[The Hand on Hot Stove Trick, The Weaponization of Risk, The Implicit Low-Statusness of Objecting to the Elite Agenda, Commodification and Re-Sacralization, Who Will Become King in America? and more!]
Rolo, the phenomenon you described in the opening minutes of this discussion, that of the malcontent who, rather than undertake a serious effort to improve himself in order to elevate his status, chooses instead to degrade all that is around him in order to diminish the overall status of the community at large, and in so doing perhaps appear to be slightly better off with his existing condition, this is precisely how I perceive black people in the United States. Not many white folks will admit to feeling this way, anymore. But man, plenty did in the 80s when I was growing up. You were looked upon as an outright fool for wanting to have black kids as friends, especially if you let them come around your house.
I don't care what people think of me. I'm as racist as they come. I don't want any other groups exterminated. I certainly don't want my group to be in a position of control over any other group. I want us all to inhabit the corners of the earth our racial progenitors evolved within and be separate from one another.
Your post gives the impression you want to keep blacks in a bad situation because you want to raise your own status. I'm not sure that's what you meant. It's certainly true that one can advocate separation or, more flexibly, voluntary freedom of association without pushing for repressive measures. But separation does not mean that you don't wish the other well, or even that you don't take steps to help where you can.
I don't want any group to be poor off. If my neighbor is in dire straits due to circumstances unrelated to outright negligence on his part then I will gladly avail to him to any assistance I can reasonably provide. There exists the astounding panoply of races and ethnicities for a reason. I don't know what that reason is, but I believe it ought to be preserved. I suspect that there is in place an active plan to reduce this wonderous diversity to a singular, soupy, goopy homogenous mongrel race. That constitutes a very egregious crime against humanity. I also happen to believe that certain territories, large swaths of the United States being one such, ought to exist as intentionally cosmopolitan societies, so that those who truly do wish to mix and match can do so to their hearts content. When I say I am racist, absolutely none of that is meant to be reinforced by an undercurrent of hatred. I merely mean to claim that I believe that the varying racial groups possess quantifiable biological difference from one another which influence their capacity to peacefully co-exist with members of differing tribes. Every individual is different of course, but conversations such as these, i.e 2-D, I-type-then-you-type require a certain acceptance of broad based generalities. I persoanlly prefer to live in all-white communities. I've lived in predominantly black communities, one of them being New Orleans, LA for a total of two years . I did it on purpose. I was trying like hell to be an enthusiastic member of the rainbow coalition. That just isn't my scene
I hope that clears up my position somewhat. I thank you for the courteous tone of your approach. I continue to be overjoyed with the cordial nature of the conversations on this blog. Enquiring minds are in true abundance here. Take care.
I enjoyed this conversation; thank you both for having it. I understand that Grant swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and that is admirable, but I am curious about the level of awe and respect that he gives it. He sees it as a kind of timeless, genius, immutable document, kind of like a religious belief; my question to Grant would be under what circumstances would he come to see it as flawed?
The way I see it, America has gone through either three or four iterations: the first from America's founding until the Civil War, the results of which firmly established federal rights over state rights; the second era ended with either the introduction of the Federal Reserve or a bit later with FDR's dictatorship and the so-called New Deal, which ushered in the giant bloated parasitical managerial state we have today; and arguably the third iteration was superseded in 1965 by opening up the gates to total white population replacement with the Immigration Act.
Because of the First and Second Amendments globohomo has had to pursue its expansion in a kind of circuitous way, but it's still expanded and become the horrific behemoth we have today. The government utilizes major tech companies to ban speech instead of them doing it directly, and in prior iterations they banned book publishers and threw dissenters in prison (see the Sedition Act of 1918 aimed at isolationists); there are all sorts of restrictions both on gun ownership and on the right to defend oneself (criminals commit crimes and go free; innocent gun owners defend themselves and go to prison).
Ultimately, the American system of checks-and-balances, to me, prevents the ascension of a strongman which is the only counter to oligarchy. The initial setup seemed predestined to lead to oligarchical ascendency. America's glory, under this setup, wasn't so much from it's system of government as it was from having a giant mostly uninhabited continent to conquer and exploit...
I don't mean to give the impression that I conceive of the Constitution as some perfect document. After all, it lead America to the current moment where the majority of those who actually implement policy have open contempt for many of its principles. I work to fulfill my oath because I take oaths seriously, and if I felt I couldn't continue to do so in good conscience I would be honor bound to resign (honor also being indispensable to me).
I don't completely agree that the system prevents the ascension of a strongman. I posit that it prevents a certain kind of strongman from ascending, namely one with the power to unilaterally grant positive freedoms and curtail negative ones. We really only need a strongman to do the opposite (curtail positive freedoms and protect/restore negative ones). The checks and balances are biased towards constraining government action, and while the ubiquity of private-public partnerships and government cutouts cloud the issue (not to mention the complex relationship between the federal government and the federal reserve that you're all too familiar with), the bottom line is the ability to get away with all the bullshit almost always has some nexus to the government and its monopoly on force. There are a lot of things a chief executive could do within the constraints outlined by the Constitution, and I have hope that some of these things will be done. In the meantime there are things that I can do to call out the most egregious examples of contempt for the Constitution and strive for accountability in such circumstances. I also have an overall disposition that holistically healthy and fit Soldiers are most likely to uphold their oaths in spite of how challenging it can be.
I also think there is something much more to American prosperity than conquering a resource rich continent, but that's probably a topic worthy of an entire conversation itself...
Congratulations on a most stimulating discussion. Libertarians focus on individuals economic incentive as a model, but Grant Smith extends it to the zero-sum strategy of status. I would suggest that a counter factor or mitigating circumstance is ethnocentrism or the external threat. The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of the potential abuses of a strong central government, almost as much so as the anti-Federalists. The big problems with the Articles of Confederation were that the national government was very weak. This resulted in getting beat up continually by the French and British, who poached American shipping and who threatened the American state. The Constitutional Convention was supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation to correct these problems but they drafted an entirely new constitution (in secret) instead.
To put it bluntly: in a society based entirely on personal rights, sooner or later a more authoritarian power is going to use their military to take you over. This was perfectly illustrated in the US Civil War, where the more agrarian fragmented South was defeated by an industrialized centralized North.
That is the historical narrative regarding the impetus for the Constitutional convention that I'm familiar with, but sometimes I wonder if these problems and external threats were inflated to accommodate a faction that wanted increased consolidation of power all along. After all, its what they ended up getting, isn't it? As much as I love liberty I tend to agree that society can't survive based completely on personal rights, even if constrained to negative freedoms exclusively. There is some sort of commitment to identity that is needed on some level, if only to being American, and that entailing some responsibility. After all, negative freedom isn't free, it must be won against external aggression, and without some obligation to do that then it seems like it won't happen forever.
Man, what an incredible thought exercise this conversation fomented within me.
Some thoughts:
-I imagine most folks ask themselves if they indeed "have a price", the meeting of which they are amenable to abandoning their principles and acting as agents of the enemy. Most probably tell themselves "no." I do, of course, and I am certain of it. For me, integrity is all I possess. Sell that off, and I am impoverished utterly. Millions of dollars in my bank account only makes me my former self's avowed enemy. I would cease to exist as I have come to know and love myself over these tumultuous, momentous decades. I think most parents would capitulate if it meant sparing their children even modest discomfort. I think most modern American style women would turn traitor against veritable strangers within their community in to protect even relatively tertiary work colleagues and fellow parents within their distant school district circle; that's a measure of how "moral" they have become with the advent of universal suffrage, equal opportunity employment schemes and readily available birth control, I don't like our chances when the enemy decides to start playing hardball.
-I took the inoculation in March of '21. I put up a stern resistance for two months, then capitulated in the face of subtle yet increasing pressure from my colleagues at the assisted living facility I was working at in Vermont. It is one of my most profound regrets. I do not excuse this cowardice. It will be the last, of that I have made a solemn vow to myself.
-Our enemies are at this moment developing tactics and weapons to render our quaint, antiquated firearms utterly useless when the balloon goes up for real. A glimpse of what would be a far more effective approach was demonstrated during the Canadian Trucker protest in '22. Several cross-border bridges were blockaded, causing serious and instantaneous financial harm to our enemies, particularly the action at Ambassador Bridge linking Detroit, MI and Windsor, On. The cops were brought in rather quickly. A group in full possession of unflagging moral courage would have refused to move and taken their licks, counting on the cavalry to arrive and replenish their numbers until no amount of bloodletting would break the spirit of rebellion. A moment in time was lost to fear. Shame.
-Amen, Rolo, to your elucidating the existence of other, equally impactful Constitutional amendments which have been long since usurped which ought to have been cause for mass rebellion. Numbers 9 and 10 stick out as particularly critical for the American experiment to have had any reasonable shot at long term success.
I don't have any tangible solutions, myself. None that even a persuasive minority of true patriots are likely to undertake. There's still too much booze at the bars and food at the grocery stores to get people to recognize how all the "amenities" are being withdrawn ever so slowly, like the tide before the tsunami crashes into the gawking onlookers on the beach.
I'm glad you found the discussion engaging. I just wanted to share this alternate perspective on the trucker convoy. I tend to agree with the author, and also see this as an overall indicator that things are perhaps not as bleak as they may seem: https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/the-truckers-won-everything
I was transfixed by the Canadian Trucker protests, from the very beginning. I had heard about it before the convoy actual got underway. After they arrived in Ottawa, I watched live casts every night, sometimes for hours at a time. It was marvelous to behold. Living in Northern vermont at the timer, and being a mere 3+ hour drive away from the capitol, I wanted to join in. Alas, it wasn't my fight. My fight is in this country. I watched with dismay as Trudeau sent in his foreign legion goons and smash the thing apart. I later went down to Haggerstown, MD to take part in my country's absolutely appalling attempt at a similar action, The People's Convoy, I didn't even spend the night. It was a true Folding Chair Rebellion.
I agree: the Canadian Trucker protest was largely successful. We need the people to undertake large actions of that very sort, simultaneously around the entire country.
This New Englander(Lakes Region New Hampshire) makes his money working at a tree service. Most of the "working class" men around here work in the trades. In effect, we subsist off of the largess of the wealthy class who own palatial estates which they themselves cannot maintain. We tough, hardscrabble working men are little more than parasites. If the rich bitch assholes decided to up and move, we'd all be destitute within a month. There is NO community left, here or anywhere else in America. Without the rich, we all starve. Pathetic.
I think you're wrong to liken yourselves to "parasites". It's more like symbiosis, where two species co-exist to the benefit of both. The "wealthy" would not be able to exist without people to perform the manual, semi-skilled work. In the US pre-Civil War era, wage earners were far better off and more independent that the hardscrabble southern dirt farmers.
Your perspective allows for more of a sense of dignity, to be sure. I am bothered by an entire host of conditions which were undertaken long before I was born. I realize that I romanticize previous epochs and their social configurations and I actually have no basis of reference to support my suppositions. Nonetheless, in my imagination, I would prefer the constraints of village life, where at least your fate was largely determined for you by dint of how your family was situated, and you simply worked to exist. There is too much "freedom to choose" between an abysmally unattractive array of non-viable options in this modern arrangement, for me anyways.
Again, I have no tangible solutions. And I don't go around bitching out loud to anyone within earshot about how screwed up everything and everyone is. In the actual practice of day-to-day living, I accept the reality of my situation and make the best I can of it. But here, on this blog, I like to dream out loud, even if it only amounts to so much vaporous musing.
Nearly 20 years ago I did a year-long stint as a carpenter's assistant for a large mansion remodel in Lyme, NH. To a man, all of the builders told me their own houses were dumps because:
1) They were too tired and disinterested in the craft after their shifts to do the upkeep on their homes themselves.
2) They couldn't find reliable help that they could afford to make their own homes sturdy.
This conundrum I found profoundly disturbing. This feeds into my conviction that we simply do not have intact, viable communities in this country, any longer.
And then just a few minutes after I posted my previous comment, you mention the blacks! Brilliant! How wonderful to have a chat forum where you will find those who, while they might not agree entirely with my worldview, will at least not run in terror from it out of fear of being denunciated by this sick, twisted P.C. culture we are all languishing under.
You do sound ever more Marxist, Rolo^^ But then again, isn't Tucker the same? This is so good.
24:00 > It's always seen as a low-status thing to be against the whatever destructive thing the élite are pushing on the country. Because the implicit implication is that you are somehow affected by these policies, and if you're affected, that means you're not élite. And if you're not élite, that means you're not cool.
"Hidden taxes" - I would call it a society-wide shit-test? The Ukraine is apparently being Americanised, with some elect being barred from mobilisation, and the poor fucks getting their feet blown off.
From what I've heard, the English society seems more cognisant of such class warfare? But they're still as fucked? The Anglo world is indeed a slave society, in a way. Asians tsars are still closer to the people. But in the West, the ultimate ruler is the ineffable Matrix.
The conversation didn't bring up Rockefellers/UN/CIA/Religion/Wall Street/Madison Avenue/Hollywood- any of that regarding women. The fact that these factors are ignored or not known leads to people like Pearl Davis (Davos) making bank off of women.
Abortion will always happen. Don't think about it if it's disturbing to you. There are something like 100,000,000 missing women in Asia according to Amartya Sen.
Public schools are models for UN "smart cities"- at least some of them, and that's in part because the Department of Education (founded in 1978) is a technocratic behemoth. The first, most formative years of American kids lives is spent in a prison- actually it's an institution. If you teach who the real government is, you'll lose your job. We (everyone) goes their whole lives not being aware of the structure of power, so in an attempt to assert their own power they take it out on their neighbors. I personally live in a town replete with billionaires so no one really talks about wealth inequality because those people will never care, plus, what is anyone going to do about it? Raid all their tax exempt foundations?
Single mothers hold up society to a degree that's unrecognized.
Men abort their kids all the time, in their own way.
Don't blame women for all this societal maladies when five major corporations own the airwaves.
This was a fun conversation, thanks for the time brother!
Rolo, the phenomenon you described in the opening minutes of this discussion, that of the malcontent who, rather than undertake a serious effort to improve himself in order to elevate his status, chooses instead to degrade all that is around him in order to diminish the overall status of the community at large, and in so doing perhaps appear to be slightly better off with his existing condition, this is precisely how I perceive black people in the United States. Not many white folks will admit to feeling this way, anymore. But man, plenty did in the 80s when I was growing up. You were looked upon as an outright fool for wanting to have black kids as friends, especially if you let them come around your house.
I don't care what people think of me. I'm as racist as they come. I don't want any other groups exterminated. I certainly don't want my group to be in a position of control over any other group. I want us all to inhabit the corners of the earth our racial progenitors evolved within and be separate from one another.
Your post gives the impression you want to keep blacks in a bad situation because you want to raise your own status. I'm not sure that's what you meant. It's certainly true that one can advocate separation or, more flexibly, voluntary freedom of association without pushing for repressive measures. But separation does not mean that you don't wish the other well, or even that you don't take steps to help where you can.
I don't want any group to be poor off. If my neighbor is in dire straits due to circumstances unrelated to outright negligence on his part then I will gladly avail to him to any assistance I can reasonably provide. There exists the astounding panoply of races and ethnicities for a reason. I don't know what that reason is, but I believe it ought to be preserved. I suspect that there is in place an active plan to reduce this wonderous diversity to a singular, soupy, goopy homogenous mongrel race. That constitutes a very egregious crime against humanity. I also happen to believe that certain territories, large swaths of the United States being one such, ought to exist as intentionally cosmopolitan societies, so that those who truly do wish to mix and match can do so to their hearts content. When I say I am racist, absolutely none of that is meant to be reinforced by an undercurrent of hatred. I merely mean to claim that I believe that the varying racial groups possess quantifiable biological difference from one another which influence their capacity to peacefully co-exist with members of differing tribes. Every individual is different of course, but conversations such as these, i.e 2-D, I-type-then-you-type require a certain acceptance of broad based generalities. I persoanlly prefer to live in all-white communities. I've lived in predominantly black communities, one of them being New Orleans, LA for a total of two years . I did it on purpose. I was trying like hell to be an enthusiastic member of the rainbow coalition. That just isn't my scene
I hope that clears up my position somewhat. I thank you for the courteous tone of your approach. I continue to be overjoyed with the cordial nature of the conversations on this blog. Enquiring minds are in true abundance here. Take care.
I enjoyed this conversation; thank you both for having it. I understand that Grant swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and that is admirable, but I am curious about the level of awe and respect that he gives it. He sees it as a kind of timeless, genius, immutable document, kind of like a religious belief; my question to Grant would be under what circumstances would he come to see it as flawed?
The way I see it, America has gone through either three or four iterations: the first from America's founding until the Civil War, the results of which firmly established federal rights over state rights; the second era ended with either the introduction of the Federal Reserve or a bit later with FDR's dictatorship and the so-called New Deal, which ushered in the giant bloated parasitical managerial state we have today; and arguably the third iteration was superseded in 1965 by opening up the gates to total white population replacement with the Immigration Act.
Because of the First and Second Amendments globohomo has had to pursue its expansion in a kind of circuitous way, but it's still expanded and become the horrific behemoth we have today. The government utilizes major tech companies to ban speech instead of them doing it directly, and in prior iterations they banned book publishers and threw dissenters in prison (see the Sedition Act of 1918 aimed at isolationists); there are all sorts of restrictions both on gun ownership and on the right to defend oneself (criminals commit crimes and go free; innocent gun owners defend themselves and go to prison).
Ultimately, the American system of checks-and-balances, to me, prevents the ascension of a strongman which is the only counter to oligarchy. The initial setup seemed predestined to lead to oligarchical ascendency. America's glory, under this setup, wasn't so much from it's system of government as it was from having a giant mostly uninhabited continent to conquer and exploit...
I don't mean to give the impression that I conceive of the Constitution as some perfect document. After all, it lead America to the current moment where the majority of those who actually implement policy have open contempt for many of its principles. I work to fulfill my oath because I take oaths seriously, and if I felt I couldn't continue to do so in good conscience I would be honor bound to resign (honor also being indispensable to me).
I don't completely agree that the system prevents the ascension of a strongman. I posit that it prevents a certain kind of strongman from ascending, namely one with the power to unilaterally grant positive freedoms and curtail negative ones. We really only need a strongman to do the opposite (curtail positive freedoms and protect/restore negative ones). The checks and balances are biased towards constraining government action, and while the ubiquity of private-public partnerships and government cutouts cloud the issue (not to mention the complex relationship between the federal government and the federal reserve that you're all too familiar with), the bottom line is the ability to get away with all the bullshit almost always has some nexus to the government and its monopoly on force. There are a lot of things a chief executive could do within the constraints outlined by the Constitution, and I have hope that some of these things will be done. In the meantime there are things that I can do to call out the most egregious examples of contempt for the Constitution and strive for accountability in such circumstances. I also have an overall disposition that holistically healthy and fit Soldiers are most likely to uphold their oaths in spite of how challenging it can be.
I also think there is something much more to American prosperity than conquering a resource rich continent, but that's probably a topic worthy of an entire conversation itself...
Congratulations on a most stimulating discussion. Libertarians focus on individuals economic incentive as a model, but Grant Smith extends it to the zero-sum strategy of status. I would suggest that a counter factor or mitigating circumstance is ethnocentrism or the external threat. The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of the potential abuses of a strong central government, almost as much so as the anti-Federalists. The big problems with the Articles of Confederation were that the national government was very weak. This resulted in getting beat up continually by the French and British, who poached American shipping and who threatened the American state. The Constitutional Convention was supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation to correct these problems but they drafted an entirely new constitution (in secret) instead.
To put it bluntly: in a society based entirely on personal rights, sooner or later a more authoritarian power is going to use their military to take you over. This was perfectly illustrated in the US Civil War, where the more agrarian fragmented South was defeated by an industrialized centralized North.
That is the historical narrative regarding the impetus for the Constitutional convention that I'm familiar with, but sometimes I wonder if these problems and external threats were inflated to accommodate a faction that wanted increased consolidation of power all along. After all, its what they ended up getting, isn't it? As much as I love liberty I tend to agree that society can't survive based completely on personal rights, even if constrained to negative freedoms exclusively. There is some sort of commitment to identity that is needed on some level, if only to being American, and that entailing some responsibility. After all, negative freedom isn't free, it must be won against external aggression, and without some obligation to do that then it seems like it won't happen forever.
Man, what an incredible thought exercise this conversation fomented within me.
Some thoughts:
-I imagine most folks ask themselves if they indeed "have a price", the meeting of which they are amenable to abandoning their principles and acting as agents of the enemy. Most probably tell themselves "no." I do, of course, and I am certain of it. For me, integrity is all I possess. Sell that off, and I am impoverished utterly. Millions of dollars in my bank account only makes me my former self's avowed enemy. I would cease to exist as I have come to know and love myself over these tumultuous, momentous decades. I think most parents would capitulate if it meant sparing their children even modest discomfort. I think most modern American style women would turn traitor against veritable strangers within their community in to protect even relatively tertiary work colleagues and fellow parents within their distant school district circle; that's a measure of how "moral" they have become with the advent of universal suffrage, equal opportunity employment schemes and readily available birth control, I don't like our chances when the enemy decides to start playing hardball.
-I took the inoculation in March of '21. I put up a stern resistance for two months, then capitulated in the face of subtle yet increasing pressure from my colleagues at the assisted living facility I was working at in Vermont. It is one of my most profound regrets. I do not excuse this cowardice. It will be the last, of that I have made a solemn vow to myself.
-Our enemies are at this moment developing tactics and weapons to render our quaint, antiquated firearms utterly useless when the balloon goes up for real. A glimpse of what would be a far more effective approach was demonstrated during the Canadian Trucker protest in '22. Several cross-border bridges were blockaded, causing serious and instantaneous financial harm to our enemies, particularly the action at Ambassador Bridge linking Detroit, MI and Windsor, On. The cops were brought in rather quickly. A group in full possession of unflagging moral courage would have refused to move and taken their licks, counting on the cavalry to arrive and replenish their numbers until no amount of bloodletting would break the spirit of rebellion. A moment in time was lost to fear. Shame.
-Amen, Rolo, to your elucidating the existence of other, equally impactful Constitutional amendments which have been long since usurped which ought to have been cause for mass rebellion. Numbers 9 and 10 stick out as particularly critical for the American experiment to have had any reasonable shot at long term success.
I don't have any tangible solutions, myself. None that even a persuasive minority of true patriots are likely to undertake. There's still too much booze at the bars and food at the grocery stores to get people to recognize how all the "amenities" are being withdrawn ever so slowly, like the tide before the tsunami crashes into the gawking onlookers on the beach.
Shame.
I'm glad you found the discussion engaging. I just wanted to share this alternate perspective on the trucker convoy. I tend to agree with the author, and also see this as an overall indicator that things are perhaps not as bleak as they may seem: https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/the-truckers-won-everything
Thank you for the encouragement, sir.
I was transfixed by the Canadian Trucker protests, from the very beginning. I had heard about it before the convoy actual got underway. After they arrived in Ottawa, I watched live casts every night, sometimes for hours at a time. It was marvelous to behold. Living in Northern vermont at the timer, and being a mere 3+ hour drive away from the capitol, I wanted to join in. Alas, it wasn't my fight. My fight is in this country. I watched with dismay as Trudeau sent in his foreign legion goons and smash the thing apart. I later went down to Haggerstown, MD to take part in my country's absolutely appalling attempt at a similar action, The People's Convoy, I didn't even spend the night. It was a true Folding Chair Rebellion.
I agree: the Canadian Trucker protest was largely successful. We need the people to undertake large actions of that very sort, simultaneously around the entire country.
Take care.
This New Englander(Lakes Region New Hampshire) makes his money working at a tree service. Most of the "working class" men around here work in the trades. In effect, we subsist off of the largess of the wealthy class who own palatial estates which they themselves cannot maintain. We tough, hardscrabble working men are little more than parasites. If the rich bitch assholes decided to up and move, we'd all be destitute within a month. There is NO community left, here or anywhere else in America. Without the rich, we all starve. Pathetic.
I think you're wrong to liken yourselves to "parasites". It's more like symbiosis, where two species co-exist to the benefit of both. The "wealthy" would not be able to exist without people to perform the manual, semi-skilled work. In the US pre-Civil War era, wage earners were far better off and more independent that the hardscrabble southern dirt farmers.
Your perspective allows for more of a sense of dignity, to be sure. I am bothered by an entire host of conditions which were undertaken long before I was born. I realize that I romanticize previous epochs and their social configurations and I actually have no basis of reference to support my suppositions. Nonetheless, in my imagination, I would prefer the constraints of village life, where at least your fate was largely determined for you by dint of how your family was situated, and you simply worked to exist. There is too much "freedom to choose" between an abysmally unattractive array of non-viable options in this modern arrangement, for me anyways.
Again, I have no tangible solutions. And I don't go around bitching out loud to anyone within earshot about how screwed up everything and everyone is. In the actual practice of day-to-day living, I accept the reality of my situation and make the best I can of it. But here, on this blog, I like to dream out loud, even if it only amounts to so much vaporous musing.
Nearly 20 years ago I did a year-long stint as a carpenter's assistant for a large mansion remodel in Lyme, NH. To a man, all of the builders told me their own houses were dumps because:
1) They were too tired and disinterested in the craft after their shifts to do the upkeep on their homes themselves.
2) They couldn't find reliable help that they could afford to make their own homes sturdy.
This conundrum I found profoundly disturbing. This feeds into my conviction that we simply do not have intact, viable communities in this country, any longer.
Ivan Reikland? Is that the name of the ‘300 people’ YouTube guy R’s guest mentioned? Thanks.
Ivan Raiklin, this is his X handle if you want to check him out: @IvanRaiklin
And then just a few minutes after I posted my previous comment, you mention the blacks! Brilliant! How wonderful to have a chat forum where you will find those who, while they might not agree entirely with my worldview, will at least not run in terror from it out of fear of being denunciated by this sick, twisted P.C. culture we are all languishing under.
Right fucking on, man.
Hi Rurik,
If you have the time will you read this article and tell me what you think?
https://jshepard.substack.com/p/russia-will-win-or-the-world-will?r=tqhya&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0bDdmrJzHAYitB1AnF-S2Isl8GGbL6tk3Dg5uYS5fosXevbGMNwBcVEJs_aem_AaNIyelqBTQUJR3DKHJ3CGDK2kQk-nZ7UsOM6ueky8pGiHFONbGZLrv41qI4D3_jLsoOJrjthyh4D-O_RTyVXFnm&triedRedirect=true
Sure
You do sound ever more Marxist, Rolo^^ But then again, isn't Tucker the same? This is so good.
24:00 > It's always seen as a low-status thing to be against the whatever destructive thing the élite are pushing on the country. Because the implicit implication is that you are somehow affected by these policies, and if you're affected, that means you're not élite. And if you're not élite, that means you're not cool.
"Hidden taxes" - I would call it a society-wide shit-test? The Ukraine is apparently being Americanised, with some elect being barred from mobilisation, and the poor fucks getting their feet blown off.
From what I've heard, the English society seems more cognisant of such class warfare? But they're still as fucked? The Anglo world is indeed a slave society, in a way. Asians tsars are still closer to the people. But in the West, the ultimate ruler is the ineffable Matrix.
I can comment on this latter. 👍 I do have some things to say.
The conversation didn't bring up Rockefellers/UN/CIA/Religion/Wall Street/Madison Avenue/Hollywood- any of that regarding women. The fact that these factors are ignored or not known leads to people like Pearl Davis (Davos) making bank off of women.
Abortion will always happen. Don't think about it if it's disturbing to you. There are something like 100,000,000 missing women in Asia according to Amartya Sen.
Public schools are models for UN "smart cities"- at least some of them, and that's in part because the Department of Education (founded in 1978) is a technocratic behemoth. The first, most formative years of American kids lives is spent in a prison- actually it's an institution. If you teach who the real government is, you'll lose your job. We (everyone) goes their whole lives not being aware of the structure of power, so in an attempt to assert their own power they take it out on their neighbors. I personally live in a town replete with billionaires so no one really talks about wealth inequality because those people will never care, plus, what is anyone going to do about it? Raid all their tax exempt foundations?
Single mothers hold up society to a degree that's unrecognized.
Men abort their kids all the time, in their own way.
Don't blame women for all this societal maladies when five major corporations own the airwaves.