46
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
47
3DHS / Does Silicon Valley?s reign herald the end of social democracy?
« on: September 20, 2015, 10:25:31 AM »
Silicon Valley might have the world?s biggest reserves of chutzpah and arrogance, but could it also be laying the foundations of the new economic order? This seems to be the growing consensus among both its critics and cheerleaders; the disagreement is over what kind of order this will prove to be.
Paul Mason?s new book about ?post-capitalism? straddles both ends of this debate. It?s the latest contribution to the always-green genre pioneered by Daniel Bell and Peter Drucker decades ago. As everything becomes networked and digital, argues Mason, even our new corporate overlords will be having a hard time containing the radical potential ? for new forms of dissent and social organisation ? that lies within.
But what if Mason is only half-right? While it?s perfectly possible that, with Silicon Valley at the helm, we will be moving towards one of those ?post-? eras, why assume that it would be capitalism and not, say, the idea of social democracy that would be left behind? Today such a scenario seems far more likely. From its inception, social democracy was a compromise affair. Different countries saw it arrive at different historical moments, but its essence remained the same: big business and big government eventually came to a mutually beneficial arrangement, whereby governments would not challenge the primacy of the market as the main vehicle of economic development, while companies would acquiesce to considerable regulatory oversight.
This was the famous social democratic compromise that made Europe such a comfortable place to live. It gave grounds for moderate optimism, at least to the burgeoning social democratic parties, that progress was ubiquitous and eternal: the economies were growing; workers were well protected and enjoyed superb health benefits; consumers could be confident that their rights wouldn?t be abused by the firms they transacted with. This system seemed to work splendidly, at least for a while, but its fragile inner workings were not obvious to everybody. First, it presupposed that the economies would be growing almost indefinitely, allowing the state to pick up the bill for generous welfare transfers.
Second, ensuring the dignity of work presupposed occasional tactical interventions by the state into particular industries and sectors; however, those of them that were privatised, liberalised, or never properly regulated ? the technology sector, in its most expansive definition, is a combination of all three ? left governments little space for manoeuvre. Third, the spirit of social democracy dictated that citizens themselves prize lofty values like solidarity and justice ? an attitude that was also encoded into specific regulations.
All three of these foundations are now crumbling ? under the ferocious assault of both neoliberalism and Silicon Valley, the latter being all too happy to exploit the numerous inconsistencies, ambiguities and rhetorical weaknesses of the social democratic ideal.
Uber?s approach is particularly telling. So what if some cities require taxi drivers to take training courses on, for example, how to handle blind or disabled passengers? For Uber, all its passengers are created equal and there?s no point in incurring such extra expenses: its balance sheets recognise no disability.
A few decades ago, when the rash of consumerism hadn?t yet degraded our ability to reason collectively, we might have found such an attitude abhorrent. Today, however, things are not so clear-cut: why, some might reason, should my taxi ride subsidise the rides of blind and disabled people?
Uber the company, likewise, wants to be left alone, claiming that this will yield more satisfaction to its customers ? and of course it will, as long as the only yardstick for measuring satisfaction is the price paid by the consumer. Ironically, it?s precisely by touting the uniqueness of information and digital technology ? the hallmarks of ?post-capitalism? as Mason sees it ? that Uber justifies its draconian employment practices, far more typical of capitalism before the onset of social democracy. They are merely a ?technology company?, they claim. It doesn?t matter that Uber drivers are extensively monitored and aggressively nudged ? for example, to keep their ratings or ride acceptance ratio high enough ? much more so than workers in a typical Taylorist factory of the 1920s.
Despite the immense control that Uber exercises over them, these drivers are not even formally employed, a point on which the company is being challenged even in US courts, with their patchy record of employment protection. One might take solace in the employment flexibility offered by Uber, but even that is just a function of the overall precarity of the working population: with so many people out of work and struggling to get by, Uber can be assured that there will always be somebody, somewhere, willing to drive, if only for a few hours. Work in the future doesn?t have to be truly nasty, brutish, and short ? unless you happen to drive for Uber.
A quick survey of other dimensions of what used to pass for ?social democracy? looks as grim; its foundations are crumbling. There are few health systems in Europe, for example, that would survive the growing challenges of ageing, obesity and ever-shrinking budgets to tackle such problems. This explains why there?s so much irrational exuberance about the potential of wearable devices, smart sensors and their various combinations that promise to shift the current model to preventive care. The days when it was possible not to think too much or too often about our health are gone. The health apps are unending sources of anxiety ? and it was precisely in reducing the latter that the social democratic project actually worked.
A similar assault is taking place on another bulwark of social democracy: the idea of consumer protection. It?s simply being undone by the digital market itself. As advertising and data collection take on more prominent roles in the digital economy, we end up with algorithmically determined prices that are highly personalised and often set to make us pay the highest price we are prepared to pay. Uber?s surge-pricing mechanism is just one of many examples; likewise, most of us already have a hard time explaining why our plane ticket bought online costs exactly what it does. For all the apps telling us about calorie counts and the countries of origins of the products we buy, consumers are also entering the new dark ages: we have no idea why we are paying what we are paying for the products we have been subliminally nudged to buy.
Silicon Valley is mounting an attack on the very philosophy behind social democracy ? that market-bending rules and regulations can be set by governments and city councils. Silicon Valley believes otherwise: the only proper constraint on the excesses of the market is the market itself. Thus, it?s up to consumers to punish ? through bad ratings, for example ? bad drivers or unreliable hosts; governments should stay out. Does any of this add up to ?post-capitalism?? Well, maybe ? but only if we are prepared to acknowledge that capitalism, for the past century at least, has been made stable by the social democratic compromise, which is now being made obsolete. Inasmuch as ?post-capitalism? emerges out of weakened social protections and industry regulations, we might as well be precise in our definitions: if Silicon Valley represents a shift to anything, it?s probably to ?pre-capitalism?.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/silicon-valley-end-of-social-democracy
Paul Mason?s new book about ?post-capitalism? straddles both ends of this debate. It?s the latest contribution to the always-green genre pioneered by Daniel Bell and Peter Drucker decades ago. As everything becomes networked and digital, argues Mason, even our new corporate overlords will be having a hard time containing the radical potential ? for new forms of dissent and social organisation ? that lies within.
But what if Mason is only half-right? While it?s perfectly possible that, with Silicon Valley at the helm, we will be moving towards one of those ?post-? eras, why assume that it would be capitalism and not, say, the idea of social democracy that would be left behind? Today such a scenario seems far more likely. From its inception, social democracy was a compromise affair. Different countries saw it arrive at different historical moments, but its essence remained the same: big business and big government eventually came to a mutually beneficial arrangement, whereby governments would not challenge the primacy of the market as the main vehicle of economic development, while companies would acquiesce to considerable regulatory oversight.
This was the famous social democratic compromise that made Europe such a comfortable place to live. It gave grounds for moderate optimism, at least to the burgeoning social democratic parties, that progress was ubiquitous and eternal: the economies were growing; workers were well protected and enjoyed superb health benefits; consumers could be confident that their rights wouldn?t be abused by the firms they transacted with. This system seemed to work splendidly, at least for a while, but its fragile inner workings were not obvious to everybody. First, it presupposed that the economies would be growing almost indefinitely, allowing the state to pick up the bill for generous welfare transfers.
Second, ensuring the dignity of work presupposed occasional tactical interventions by the state into particular industries and sectors; however, those of them that were privatised, liberalised, or never properly regulated ? the technology sector, in its most expansive definition, is a combination of all three ? left governments little space for manoeuvre. Third, the spirit of social democracy dictated that citizens themselves prize lofty values like solidarity and justice ? an attitude that was also encoded into specific regulations.
All three of these foundations are now crumbling ? under the ferocious assault of both neoliberalism and Silicon Valley, the latter being all too happy to exploit the numerous inconsistencies, ambiguities and rhetorical weaknesses of the social democratic ideal.
Uber?s approach is particularly telling. So what if some cities require taxi drivers to take training courses on, for example, how to handle blind or disabled passengers? For Uber, all its passengers are created equal and there?s no point in incurring such extra expenses: its balance sheets recognise no disability.
A few decades ago, when the rash of consumerism hadn?t yet degraded our ability to reason collectively, we might have found such an attitude abhorrent. Today, however, things are not so clear-cut: why, some might reason, should my taxi ride subsidise the rides of blind and disabled people?
Uber the company, likewise, wants to be left alone, claiming that this will yield more satisfaction to its customers ? and of course it will, as long as the only yardstick for measuring satisfaction is the price paid by the consumer. Ironically, it?s precisely by touting the uniqueness of information and digital technology ? the hallmarks of ?post-capitalism? as Mason sees it ? that Uber justifies its draconian employment practices, far more typical of capitalism before the onset of social democracy. They are merely a ?technology company?, they claim. It doesn?t matter that Uber drivers are extensively monitored and aggressively nudged ? for example, to keep their ratings or ride acceptance ratio high enough ? much more so than workers in a typical Taylorist factory of the 1920s.
Despite the immense control that Uber exercises over them, these drivers are not even formally employed, a point on which the company is being challenged even in US courts, with their patchy record of employment protection. One might take solace in the employment flexibility offered by Uber, but even that is just a function of the overall precarity of the working population: with so many people out of work and struggling to get by, Uber can be assured that there will always be somebody, somewhere, willing to drive, if only for a few hours. Work in the future doesn?t have to be truly nasty, brutish, and short ? unless you happen to drive for Uber.
A quick survey of other dimensions of what used to pass for ?social democracy? looks as grim; its foundations are crumbling. There are few health systems in Europe, for example, that would survive the growing challenges of ageing, obesity and ever-shrinking budgets to tackle such problems. This explains why there?s so much irrational exuberance about the potential of wearable devices, smart sensors and their various combinations that promise to shift the current model to preventive care. The days when it was possible not to think too much or too often about our health are gone. The health apps are unending sources of anxiety ? and it was precisely in reducing the latter that the social democratic project actually worked.
A similar assault is taking place on another bulwark of social democracy: the idea of consumer protection. It?s simply being undone by the digital market itself. As advertising and data collection take on more prominent roles in the digital economy, we end up with algorithmically determined prices that are highly personalised and often set to make us pay the highest price we are prepared to pay. Uber?s surge-pricing mechanism is just one of many examples; likewise, most of us already have a hard time explaining why our plane ticket bought online costs exactly what it does. For all the apps telling us about calorie counts and the countries of origins of the products we buy, consumers are also entering the new dark ages: we have no idea why we are paying what we are paying for the products we have been subliminally nudged to buy.
Silicon Valley is mounting an attack on the very philosophy behind social democracy ? that market-bending rules and regulations can be set by governments and city councils. Silicon Valley believes otherwise: the only proper constraint on the excesses of the market is the market itself. Thus, it?s up to consumers to punish ? through bad ratings, for example ? bad drivers or unreliable hosts; governments should stay out. Does any of this add up to ?post-capitalism?? Well, maybe ? but only if we are prepared to acknowledge that capitalism, for the past century at least, has been made stable by the social democratic compromise, which is now being made obsolete. Inasmuch as ?post-capitalism? emerges out of weakened social protections and industry regulations, we might as well be precise in our definitions: if Silicon Valley represents a shift to anything, it?s probably to ?pre-capitalism?.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/silicon-valley-end-of-social-democracy
52
3DHS / Re: Whites Just Don't Get It.
« on: August 01, 2015, 11:06:03 PM »
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, July 30, 2015
You aren?t just betraying your principles.
Dear Cuckservative,
You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word?cuckservative?lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation?s founding stock. I?ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.
Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today?s electorate.
Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don?t expect them to be ?diverse.? Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don?t.
Your great festival?CPAC?is as white as a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That?s because blacks and Hispanics and even Asians don?t share your dreams. You?ve heard the old joke: ?What do you call the only black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.? Outreach doesn?t work. You can?t talk someone into loving what you love. Faith, patriotism, duty, and honor come from deeply cultural, religious, and ancestral sources you can?t reach.
Why do you evoke Martin Luther King when you call for a ?colorblind? America? You know he wanted quotas for blacks. You evoke King because you think he?ll help you silence blacks and liberals. But it doesn?t work, does it? That?s because only whites?and Asians, when it suits them?even think in terms of ?colorblindness.? Blacks and Hispanics will squeeze every unfair advantage out of you they can. At what point will they ever abandon their aggressive racial agenda? When they?re the majority just think how hard they?ll squeeze your grandchildren.
You tell yourself that the things you love about America?and I love them, too?are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?
Let?s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.
And what about countries that violate your principles?with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There?s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you?d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.
Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don?t.
We see that in America. Can you think of a majority non-white neighborhood you?d like to live in, or a majority non-white school you?d like your children to attend? No, you can?t. Why, then, don?t you fight with all your strength against the forces of immigration and integration that are turning ever-greater parts of your county into Third-World wastelands?
I know it would be frightening for you to step outside the ever narrower confines of what we are permitted to say about race. You would court the disapproval of every institution in America. You would pay a heavy price. Not since the last Red Scare has the price of speaking out been so high. In the 1950s, it was dangerous to spout Marxist foolishness. Today, the most dangerous ideas are the historical, biological, and moral truths that men such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and your grandparents took for granted.
Muster up the courage. Speak these truths. They are your heritage. They are your destiny. They are in your bones. And when you speak these truths, you will join the people who see the only future for America in which the things you love are even conceivable. When you speak these truths you will join the camp of the saints.
And until you speak these truths you will feel the sting of the word ?cuckservative.? You will feel its sting because you are not just betraying the heritage and promise of America. You are not just betraying your principles and dreams?even though you think you are working for them. You are betraying your people.
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, July 30, 2015
You aren?t just betraying your principles.
Dear Cuckservative,
You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word?cuckservative?lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation?s founding stock. I?ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.
Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today?s electorate.
Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don?t expect them to be ?diverse.? Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don?t.
Your great festival?CPAC?is as white as a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That?s because blacks and Hispanics and even Asians don?t share your dreams. You?ve heard the old joke: ?What do you call the only black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.? Outreach doesn?t work. You can?t talk someone into loving what you love. Faith, patriotism, duty, and honor come from deeply cultural, religious, and ancestral sources you can?t reach.
Why do you evoke Martin Luther King when you call for a ?colorblind? America? You know he wanted quotas for blacks. You evoke King because you think he?ll help you silence blacks and liberals. But it doesn?t work, does it? That?s because only whites?and Asians, when it suits them?even think in terms of ?colorblindness.? Blacks and Hispanics will squeeze every unfair advantage out of you they can. At what point will they ever abandon their aggressive racial agenda? When they?re the majority just think how hard they?ll squeeze your grandchildren.
You tell yourself that the things you love about America?and I love them, too?are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?
Let?s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.
And what about countries that violate your principles?with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There?s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you?d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.
Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don?t.
We see that in America. Can you think of a majority non-white neighborhood you?d like to live in, or a majority non-white school you?d like your children to attend? No, you can?t. Why, then, don?t you fight with all your strength against the forces of immigration and integration that are turning ever-greater parts of your county into Third-World wastelands?
I know it would be frightening for you to step outside the ever narrower confines of what we are permitted to say about race. You would court the disapproval of every institution in America. You would pay a heavy price. Not since the last Red Scare has the price of speaking out been so high. In the 1950s, it was dangerous to spout Marxist foolishness. Today, the most dangerous ideas are the historical, biological, and moral truths that men such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and your grandparents took for granted.
Muster up the courage. Speak these truths. They are your heritage. They are your destiny. They are in your bones. And when you speak these truths, you will join the people who see the only future for America in which the things you love are even conceivable. When you speak these truths you will join the camp of the saints.
And until you speak these truths you will feel the sting of the word ?cuckservative.? You will feel its sting because you are not just betraying the heritage and promise of America. You are not just betraying your principles and dreams?even though you think you are working for them. You are betraying your people.
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
53
3DHS / #Cuckservative
« on: July 26, 2015, 01:42:31 AM »
The Daily Caller has picked up a new term, ?cuckservative,? which ironically describes that publication. One of their writers found it on Radix, although it has been known around the alt-right for a while and was likely first used by someone from TheRightStuff.biz, or maybe mpcdot.com, or this Twitter account. Sorry if I?m wrong but no one is really certain since it?s a meme. The point is, we all use it and we get a kick out of it and now the people we set out to ridicule know about it and are upset and spreading the word. Delicious. I myself have written on the issue of conservatives cucking as well, a few weeks back during the Charleston flagfest. Here?s what The Daily Cucker had to say:
Do you know what encourages tribalism and polarization?
- Everyone else doing it. Every non-white country on earth doing it. Israel, China, Japan, India, South Africa, etc.
- And speaking of Israel, conservatives (and some liberals) cuck extremely hard for that little country. It?s like a socially acceptable and surrogate form of nationalism. Israel can be a Jewish state with a Jewish majority but the United States belongs to everyone right? Even non-citizens. We should just be an entrepot for third world migrant labor right?
- The mass importation of non-white people into the United States since 1965. and the subsequent decline of the Anglo-American White population from almost 90% of the population to 62%.
- The forecast that by the 2040s Whites will lose majority status and become a plurality, the largest minority. As we are constantly reminded, minorities are oppressed. We should avoid becoming one, like Whites were in colonial Haiti and Rhodesia.
- The rise of black and Hispanic identity politics, and to a much lesser extent Asian and LGBT
- The intensity of the white guilt narrative, whether in the form of white privilege or the old-fashioned blaming Whites for everything.
- Politicians kowtowing to political correctness and media and social media enforcing it upon thought heretics.
- The rise of men like Donald Trump who are willing to hold shamelessly pro-American policies without apologizing to the left to make their ideas more appealing to non-Republican voters like blacks, Latinos and feminists.
Here?s some more food for thought:
- ?White supremacist? is a slur used against pro-White advocacy and any White person who uses it is inherently a cuck.
- Republicans who try to appeal to demographics they cannot win without adopting Democrat policies?black and Hispanics?are selling out their White majority base for twenty units of fiat money; They are C U C K S.
- Republicans who support Immigration Reform? and more cultural enrichment?rather than defending the border and repealing Hart-Celler?are cucks. That?s literally making the United States non-white and the people who voted for you are White.
- Republicans who aggressively serve multinational corporate donors or the Israeli lobby, neither of which have the best interests of Anglo-America in mind, are cucks.
- Finally, if you?re just a liberal who?s ten years behind, cuck.
TRS?s Mike Enoch left a pretty clear definition on Daily Caller itself for their audience to ponder.
I couldn?t agree more. Gas the cucks, waifu war now.
https://atlanticcenturion.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/cuckservative/
Quote
So what does this have to do with conservatism or politics? By supporting immigration reform, criminal justice reform, etc., a white conservative is therefore surrendering his honor and masculinity (and it won?t be long before his women folk are compromised, as well!). A cuckservative is, therefore, a race traitor.
The suggestion is that whites should only support policies that help whites. The goal is to stir up fear among whites ? and to encourage more tribalism and polarization.
I bring this up because I suppose it?s possible that some conservatives might embrace this term without fully understanding the racial and sexual implications. To some, it might be seen as an innocent jab ? like calling someone a ?squish? or a ?RINO.? But as Erickson correctly observes, ?Remember, if you hear the term ?cuckservative,? it is a slur against Christian voters coined by white-supremacists.?
Do you know what encourages tribalism and polarization?
- Everyone else doing it. Every non-white country on earth doing it. Israel, China, Japan, India, South Africa, etc.
- And speaking of Israel, conservatives (and some liberals) cuck extremely hard for that little country. It?s like a socially acceptable and surrogate form of nationalism. Israel can be a Jewish state with a Jewish majority but the United States belongs to everyone right? Even non-citizens. We should just be an entrepot for third world migrant labor right?
- The mass importation of non-white people into the United States since 1965. and the subsequent decline of the Anglo-American White population from almost 90% of the population to 62%.
- The forecast that by the 2040s Whites will lose majority status and become a plurality, the largest minority. As we are constantly reminded, minorities are oppressed. We should avoid becoming one, like Whites were in colonial Haiti and Rhodesia.
- The rise of black and Hispanic identity politics, and to a much lesser extent Asian and LGBT
- The intensity of the white guilt narrative, whether in the form of white privilege or the old-fashioned blaming Whites for everything.
- Politicians kowtowing to political correctness and media and social media enforcing it upon thought heretics.
- The rise of men like Donald Trump who are willing to hold shamelessly pro-American policies without apologizing to the left to make their ideas more appealing to non-Republican voters like blacks, Latinos and feminists.
Here?s some more food for thought:
- ?White supremacist? is a slur used against pro-White advocacy and any White person who uses it is inherently a cuck.
- Republicans who try to appeal to demographics they cannot win without adopting Democrat policies?black and Hispanics?are selling out their White majority base for twenty units of fiat money; They are C U C K S.
- Republicans who support Immigration Reform? and more cultural enrichment?rather than defending the border and repealing Hart-Celler?are cucks. That?s literally making the United States non-white and the people who voted for you are White.
- Republicans who aggressively serve multinational corporate donors or the Israeli lobby, neither of which have the best interests of Anglo-America in mind, are cucks.
- Finally, if you?re just a liberal who?s ten years behind, cuck.
TRS?s Mike Enoch left a pretty clear definition on Daily Caller itself for their audience to ponder.
Quote
Look, you guys have lost, even on the issues important to you as Christians because of your cuckholdry on the race issue. You?re not doing anything to preserve the white majority, but you?re not winning on your issues either. Gay marriage is a done deal. Abortion is here to stay, particularly as more broken nonwhite families enter the social services system and are encouraged by bureaucrats to abort. You lost, you lost, you lost.
With a white majority these issues were winnable, because whites vote conservative in the majority. But by being cowards on the issue of immigration and bending over for the left?s quite open plan of demographic replacement of whites in order to secure a permanent nonwhite left wing majority you lost. In 8 years it may be demographically impossible for the GOP to win a national election ever again. Even your precious Christian issues are done. Even your cucking for Israel is under threat. Do you think a nonwhite majority in the US is going to be keen to support your favorite ethnostate? They side with the Palestinians!
You lost everything, and all because you were afraid a group of communists, atheists and homosexuals would call you racist.
I couldn?t agree more. Gas the cucks, waifu war now.
https://atlanticcenturion.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/cuckservative/
55
3DHS / Re: We Support Diversity and Equality
« on: July 03, 2015, 10:33:49 PM »Oh please, who controls Crimea is meaningless to Americans.
I am sure that is true, but hardly the point the author is making.
56
3DHS / Fernandez: Who?s In Charge of the Oncoming Train?
« on: July 03, 2015, 10:54:58 AM »
Who?s In Charge of the Oncoming Train
A sense of palpable depression came over conservative America after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare subsidies and decided that gay marriage was a constitutional right. Many felt as if the America they knew and loved had been abducted by space aliens and replaced with something new and hostile. In contrast to this emotional devastation the left seemed buoyed by euphoria.
?Look ma, I?m on top of the world!? Yet over the same period the liberal landscape fell apart even faster.The last decade has witnessed a vertiginous decline in Washington?s economic, political and military power. The economic engine of liberalism was dying under them, sustained only by the vapors of deficit spending and illusionism.
Its political dominance was being challenged by totalitarian regimes in China and Russia. Even the triumphant tide of liberal values was being offset by the rise of neo-Nazi parties in Europe and the spread of Islamic ideas throughout the world. Justice Kennedy?s decision was answered in the real world by the Turkish police breaking up the Gay Pride parade in Istanbul. Elsewhere its adherents were experiencing rapid descents from multistory buildings in without the benefit of an elevator at the hands of ISIS executioners.
If the world that conservative Americans once cherished has diminished; it has not been as rapid as the shrinkage of the liberal universe. Both aspects of old world are dying never to come back. The post World War 2 era of Franklin Roosevelt has nearly run its course. The difference is that the conservatives are more aware of its passing and may become more active in building what replaces it.
A miniature representation of the crisis is being acted out in Greece where the left is embarked on a Battle Royale against reality. With reference to reality ?we refuse to accept it,? says the Greek government, vowing to block expulsion from the Euro. There are no reasons, no math, no proofs that 1+1 <> 2. Just refusals. Insistence has taken the place of facts, and is uttered in the confidence that Someone will provide it. Yanis Varoufakis, the finance minister said:
?We are taking advice and will certainly consider an injunction at the European Court of Justice,? he told The Daily Telegraph.
?The EU treaties make no provision for euro exit and we refuse to accept it. Our membership is not negotiable.?
The defiant stand came as Europe?s major powers warned in the bluntest terms that Greece will be forced out of monetary union if voters reject austerity and reform demands in a shock referendum on Sunday.
Not that lawyers can restock the ATMs, the supermarkets or the gas stations. All they can produce is paper, of the kind the Supreme Court decisions are written on. But paper has its limitations ? once past the world of paper Greece is being ripped apart as a sacrifice to the European fantasy. It seems like Greece must die so the narrative may continue live as explained by Ivo Daalder, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, in an NPR interview. Obama was working to keep Greece in the EU because it is part of the Plan.
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Washington wants Europe to work out a deal that keeps Greece in the eurozone that is using the common currency. President Obama has called German Chancellor Merkel. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has spoken with Greek Prime Minister Tsipras. Why are the highest-ranking figures in Washington working the phones so ardently? What?s in it for the U.S.? ? Why is it so important for the U.S. to avoid a so-called Grexit ? a Greek exit from the eurozone?
DAALDER: Well, Greece ? been a member of NATO since 1952 ? and if the Greeks were to leave the European Union, or even the eurozone, there is a fear in Washington ? particularly at a time when we see a growing confrontation with Russia, that Washington is saying this is probably not the time to shake up the system ? Potentially you can see the Orthodox getting together and saying these are the kind of traditional values that ? you hear that already from Russians and from President Putin ? that need to be strengthened against the immoral values that are coming from the West ? it?s that kind of thinking that I think we need to prevent from happening by not pushing Greece in the direction that it?s moving.
The Plan must be saved. The EU project and ?progressive values? are a project that is too big to fail. Therefore it will be saved. Yevgeniy Feyman described how deceptive paper victories can be. He writes, ?King v. Burwell is in the history books. Subsidies on federal exchanges will continue to flow and supporters of the ACA will (correctly) see this as a big win for the president. But to pretend that this means smooth sailing for Obamacare from here on out would be disingenuous at best.?
Federal backstops for insurers (risk corridors and reinsurance) will disappear after 2016, likely resulting in significantly higher premiums on the exchanges. Additional changes to how subsidies for premiums are calculated in beginning in 2019 also threaten to push more premium costs onto consumers. The exchanges have also largely failed to attract younger enrollees, and middle-class enrollees have been frozen out by (unsubsidized) Obamacare-sticker shock.
The Supreme Court just upheld a program that will bankrupt the treasury and send the health insurance industry into a death spiral. ?Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.? That?s what Greece is learning now, after the ?victory? of entering Europe.
Saving these sacred cows will come at the cost at a high cost. George Selgin at Cato writes ?if you think that the Fed isn?t involved in the Greek mess, you may want to think again. Paul-Martin Foss, our good friend at the Carl Menger Center, wrote a very nice post a few days ago concerning how the Fed may be getting itself tangled-up in an impending Greek default, through its swap lines with the ECB.?
According to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, those swap lines were first established in December 2007 ?to improve liquidity conditions in U.S. and foreign financial markets by providing foreign central banks with the capacity to deliver U.S. dollar funding to institutions in their jurisdictions during times of market stress.? ? but then, in October 2013 ? what do you know! ? they were made permanent. ? What has all this got to do with Greece? Here is Paul-Martin: ?If you want to get a sense of the Fed?s involvement in Europe, watch the swap lines. ? even if the Fed doesn?t say anything about Greece, its money-printing to pump up the swap lines will do plenty of talking.?
Greece illustrates how incredibly fragile the liberal world order has become. That one small, almost insignificant European country has the potential to wreak major damage on the entire world economic system is terribly frightening and gives lie to all the bombastic claims about claims to being the wave of the future.
Conservatives shouldn?t feel too bad about the Supreme Court?s decisions. It?s the liberals who are living a house of cards. If liberals were rational they would making alliances with conservative Christians, Third World Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and that favorite sector, the moderate Muslims to fight godless Communism and radical Islam. To paraphrase Casablanca, ?I wouldn?t bring up transgendersism and gay marriage in Tunisia, where hotel workers tried to defend their guests with ashtrays and bottles against the ISIS gunman, if I were you. It?s poor salesmanship.?
But they don?t care, they?ll do it even though it costs them. Do it because there was always someone to pay for things; someone to fix what they broke. Therfore they will destroy Greece in order to save it as they will ruin Puerto Rico in order to prop up Democratic economic policies. Max Ehrenfreund at the Washington Post explains:
Alejandro Garc?a Padilla, the governor of Puerto Rico, is expected to say publicly Monday afternoon that the government of the island territory cannot pay its debts. The consequences could be serious both for the island and the rest of the United States. ?
Puerto Rico has been doing worse than the rest of the country for the past 15 years. The economy began to contract in 2007, a couple of years before the economy collapsed on the mainland.
It?s no surprise that people have been leaving Puerto Rico if they can. The population is declining at an alarming rate of 1 percent per year. ?
The report cites one surprising problem: the federal minimum wage, which is at the same level in Puerto Rico as in the rest of the country, even though the economy there is so much weaker. There are probably some people who would like to work, but because of the sickly economy, businesses can?t afford to pay them the minimum wage.
Someone working full time for the minimum wage earns $15,080 a year, which isn?t that much less than the median income in Puerto Rico of $19,624.
The report also cites regulations and restrictions that make it difficult to set up new businesses and hire workers, although it?s difficult to know just how large an effect these rules might or might not have on the labor market.
A report by the New York Fed also suggests that Puerto Rico has a relatively large underground economy employing a big part of the population. These workers aren?t taxed or counted in formal employment numbers.
In any case, it?s relatively expensive to hire and pay workers in Puerto Rico, which along with the high cost of transportation, energy and other goods, means that fewer tourists are planning trips to Puerto Rico than they were a decade ago and the number of hotel beds is the same as it was four decades ago, according to Krueger and her colleagues.
PR has a Caribbean level of productivity and a Washington DC level of bureaucracy, a grotesque combination rivaled only, with the possible exception of Chicago, by something like Greece with its pastoral body upon which the Brussels regulatory machinery has been grafted. Both are struggling in their mutant state but in any such clash of interests it?s the island which must die so that the greater bureaucracy can survive.
Their sacrifice will not be enough to save the post-war world, however. If conservatives are disturbed by the changes shaking their universe, their vision is at least unobstructed by the Narrative, which is blocking the sight of a freight train bearing down the Western liberal elite. When it hits, boy will lots of people be surprised.
The more perceptive individuals are already beginning to feel the rails vibrate beneath their feat and are inquiring into the cause. Paul Krugman wrote a few days ago that ?it has been obvious for some time that the creation of the euro was a terrible mistake. Europe never had the preconditions for a successful single currency ? above all, the kind of fiscal and banking union that, for example, ensures that when a housing bubble in Florida bursts, Washington automatically protects seniors against any threat to their medical care or their bank deposits.?
Maybe Krugman can tell Obama about the ?obvious? Euro mistake. Perhaps he thinks the freight train crushing Greece will pass the other set of rails. Wait till he realizes there?s only one set of tracks in the globalized world they?ve made.
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/06/30/whos-in-charge-of-the-oncoming-train/
A sense of palpable depression came over conservative America after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare subsidies and decided that gay marriage was a constitutional right. Many felt as if the America they knew and loved had been abducted by space aliens and replaced with something new and hostile. In contrast to this emotional devastation the left seemed buoyed by euphoria.
?Look ma, I?m on top of the world!? Yet over the same period the liberal landscape fell apart even faster.The last decade has witnessed a vertiginous decline in Washington?s economic, political and military power. The economic engine of liberalism was dying under them, sustained only by the vapors of deficit spending and illusionism.
Its political dominance was being challenged by totalitarian regimes in China and Russia. Even the triumphant tide of liberal values was being offset by the rise of neo-Nazi parties in Europe and the spread of Islamic ideas throughout the world. Justice Kennedy?s decision was answered in the real world by the Turkish police breaking up the Gay Pride parade in Istanbul. Elsewhere its adherents were experiencing rapid descents from multistory buildings in without the benefit of an elevator at the hands of ISIS executioners.
If the world that conservative Americans once cherished has diminished; it has not been as rapid as the shrinkage of the liberal universe. Both aspects of old world are dying never to come back. The post World War 2 era of Franklin Roosevelt has nearly run its course. The difference is that the conservatives are more aware of its passing and may become more active in building what replaces it.
A miniature representation of the crisis is being acted out in Greece where the left is embarked on a Battle Royale against reality. With reference to reality ?we refuse to accept it,? says the Greek government, vowing to block expulsion from the Euro. There are no reasons, no math, no proofs that 1+1 <> 2. Just refusals. Insistence has taken the place of facts, and is uttered in the confidence that Someone will provide it. Yanis Varoufakis, the finance minister said:
?We are taking advice and will certainly consider an injunction at the European Court of Justice,? he told The Daily Telegraph.
?The EU treaties make no provision for euro exit and we refuse to accept it. Our membership is not negotiable.?
The defiant stand came as Europe?s major powers warned in the bluntest terms that Greece will be forced out of monetary union if voters reject austerity and reform demands in a shock referendum on Sunday.
Not that lawyers can restock the ATMs, the supermarkets or the gas stations. All they can produce is paper, of the kind the Supreme Court decisions are written on. But paper has its limitations ? once past the world of paper Greece is being ripped apart as a sacrifice to the European fantasy. It seems like Greece must die so the narrative may continue live as explained by Ivo Daalder, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, in an NPR interview. Obama was working to keep Greece in the EU because it is part of the Plan.
ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: Washington wants Europe to work out a deal that keeps Greece in the eurozone that is using the common currency. President Obama has called German Chancellor Merkel. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has spoken with Greek Prime Minister Tsipras. Why are the highest-ranking figures in Washington working the phones so ardently? What?s in it for the U.S.? ? Why is it so important for the U.S. to avoid a so-called Grexit ? a Greek exit from the eurozone?
DAALDER: Well, Greece ? been a member of NATO since 1952 ? and if the Greeks were to leave the European Union, or even the eurozone, there is a fear in Washington ? particularly at a time when we see a growing confrontation with Russia, that Washington is saying this is probably not the time to shake up the system ? Potentially you can see the Orthodox getting together and saying these are the kind of traditional values that ? you hear that already from Russians and from President Putin ? that need to be strengthened against the immoral values that are coming from the West ? it?s that kind of thinking that I think we need to prevent from happening by not pushing Greece in the direction that it?s moving.
The Plan must be saved. The EU project and ?progressive values? are a project that is too big to fail. Therefore it will be saved. Yevgeniy Feyman described how deceptive paper victories can be. He writes, ?King v. Burwell is in the history books. Subsidies on federal exchanges will continue to flow and supporters of the ACA will (correctly) see this as a big win for the president. But to pretend that this means smooth sailing for Obamacare from here on out would be disingenuous at best.?
Federal backstops for insurers (risk corridors and reinsurance) will disappear after 2016, likely resulting in significantly higher premiums on the exchanges. Additional changes to how subsidies for premiums are calculated in beginning in 2019 also threaten to push more premium costs onto consumers. The exchanges have also largely failed to attract younger enrollees, and middle-class enrollees have been frozen out by (unsubsidized) Obamacare-sticker shock.
The Supreme Court just upheld a program that will bankrupt the treasury and send the health insurance industry into a death spiral. ?Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.? That?s what Greece is learning now, after the ?victory? of entering Europe.
Saving these sacred cows will come at the cost at a high cost. George Selgin at Cato writes ?if you think that the Fed isn?t involved in the Greek mess, you may want to think again. Paul-Martin Foss, our good friend at the Carl Menger Center, wrote a very nice post a few days ago concerning how the Fed may be getting itself tangled-up in an impending Greek default, through its swap lines with the ECB.?
According to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, those swap lines were first established in December 2007 ?to improve liquidity conditions in U.S. and foreign financial markets by providing foreign central banks with the capacity to deliver U.S. dollar funding to institutions in their jurisdictions during times of market stress.? ? but then, in October 2013 ? what do you know! ? they were made permanent. ? What has all this got to do with Greece? Here is Paul-Martin: ?If you want to get a sense of the Fed?s involvement in Europe, watch the swap lines. ? even if the Fed doesn?t say anything about Greece, its money-printing to pump up the swap lines will do plenty of talking.?
Greece illustrates how incredibly fragile the liberal world order has become. That one small, almost insignificant European country has the potential to wreak major damage on the entire world economic system is terribly frightening and gives lie to all the bombastic claims about claims to being the wave of the future.
Conservatives shouldn?t feel too bad about the Supreme Court?s decisions. It?s the liberals who are living a house of cards. If liberals were rational they would making alliances with conservative Christians, Third World Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and that favorite sector, the moderate Muslims to fight godless Communism and radical Islam. To paraphrase Casablanca, ?I wouldn?t bring up transgendersism and gay marriage in Tunisia, where hotel workers tried to defend their guests with ashtrays and bottles against the ISIS gunman, if I were you. It?s poor salesmanship.?
But they don?t care, they?ll do it even though it costs them. Do it because there was always someone to pay for things; someone to fix what they broke. Therfore they will destroy Greece in order to save it as they will ruin Puerto Rico in order to prop up Democratic economic policies. Max Ehrenfreund at the Washington Post explains:
Alejandro Garc?a Padilla, the governor of Puerto Rico, is expected to say publicly Monday afternoon that the government of the island territory cannot pay its debts. The consequences could be serious both for the island and the rest of the United States. ?
Puerto Rico has been doing worse than the rest of the country for the past 15 years. The economy began to contract in 2007, a couple of years before the economy collapsed on the mainland.
It?s no surprise that people have been leaving Puerto Rico if they can. The population is declining at an alarming rate of 1 percent per year. ?
The report cites one surprising problem: the federal minimum wage, which is at the same level in Puerto Rico as in the rest of the country, even though the economy there is so much weaker. There are probably some people who would like to work, but because of the sickly economy, businesses can?t afford to pay them the minimum wage.
Someone working full time for the minimum wage earns $15,080 a year, which isn?t that much less than the median income in Puerto Rico of $19,624.
The report also cites regulations and restrictions that make it difficult to set up new businesses and hire workers, although it?s difficult to know just how large an effect these rules might or might not have on the labor market.
A report by the New York Fed also suggests that Puerto Rico has a relatively large underground economy employing a big part of the population. These workers aren?t taxed or counted in formal employment numbers.
In any case, it?s relatively expensive to hire and pay workers in Puerto Rico, which along with the high cost of transportation, energy and other goods, means that fewer tourists are planning trips to Puerto Rico than they were a decade ago and the number of hotel beds is the same as it was four decades ago, according to Krueger and her colleagues.
PR has a Caribbean level of productivity and a Washington DC level of bureaucracy, a grotesque combination rivaled only, with the possible exception of Chicago, by something like Greece with its pastoral body upon which the Brussels regulatory machinery has been grafted. Both are struggling in their mutant state but in any such clash of interests it?s the island which must die so that the greater bureaucracy can survive.
Their sacrifice will not be enough to save the post-war world, however. If conservatives are disturbed by the changes shaking their universe, their vision is at least unobstructed by the Narrative, which is blocking the sight of a freight train bearing down the Western liberal elite. When it hits, boy will lots of people be surprised.
The more perceptive individuals are already beginning to feel the rails vibrate beneath their feat and are inquiring into the cause. Paul Krugman wrote a few days ago that ?it has been obvious for some time that the creation of the euro was a terrible mistake. Europe never had the preconditions for a successful single currency ? above all, the kind of fiscal and banking union that, for example, ensures that when a housing bubble in Florida bursts, Washington automatically protects seniors against any threat to their medical care or their bank deposits.?
Maybe Krugman can tell Obama about the ?obvious? Euro mistake. Perhaps he thinks the freight train crushing Greece will pass the other set of rails. Wait till he realizes there?s only one set of tracks in the globalized world they?ve made.
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/06/30/whos-in-charge-of-the-oncoming-train/
57
3DHS / Re: Greece in chaos: will Syriza's last desperate gamble pay off?
« on: July 03, 2015, 10:51:09 AM »
Moved.
58
3DHS / Greece in chaos: will Syriza?s last desperate gamble pay off?
« on: July 03, 2015, 10:45:31 AM »60
3DHS / Re: Joseph Goebbels opinion of the US
« on: July 03, 2015, 10:40:50 AM »
Not sure I see much to argue with.