Good post even if I don't 100% agree with all of it. +1.
I find it "creepy" when they argue against drugs and self expression.
Start using "Big Switch" to refer to this period we just went through (1990-2020) when identitarian minority communists took over the DEC.
Democrat circa 1990 Champions free speech and non-conformist individuality, fights globalism / corporations ("The Corporation", Klien, AdBusters, etc)
Democrat circa 2020
Embraces censorship (ACLU celebrating cancellations), tribal conformity, anyone anti-globalism is a racist nationalist.
ok thanks
Politics has more than two directions to go in.
"Conservative"..
"Reactionary" ...
"Progressive"...
Even these terms are stuck in a "forward" or "back" dichotomy. There's all kinds of shit out there that we could be using and endorsing to benefit ourselves. Our country and race and civilization. Etc.
Another metric is:
the size of the government overall vs size of various agencies?
Because usually, debt goes up no matter who in in the Oval Office, it's just a matter of what programs are funded, right? "Historically Black Colleges" (where CRT is the norm) versus "Defense" and border security.
Republicans have a severe image problem. A branding issue that you can see at every convention. DNC is going nuts with million dollar graphics and top selling music artists (attracting the youth, etc) and RNC is like a geriatric home with a few white haired couples trotting about.
"Republicans" kneecap themselves by non investing in media, in any programs for fellow citizens. A short-term gain for the rich but come off viewed as greedy. Democrats tax and then spend that money on media, programming, curricula, etc that penetrates society and affects metapolitics. Google was at Obama's White House, on average, once a week!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-makes-most-of-close-ties-to-white-house-1427242076
And now the DNC and Big tech are controlling the meta-narrative of most of the country. because they understand that "politics is downstream of culture" and that most people have made up their minds about which party to belong to long before debates and etc, really just because "who seems cool."
See: "The Righteous Mind", by Jonathan Haidt.
Basically, people are irrational.
As far as trying new things when you're losing ground...hell, even the "New Right" [sic] is learning from Marxists and using a variety of tactics. Embracing much more than their low-IQ American counterparts.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite
The ND opposes multiculturalism and the mixing of different cultures within a single society, opposes liberal democracy and capitalism, and promotes localised forms of what it terms "organic democracy", with the intent of rooting out elements of oligarchy. It pushes for an "archeofuturistic" or a type of non-reactionary "revolutionary conservative" method to the reinvigoration of the Pan-European identity and culture, while encouraging the preservation of certain regions where Europeans and their Caucasian descendants may reside. Concurrently, it attempts to sustain the protection of the variance of ethnicities and identities around the globe, defending the right of each group of peoples to keep their own lands and regions to occupy. To achieve its goals, the ND promotes what it calls "metapolitics", seeking to influence and shift European culture in ways sympathetic to its cause over a lengthy period of time rather than by actively campaigning for office through political parties.
Metapolitics:
Daniel Friberg has stated that "Metapolitics on the other hand refers to a kind of action aimed at changing the political tendencies of individuals, by changing the worldview of society as a whole. The strategy of metapolitics, as I outline in my book, originated with the work of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist who wrote a series of notebooks while in prison in Fascist Italy, in which he concluded that communism had failed in Italy because it had occupied itself too much with politics and not enough with culture. This insight led to the development of the Frankfurt School and all the epochal changes which that School brought. The strategies and the tools of metapolitics can and must be used by the Right as well, and this includes work on many different levels – everything from publishing the kinds of books that Small Beer offers, to providing podcasts, articles and interviews like the present one, to having debates with your family and friends, to trolling on the internet. What is important is that everyone finds a way of joining the struggle, whether publicly or privately, to shift the present worldview."
Remember when "the Left" was anti-globalist?
Anti-corporate? Why was there no cross "L v R" unity supporting Trump, one of the most politically "mixed" candidates ever who opposed globalism?
More:
All the political systems of the modern age have been the products of three distinct ideologies: the first, and oldest, is liberal democracy; the second is Marxism; and the third is fascism. The latter two have long since failed and passed out of the pages of history, and the first no longer operates as an ideology, but rather as something taken for granted. The world today finds itself on the brink of a post-political reality - one in which the values of liberalism are so deeply embedded that the average person is not aware that there is an ideology at work around him. As a result, liberalism is threatening to monopolise political discourse and drown the world in a universal sameness, destroying everything that makes the various cultures and peoples unique. According to Alexander Dugin, what is needed to break through this morass is a fourth ideology - one that will sift through the debris of the first three to look for elements that might be useful, but that remains innovative and unique in itself. Dugin does not offer a point-by-point program for this new theory, but rather outlines the parameters within which it might develop and the issues which it must address. Dugin foresees that the Fourth Political Theory will use the tools and concepts of modernity against itself, to bring about a return of cultural diversity against commercialisation, as well as the traditional worldview of all the peoples of the world - albeit within an entirely new context. Written by a scholar who is actively influencing the direction of Russian geopolitical strategy today, The Fourth Political Theory is an introduction to an idea that may well shape the course of the world's political future. Alexander Dugin (b. 1962) is one of the best-known writers and political commentators in post-Soviet Russia. In addition to the many books he has authored on political, philosophical and spiritual topics, he currently serves on the staff of Moscow State University, and is the intellectual leader of the Eurasia Movement. For more than a decade, he has also been an advisor to Vladimir Putin and others in the Kremlin on geopolitical matters, being a vocal advocate of a return of Russian power to the global stage, to act as a counterweight to American domination.
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=558DD9D2CAE5FF4A646E9B6D68BF3EE1
And:
Robert Anton Wilson's "Left and Right: A Non-Euclidean Perspective"
Wilson favored a form of basic income guarantee; synthesizing several ideas under the acronym RICH. His ideas are set forth in the essay "The RICH Economy," found in The Illuminati Papers. In an article critical of capitalism, Wilson self-identified as a "libertarian socialist", saying that "I ask only one thing of skeptics: don't bring up Soviet Russia, please. That horrible example of State Capitalism has nothing to do with what I, and other libertarian socialists, would offer as an alternative to the present system." By the 1980s he was less enthusiastic about the socialist label, writing in Prometheus Rising that he "does not like" the spread of socialism. In his book Right Where You Are Sitting Now, he praises the georgist economist Silvio Gesell. In the essay Left and Right: A Non-Euclidean Perspective, Wilson speaks favorably of several "excluded middles" that "transcend the hackneyed debate between monopoly Capitalism and totalitarian Socialism"; he says his favorite is the mutualist anarchism of Benjamin Tucker and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, but he also offers kind words for the ideas of Gesell, Henry George, C. H. Douglas, and Buckminster Fuller. Wilson also identified as an anarchist and described his belief system as "a blend of Tucker, Spooner, Fuller, Pound, Henry George, Rothbard, Douglas, Korzybski, Proudhon and Marx." Wilson spoke several times at conventions of the American Libertarian Party. He included Benjamin Tucker's Instead of a Book, Henry George's Progress and Poverty, and Gesell's The Natural Economic Order in a list of 20 book recommendations, "the bare minimum of what everybody really needs to chew and digest before they can converse intelligently about the 21st Century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Gesell
The sky is the limit. Why we stick to the same terms of 200 years ago...and let Democrat academics define us into a shitty corner, I have no idea. That's all.
Why aren't alternative terms ever used? Why don't we hear about the benefits of:
Transactionalism
Nationalism
Populism
???
The last two of which are, for some reason, usually defined in negative terms. Gee, who writes those definitions?
Why are "Democrats" the only group that "progresses" society?
Etc.
Short version:
Republicans versus Democrats, is better terminology. Those two terms are closer to the truth as we can at least define "people who vote Democrats" v "people who vote Republican".
Long:
I'm saying "Left" versus "Right" is so simplistic a representation of political thought that it's painful to see it still in use.
Started during the French Revolution 200+ fucking years ago and for some reason people who don't really understand politics keep using it to describe a complicated issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
When people get specific about who they're talking about, who they themselves are, what specific policy they want or oppose, society will make practical progress.
Politics has more than two directions to go in.
"Conservative"...there are things worth "conserving" in current reality. Both huge, generic "Left" and "Right" "sides want to "conserve" something.
"Reactionary" ...there are things worth going back to retrieve. The "Left", or some parts of it, want to go back to a more agrarian, pre-Industrial era. Etc. very, very few people want to go 100% into the 1600's, say. Or 1950's. As if such a thing is even possible.
"Progressive"...this one's particularly fucking dumb. Both sides think they're "progressing" society to a better future. Time only moves in one directions. Etc.
If we started using psychographics and segmentation terms to define the variety of people who vote for Republicans versus Democrats, those two terms are closer to the truth as we can at least define "people who vote Democrats" v "people who vote Republican".
We let them define the words, the playing field, the way we define ourselves. And never focus on, feed oxygen to, expand up the damn near endless alternatives that would benefit us. "Right wing" = hierarchy, authoritarianism, hereditary rule, conformity. A losing position to begin with once you understand the definition.
hell, you may even be an SPLC shill, come to think of it.
Shitting up White advocacy by associating it with low-IQ juvenilia and ugly, bitter, just garbage lol political posts. Hatred is unattractive. Stupid hatred even more so.
Strawman.
It's really all you know.
Keep going with your useless hatred.
You hold no political power and never will because ...your beliefs are hideous and destructive. And frankly you kinda dumb. lol
Enjoy your upvotes though. Super important. lmfaosoa
You don't really know what I believe though?
So let me tell you:
I believe:
Trump was more effective at getting elected and stopping Hillary Clinton than any other candidate.
A temporary stop-gap to anti-White organizing at the federal level.
I believe:
Trump was more effective at slowing down illegal immigration.
"'Biden is going to help all of us': Honduran caravan migrant explains why 8,000 South Americans are heading for US border after President-elect pledges to give 11 million an eight-year path to citizenship"**
"U.S. intelligence officials say Chinese government is collecting Americans’ DNA: 60 Minutes has learned Chinese company BGI Group, the largest biotech firm in the world, offered to build COVID labs in at least six states, and U.S. intelligence officials issued warnings not to share health data with BGI. See the story Sunday on CBS."
"Weaponizing Biotech: How China's Military Is Preparing for a 'New Domain of Warfare': Under Beijing's civil-military fusion strategy, the PLA is sponsoring research on gene editing, human performance enhancement, and more."
The PLA’s keen interest is reflected in strategic writings and research that argue that advances in biology are contributing to changing the form or character (形态) of conflict. For example:
In 2010’s War for Biological Dominance (制生权战争), Guo Jiwei (郭继卫), a professor with the Third Military Medical University, emphasizes the impact of biology on future warfare.
In 2015, then-president of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences He Fuchu (贺福初) argued that biotechnology will become the new “strategic commanding heights” of national defense, from biomaterials to "brain control" weapons. Maj. Gen. He has since become the vice president of the Academy of Military Sciences, which leads China’s military science enterprise.
Biology is among seven "new domains of warfare" discussed in a 2017 book by Zhang Shibo (张仕波), a retired general and former president of the National Defense University, who concludes: “Modern biotechnology development is gradually showing strong signs characteristic of an offensive capability,” including the possibility that “specific ethnic genetic attacks” (特定种族基因攻击) could be employed.
The 2017 edition of Science of Military Strategy (战略学), a textbook published by the PLA’s National Defense University that is considered to be relatively authoritative, debuted a section about biology as a domain of military struggle, similarly mentioning the potential for new kinds of biological warfare to include “specific ethnic genetic attacks.”
These are just a few examples of an extensive and evolving literature by Chinese military scholars and scientists who are exploring new directions in military innovation.
From: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/08/chinas-military-pursuing-biotech/159167/ (Owned by same corp that publishes the Atlantic, I think)
Archive: https://archive.is/3m4SX
Another good read:
"Web Semantics: Chinese Futurist Military Jargon" (Wired)
...
“specific ethnic genetic attacks” (特定种族基因攻击)
“strategic commanding heights” (制高点)
War for Biological Dominance (制生权战争)
“winning without fighting” (不战而屈人之兵)
"China has done human testing to create biologically enhanced super soldiers, says top U.S. official" (NBC News)
Etc.
An army of empathy-less, super strong, "super soldiers" who heal faster, can see in the dark, hear better, withstand the cold, run faster, etc. Transhumanist academic "Super Brights". Etc. They don't have the Christian morality (or human rights protections) to stop them from experimenting.
"China's Grand Plan to Take Over the World" (Forbes)
Appears you're going to have to look this one up yorself as archive.is, .st, and .fo are swamped. Good read, though.
Apparently, they want their global domination wrapped up by 2050, the 100 year anniversary of the Chinese Communist Revolution.
Meanwhile, the West is rehashing slavery and bickering about pro/anti gay bullshit.
Another strawman.
And more ugliness.
You're simultaneously claiming that immigration and jobs are the most important issues to Americans
They're a hell of a lot more important than obsessing about identity politics. Whether that obsession is pro or anti. Two sides of the same shitty coin and, as I said, not what got Trump elected.
:-)
Immigration was what got Trump elected. Perhaps you've heard of the Wall?
How many times did Trump talk about homosexuality in 2016? Or in 2020?
Jobs. Yeah, pretty much the #1 thing Trump did in his administration and his crowning achievement was the economy.
You're not even trying, shill. C'mon. You can do better than this.
Anyone still using "Left" v "Right" is a retard.
China benefits most from partisan infighting.
unironically
strawmans my post
bunch of gibberish
Gee, it's a wonder more people didn't flock to Trump's cause in 2020!
After all, two consenting adults* is really the most pressing issue facing this country. Way more important than inflation, millions streaming over our border, China creating genetically enhanced super soldiers who can see in the dark, hear a pindrop at 100 yards, etc.
Majority of Americans are not attracted to a party espousing 1950's bigotry.
You're either a shill, spouting the ugliest shit you can think of to derail this movement from real issues, from a positive unity for our nation, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc or someone caught up in that shill campaign.
Pro-gay...anti-gay.
WHO GIVES A FUCK.
WE HAVE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS DYING DEATHS OF DESPAIR, YOU FUCKING BRAINLET.
Trump didn't win in 2016 by focusing on anything you're saying.
And lost in 2020 because people like you hijacked the movement
... and narrowed the lead enough that DNC could cheat.
TD.win *
hundreds of thousands...millions...*
It started off as a beautiful, positive, unifying thing supporting all the best in America and the West. Quickly devolved into a shitfest of ugliness. All these idiots who probably didn't even support Trump in 2016, saw he was 'safe' and flocked to the website. They believed the shit MSM was saying about him and approved. People like me, who got on board early because Trump represented basically a "third party" candidate and not the tired old GOP v DNC bullshit that gets us nowhere...were disgusted by the 2020 and predicting an upset.
Etc.
I dunno. Whatever.
I don't really give a shit what consenting adults do. The non-stop anti-gay, anti-this, anti-that posts on TF.win cost us thousands of votes and just made the culture frankly shit. What could've been a blowout turned into...well, what we all see now.
2016 Trump campaign wasn't obsessed with Cult of Purity and hating "green haired FREAKS" and "degenerate FAGGOTS!!!"...every other fucking post...
In 2016, it was a positive, HIGH-ENERGY movement that encouraged ANYONE...anyone at all...to vote Trump as long as they wanted to stop illegal immigration and loved America. Simple as.
A man with a hammer ... sees Joos everywhere.
;-)
Edit: or women. Some only see women.
;-))
Lol, TL;DR!!!
But seriously:
"The Death of the Alt-Weekly As Told By An Industry Lifer"
https://reason.com/2017/11/04/the-death-of-the-alt-weekly-as-told-by-a/
https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/alt-alt-weeklies.php
I miss them. Now they're just what used to be called "the culture section" in newspapers. And the death of intellectual thought in the West accelerates.
Who reads long-form...anything...online? The pop-ups and temptation to just click some button and do something less intellectually demanding is distracting in itself. Hotlinks break concentration, even if you never click them. Etc.
"The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains" (Nicholas Carr) received huge backlash when it first came out. Now? People are blase about the fact that their frontal lobes, the part of the brain that makes them human, is shrinking from underuse.
All this just "dumbed down" America, then the rest of the West first!
As internet connectivity saturates the rest of the world....well, imagine for yourselves. Of course, there's pros and cons, but the negatives are pretty bad and affects far reaching. We are becoming less empathic, and more parrot-like.
Goldfish, really. A nation of goldfish. Edit: or maybe piranha.
Multiple studies have drawn a link between computer use or extensive screen time (eg, watching television, playing videogames) and symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A 2014 meta-analysis indicated a correlation between media use and attention problems. A recent survey of adolescents without symptoms of ADHD at the start of the study indicated a significant association between more frequent use of digital media and symptoms of ADHD after 24 months of follow-up.6 Although most of the research linking technology use and ADHD symptoms has involved children and adolescents, this association has been identified in people at any age.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366948/
The risk of being "avant garde": your advanced guard is the first to suffer if you go into a bad place, say over a waterfall or into some brambles. Rear guard can watch and avoid. The West led the way with internet technology and now all of us reading this are "addicted" ...esp after lockdowns. Plus, our society requires internet use now for common transactions.
A more conspiratorial minded person might wonder if there wasnt some devious plan, some overarching order behind the scenes to all of this...
Been going on for decades. They stopped caring about journalistic ethics when readers no longer were their source of income. Classifieds used to pay the bills. People used to buy newspapers. Hell, some towns even had two dailies.
Craigslist made classified ads obsolete and now newspapers and news shows are funded by corporate sponsors, with minimal income arriving through paid subscribers.
Basically, follow the money. They're paid to dispense a particular worldview and only rarely does that payment come from the consumer.
Mainstream media is dead in the water and has been for a decade.
Bill Clinton's "Summer of Love" allowing cable providers to map out who owned what section of the country, was just one step. Trump approved huge mergers as well. AT&T with Verizon? Something like that.
Expect continued fracturing of sources and plummeting quality as access is expensive and we have 10,000 poorly funded news sites instead of 20 competitive ones.
Dead n gone:
Society of Professional Journalists - Code of Ethics:
Funny, I was looking through some pics and just saw a Sowell quote about slavery. https://ibb.co/2K36gnQ
What book was it, do you remember? I'd like to listen as well.
The good is never, ever mentioned.
I took an American History class in, God help me it's true, a Historically Black College! St Phillip's community college (in San Antonio, Texas) is the only campus in the Alamo community college district that had the biology classes for my major.
Whew! that was the red pill that 'dinged' me away from being a FoodNotBombs, anti-War peace marching, Esperanza Peace and Justice Center activist!
The professor told the class, "are the Spanish White? Wellll, some say yes and some say no but I will tell you this! They did take part in the Inquisition!"
My naive Democrat butt, one of 4 White students in the class, spoke up, "waitaminute, are you saying that White people are the only ones that kept slaves?"
Some big o Black girl in the back of the class, "Yaaassss!!!!"
Everyone laughs.
Professor F, not thinking I'd say anything, "Well, (hems and haws, doesn't really answer question) ...but you'll learn more about that higher up in your education."
That pill...took about 2-3 years to digest. This was about 13 or 14 years ago. Before all this stuff became mainstream. Sadly, I guess, I was shown what was to come early on because of that experience.
But yeah, when Trump or anyone else gives funds to "Historically Black Colleges"...that's exactly what they're teaching. That only White people can be racist. That America is a fundamentally racist country. Etc.
Later on in that class the same Black girl is talking to another student and going, "you should take Prof F's Black history class he really goes off!" One of the other White guys in that class says from across the room, "yeah, I wonder what he says in that class." Just to show that yes, he was there listening and was aware of the racism going on.
Crazy times. Personally, I think it's China that's behind this. They certainly benefit from igniting ethnic identity in a demographically multicultural country.
Why even focus on racism and slavery to begin with?
What you focus on has a way of getting bigger.
You're feeding oxygen to it.
And anyways, CRT is utter bullshit as White people are damn near the only ones that have freed slaves in the world!
Web search: "Map Modern Day Slavery" Behold! The evil of Whiteness!
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/data/maps/#prevalence
Methodology: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/about/the-index/
https://howmuch.net/articles/modern-slavery-map-2018
Hell, even Washington Post said as much:
Map, because f*** giving WaPo more clicks! https://ibb.co/2h78896
Wonder what their position on this issue is today?
It's just a color of skin to me. Really, although I've unfortunately thought about it much more over the last 8 years due to it being shoved in everyone's face 24/7....should be about 7th or 8th down the list of ways to think about people you deal with. If that.
I dunno. What is "Blackness"?
From the early days of the pandemic: http://www.josiahzayner.com/2020/12/i-made-covid-19-vaccine-in-my-kitchen.html https://archive.is/mKx2Q
===everything after this is from those link:
"I Made a Covid-19 Vaccine in my Kitchen and it Worked - Science Still Sucks"
I hate science. It's so elitist.
I have an internal dialogue going all the time trying to convince myself that I don't want my work to be called science. What I do is completely different, more sacred, honest and open and yes sometimes flawed. Sometimes I hide the fact that I have a Ph.D. because I don’t want it to be a symbol of authority or intelligence for myself. It also feels douchey to tell people I have a Ph.D. I want to be judged by my actions, not where I went to school, which can be primarily determined by your parents financial status and education level. I grew up on a farm in rural Indiana. We ate eggs from our chickens and drank dehydrated milk. Up until even high school my family was dirt poor. We had our electricity shut-off and had to take cold showers. When we couldn't afford the phone bill, I walked to 7-11 and used the payphone to call my friends. Violence, evictions, car repossessions — you name it, I’ve lived it. Starting undergrad at SIU I was homeless and lived out of my car and slept on the dorm room floors of people I knew.
When I was in graduate school, 99% of my peers did not come from a similar background. It was abundantly clear that the practice of science and medicine is only accessible to the upper crust. That’s an issue in itself, but the fucking humongous gigantic bigger problem is that cutting-edge medicines are also only available to the societal elite. Time and time again throughout this pandemic, we’ve watched as the wealthy and powerful get all the unapproved drugs to treat their covid, while all of us peasants sit back and do our best not to die without them. The 108 Regeneron antibody cocktails all went to Washington DC.
That’s why I left academia. Why I quit my job at NASA and started doing science as a biohacker. I want everyone to be able to do science without any gatekeepers. The single greatest impediment to diversity in science is access to knowledge and information that is being held tighter than Ric Flair’s Figure Four Leg Lock.
Biohackers are setting knowledge free.
In May 2020, an article came out in science magazine where researchers showed that by using a DNA vaccine that codes for the SARS-COV2 spike protein, they could create antibodies that provide protection from covid-19 in macaque monkeys without harmful side-effects. Getting good monkey data is basically the best pre-human data you can ever hope to get. Most people only have experimental data from mouse tests. When I see a paper like this the gears in my brain begin to spin because there is a good chance the FDA would approve this for human testing.
So, I decided to test it myself. The project perfectly fit a niche where biohackers have an experimental advantage over academia and industry. With enough knowledge and skill, we could perform quick but data-laden experiments to show whether the same DNA vaccine tested on monkeys would be promising in humans. And instead of taking months or years we could have results in as little as a few weeks. [...]