Even if you had some kind of problem with race mixing, like you said, it's a non issue.
Yes, countries can be multi-ethnic and just have no issue so long as assimilation occurs, which it inevitably, slowly, does.
Concerns over German immigration were overblown, same with Japanese migration. No one sane is really worried about Germans or Japanese "EATING DA DAWGS. THEY'RE EATING THE PETZ".
Frankly, even the Post Bellum Jim Crow South didn't really care all that much about race mixing with Japanese or Germans. IIRC there was once a Mississippi state court which declared a Japanese family to be culturally white due to their integration and assimilation into the local community.
Even a segregated society can still function so long as amicability still exists. The Amish are effectively living in fully parallel societies, yet there is no one talking about "the American blood is poisoned by the Amish".
He certainly has flaws, but normally when they hit that close to home its one like "believes the minor can consent" or "is a fucking furry."
Can't compromise on the former, but honestly, I'm prepared to compromise on the latter.
I'll take the based furry if he can actually fight the globalist establishment.
White flight occurred because of declining property values, and Chicago was already exceptionally violent, most people in Detroit weren't worried about black neighbors. You're argument would make more sense in Allentown.
Not that any of that matters, My argument still stands that Detroit would be a shithole filled with whites if white flight didn't occur. You can't make a Leftist power center not a shithole.
Her silence is deafening, and this is only a minor CRT example. It's not even egregious. There's worse Washington Post articles.
The whole podcast was them basically educating her on just how bad the book stuff has gotten with progressives. Mix this with her explaining that the whole "crystal lady" thing was entirely manufactured by the media to slander her.
No. they don't read shit.
This is like when you argue with a Marxist, who tells you you're uninformed and that you haven't read enough Marx to understand it. Then you read all of Marx's letters, Das Kapital, and Surplus Value; then you present him with an even more refined argument. As a result, he has no idea what you're talking about because he never read through The Communist Manifesto the whole way through, let alone Das Kapital. He was working off of vibes the whole time, and got you to waste months of your life reading a crazy, unwashed, resentment mongering, jew-hating, deadbeat hobo from the 1860's.
In 2021, Vance called American universities “the enemy” and said on a podcast that people like him needed to “seize the institutions of the left, and turn them against the left.” In a different interview, he clarified: American “conservatives…have lost every major powerful institution in the country, except for maybe churches and religious institutions, which of course are weaker now than they’ve ever been. We’ve lost big business. We’ve lost finance. We’ve lost the culture. We’ve lost the academy. And if we’re going to actually really effect real change in the country, it will require us completely replacing the existing ruling class with another ruling class…. I don’t think there’s sort of a compromise that we’re going to come with the people who currently actually control the country. Unless we overthrow them in some way, we’re going to keep losing.” “We really need to be really ruthless when it comes to the exercise of power,” he said.
Our. Fucking. Guy.
Dude probably has a Lotus Eaters subscription, is a member of Richard Barris's Locals page, and reads Curtis Yarvin
The way that definitions work is that we make a category to contain a concept that reflects reality.
They way they operate is that if they can alter reality to fit a definition, then there is no real change.
Additionally, if they alter a definition, then reality changes.
They believe they can assert a new reality into existence. Bad definitions are never well defined, good definitions apply regardless of exceptions.
they usually pull the old "source? SOURCE?"
I don't see this among normies. This is because even if you tell them something like, "Simone de Beauvoir's 'Second Sex', page 127, paragraph 4"; it's not actually going to mean anything. Most actual normies, already know ... that they don't know anything. They'll basically make an appeal to ignorance and say something like, "I don't know anything about that, I haven't heard that before, but it doesn't seem like what I've heard [hint: from their indoctrinated sociology professor], who told them that 'feminism is fully defined as thinking women are human'."
What you're talking about isn't really normies, but "center-leftists". They are the "default liberals" that are already hyper skeptical of anti-Leftist narratives or positions. These are the people that laughed at the idea of tampons going in girls bathrooms in elementary school because 'that isn't happening, you got that from some podcast'. No different than when Miriam Williamson went on Tim Pool's podcast and saw a CRT book that explained that whiteness was inherently evil. It shocked her so much she almost cried.
Most normies are going to understand their ignorance, so you have to basically appeal to common sense with follow-up questions early. "How can you have diversity and equality? Equality would require some kind of sameness, but diversity requires difference." Then as they are searching for an answer, give them one. They're actually not too bad at reasoning in abstraction if they simply have no knowledge to base off of, or are already intimately familiar with a topic. The calling card of leftist indoctrination is mid-wittery that only gives people enough knowledge to form a sense of over-confidence.
With the default Leftists, that is really their primary sphere. You can only get around that with probing follow-up questions. They've never actually introspected their own beliefs, so it's best to actually walk them through what they believe. Question them so that their answers give them some "left and right lateral limits" (basically the maximum extent where their beliefs on a subject lie), and then ask them follow-up questions to what they believe, and how to respond. They like hearing themselves talk, so play into that and allow them to explain themselves. Then show them where they start to clearly rationalize stuff they don't understand.
"Okay, so you think we live in a white supremacist country. Do you think we are ruled by the KKK or that we're a Nazi party ruled country?"
"Well, no, I mean we are white supremacist because the outcomes of society favor white people."
"Okay, so it's white supremacism because of outcome, not because of ideology. So you don't think that the explicit ideology of white supremacism is what's guiding policy makers."
"Well, maybe some republicans, but for the most part, no, it's just outcomes. It's the inequitable outcomes that stem from a legacy of white supremacy and slavery."
"Okay, well, why do you believe that these outcomes are are the result of the legacy of white supremacy and slavery? Couldn't those groups just be engaging in different behaviors? Like, say, for example: there are a lot of jews that work law. That's not because of a jewish conspiracy to put jews into law school, it's instead that jews tend to be from highly literate backgrounds and childhoods, and so pursue law disproportionately. Couldn't some of those outcomes simply be the result of people's choices, rather than some kind of institutional act?"
"Well, maybe, but okay, what if jews had to pursue law to get around white supremacy?"
"Okay, but is white supremacy so common and powerful today that jews are regularly oppressed for their religion?"
" ... "
"Wouldn't it make more sense that their kids just picked up law just like their fathers did? They could just carry on the family practice."
"Sure but the reason they were there was from the legacy of white supremacy."
"Yes, but not because there is white supremacy. Only that there was and you're looking at historical momentum."
"Sure, I guess."
"Which means it's not that the country is white supremacist, it's only that there was a time that it was."
"..."
I understand that argument, but I don't fully agree with it. The expansion of military debt certainly hurt the USSR, but it wouldn't cause a collapse. If that were true, the "Bomber Gap" issue in the 1950's should have destroyed them because they could never have competed with the US's insane 24/7 nuclear bomber patrol.
The real problem is that the food situation in the USSR was becoming totally unsustainable. If Gorbechev didn't liberalize agriculture from what it was, there'd be a famine and he didn't want what happened to China. He believed that he could manage liberalization in the Soviet Union to a degree that would keep it alive. Unfortunately, he couldn't. Nationalist movements in Ukraine, Poland, East Germany, Checkslovakia, and Estonia seized the opportunity to basically publicly expose the corruption and incompetence of their local Communist parties, followed by the stupidity of the communist party generally.
After Poland's move to break-away and the revolution in Romania, the thing that fully undermined the confidence in the Soviet Union was the discovery of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by the Estonians. One of their nationalist leaders was in the US and discovered it's existence in a museum. They'd never actually heard that the USSR and NSDAP were allies, and were always told that the Soviet Union pushed into Estonia to save it from a Nazi invasion. He certainly never knew that this was simply common knowledge in the west, and that the entire justification of Estonia's membership in the USSR was a lie to support the Nazis.
The Estonians absolutely lost their shit. And the next Comintern, they made an issue out of it, and basically lambasted the Communist party, wanted to argue that they should leave the union, and stop using the Ruble. At that point, there was very clearly blood in the water and the Communists, really for the first time since the Nazis, started really panicking.
The USSR was never going to be defeated by economics alone, see North Korea. In fact, it's hard to argue the USSR ever recovered from WW1. But the combination of pressures from strong nationalist movements, potential famines from mismanagement, and political illegitimacy is what really did the whole project in.
I have friends that basically take their politics from Jim Cornette. As such, you can guess how well that translates to our political conversations.
Cornette is a full blown, raving, lunatic, TDS, Leftist.
It is probably only because Mark is one of the most well respected people in all of Wrestling, that Jim didn't tell Mark to kill himself. The optics would probably hurt him.
As someone who supports Austrian Economics, I understand the argument that even instituting a counter-tarrif is actually worse for both countries, and both markets.
But there's a huge implication that's left out.
It's worse IF AND ONLY IF you already have a free market. The Austrian School refusal to fire back with a tariff makes sense when your economy is so free that it immediately takes over from the lost business. In the end, the people who applied the tariff on you end up being actually worse off, and damaging their own industries in the long run because they are no longer competitive to the market that you now dominate.
Problem is, we don't fucking have that. Trump would have to completely de-regulate huge swathes of industries and close multiple agencies, just to build the economy strong enough, over years, to make the tariffs a bad idea for our opponents.
If you want to do something quick, yeah, you need a reactionary tariff. Then when you drive them back to the negotiation table, you lift the tariffs once you've got a real trade negotiation worked out.
What you don't do is what we currently do: Let one and only one side have tariffs for infinity years for the exclusive benefit of the other country, while we regulate our own companies severely to keep our productivity down and costs up.