. He gets a lot of credit he doesn’t deserve. Not that he was a bad president or anything, just not a great president.
He didn’t have dementia then. He had Democrats in charge of both house and Senate. His hands were tied as far as legislation goes. If you were alive then you would think he belongs on Mount Rushmore. If you were and don’t, you weren’t really alive.
Thank you for that. Reagan was sabotaged by congress in many ways, but the was amnesty. After he was out of office he publicly said it was the worst decision he ever made.
BTW, anyone here really think the number of Mexcans and other brown people here from South of the border is still 11-12 million? That figure hasn’t changed since 1965.
More like 40-45 million as of now.
40 million is the lower bound for illegals. Think about it this way: there are officially (legally) 325 million people in this country, not including the 40 million illegals, who are for all intents and purposes 100% brown mestizos and indios from south of the Rio Grande. And only about 200 million of that 325 million are white. So add 40 or so million to 325 million, and you have 200 million / 365 million. Feeliing a little bit outnumbered yet? Your children are—white births for the last several years have been the minority of all births in the geographical… Read more »
I was alive then and he most definitely had dementia during his second term…like you do now. besides the illegal amnesty mentioned above, he also acted cravenly after the marines were blown up in Lebanon. He passed some nice tax cuts and got the economy going again, which are not small things. but he doesn’t belong on rushmore or anywhere near it. nostalgia is not your friend.
I never denied the amnesty you worthless sack of shit. So. What should he have done with Lebanon? Started another war you would criticize him for getting us into? How would you compare him to the other guys on Rushmore? Lincoln killed 600,000 of his own countrymen. Roosevelt was an imperialist who got us into wars and destabilized the globe, ended up splitting his party giving the presidency to Wilson–he is what would have happened if the nevertrumpers had been successful. Fefferson’s policies led to the war of 1812. The only one who belongs there is Washington. And twenty years… Read more »
When Reagan was president, the Social Security Trust Fund was “going broke”; it was thought that it would run out of money soon, based upon the number of prospective retirees & the amount of expected contributions by workers. At the time, Soc Sec contributions were maxed out at 2% from employees wages, plus another 2% matched by the employer’s contribution,on salaries up to a certain ceiling. [BTW, “contribution” sounds so much better than “regressive tax” doesn’t it.. ] Reagan’s unfortunate remedy was to raise the Soc Sec taxes to max out at 7.5% from employees & equal amount from employers.… Read more »
So get elected president and try to destroy soc sec. See what happens.
you are just full of excuses for failure…and goose crap.
blah blah blah
name one way that Reagan changed the culture, the government, anything? I am going to go make a cup of coffee while you make something up. and introducing the Bush clan to the highest office in the land is not an accomplishment.
Have there been any new swear words developed since WW2? F is heard everywhere I go these days, Cambridge United Netball Team isn’t far behind. I know I keep pretty bad company but they never used to speak this crass. Cuck is cool, I don’t care what anyone says. We need a few new nasty words.
You know what killed Belmont club? all the old fukks gassing on about how the world was shit and the sky was falling blah blah blah. just stfu, stick to gardening and Matlock reruns, and leave the work of restoring this country to those that look forward to the fight of our lives.
While information accompanying terms such as “biological realist” are an appropriate and deserved response to identity politics, the use of race plays right into the trap of of identity politics, doesn’t it? If politics are based on actions and behaviors, it puts an end to identity politics and any slippery slope such as making exceptions of certain people who come from a supposedly less intelligent, more violent race, for example. The words being used to pit us against each other with identity politics are betrayed when it comes to objective observation of behaviors.
You may not like it but identify politics is our reality, whitey just started to play because there is no backing down. Whitey has only recently dicovered that All Politics Are Tribal, something our enemy learned long ago.
The Deplorables who elected Trump are a large and diverse group. The “Alt-Right” are a segment of that. The dialogue here about names is to me overkill because the Left, the Dems gave us our name on a silver platter. I like the name Deplorables and the image that was created using the image from “Les Miserables.” The Left is currently using the “Alt-Right” name as a pejorative because of the white nationalist and Nazi-Hitler affiliation. Someone sent me to a link to read about the alt-right and it’s origins and quite frankly I was appalled. I can easily see… Read more »
Here’s the frog who expresses my sentiments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H35odPm7b3w&t=15s
Left and Right has become Up and Down – Cloud, and Dirt.
I nominate the American Dirt Deplorables (ADD)
Sort of like wishing a non consensual multicultural group insemination upon some open borders alternative lifestyle feminist is the same as hoping that the dyke is gang raped by some Muslim refugees.
I went the Steve Sailor link above and watched the video of Glenn Beck’s rant. Glenn seems distraught as one whose worldview is crumbling faster than his empire. In order for him to pacify the bells of cognitive dissonance ringing in his ears, he appears to be playing the “noble captain” in the movie playing in his head. He is going down with the proverbial ship while retaining his self-perceived moral turpitude and sacrificing everything in his noble fight against racism. In this scenario, all of his recent failures make sense. Perhaps this is why Trump is considering Romney for… Read more »
Or it could be he intends to jerk Romney’s chain for the jerk Romney was.
Do we really need new words? Any suggestion for a new label will find a few among our natural allies objecting to it for some reason. That aside, general terms don’t enter the language because somebody proposes that “we” all start calling ourselves This and calling our opponents That. Did anyone say, “Let’s define ourselves as the alt-right”? How new political and social terminology gains acceptance is something of a mystery. Probably a handful of people use an expression and it gathers steam because of a widespread, undefined feeling that it expresses an idea better than old, worn-out, irrelevant terms.… Read more »
There ain’t no right and left sides on a circle.
A circle of jerk?
No, but there is inside and outside of the circle.
Unless its a Möbius strip
Yes, like Obama banned the words Islam, jihad and terrorism from the lexicon we used to determine the threat doctrine for our enemies. You ban the word, you ban the idea behind the word. Obama is a good saboteur and America suffers for it, until we can get rid of him and start quantifying the enemy with actionable intelligence.
Words can be used as weapons if a person understands the importance of information. The mainstream media is waging a war against the truth. They omit facts, fabricate false facts, use word play to change meanings, and attack the new truth tellers of the alternate media. They just escalated this war, and I write about it in http://www.michaelfmartin.com/the-mainstream-medias-war-on-the-truth/
[…] SOURCE […]
What’s a good non triggering alternative for White Nationalist?
What’s white got to do with nationalism?
That’s my favorite Tina Turner song!
Schutzstaffel?
This time to me seems to boil down to two opposing beliefs: Man exists to serve the market. OR The market exists to serve man. We have the technology and online social networks to enable us to govern ourselves. Legislation could be proposed publicly online, discussed by the public online, and voted on online. Our elected representatives then act to implement that which comes from the public. No money spent without public approval. Those who choose not to participate in the governance of themselves quite simply remove themselves from the process by staying uninformed and not participating. No need to… Read more »
Yes. What you propose is direct democracy enabled by today’s technology. That shift is coming, though it’s slower than I expected, as the old-guard has been able to hold on to it’s perquisites far more tenaciously than I imagined.
Technology hasn’t kept up with voter fraud, however, or at least it hasn’t been allowed to weed out fraud. Until technology guarantees a fraud-less election, the tendency is to go Luddite: to return to paper ballots and hanging chads.
Direct democracy, with or without technical amplification, without education, will result in tyranny. Guaranteed.
Plato agrees with you.
With technology and voting, it is still GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. You have people, illegals, dead people and repeat voters, voting with no certification as to citizenship and you have just made the great technology a pile of junk. It can still be manipulated. There are yuuge data bases with all kinds of information on citizens and yet when we vote, citizenship can’t be confirmed? Give me a break? Our Congress-critters, beholden to their masters, just don’t want the system to work that way. That’s how they tenaciously hold on to their perq’s!
What possible reason do you have to think that direct democracy is not simply greasing the skids we are already on? Athens is exactly what the designers were seeking to avoid.
I take your point. I would say that those who are not interested in governing themselves will not participate in governing themselves. Currently, people like us, who follow politics closely, are shut out of the process. Only lobbyists have access and corporate lawyers write the legislation. There is no reason all the Congressional legislative process shouldn’t be online real-time for us to monitor and debate and approve or veto, with our elected representatives there purely to implement our will and to ensure the legality of laws passed (or repealed!). I think right now you need to pay hundreds of dollars… Read more »
A Constitutional Amendment to ban lawyers from public office.
Amen! I always like the phrase by Don Henley in “Get Over it.” “Let kill all the lawyers, let’s kill’em tonight.” Those infesting politics in particular. Technology isn’t a complete answer but it does hold promise. To make things somewhat manageable, it would have to be accompanied by much smaller government. The number of things to vote on, and the volume of stuff to read would have to be dramatically be reduced to enable such participation. Or else we get to the Pelosism’s like “We have to pass to see what’s in it” kind of crap. We cannot afford mountains… Read more »