Venezuela Sets Its Sights on Guyana?, Only Newsom Can Go To China, Two Challenges to American Nationalism, Going Cashless is a "Bad Idea", RIP Shane MacGowan
Click the like button at the top of the page to like this entry. Use the share and/or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
This one is a very long one.....apologies in advance!
I have my doubts that the Administrative State/Managerial Regime of the US would accept a proper defection. If Newsome really wants to pivot Democrats against Republicans by using China's active power, I think he would be acting as a lone agent. The regime is pretty clearly opposed to any real increase in the power of China, and since the Democrats are the regime party, I have a hard time seeing them change their attitude.
In short, I think the Democrats and the Managerial Regime love power more than they hate Republicans.
Dec 2, 2023·edited Dec 2, 2023Liked by Niccolo Soldo
I didn't see any contradiction. He, Balaji, says the Democrats want power and are losing the thread, and that they are international in outlook compared to Republicans. So, they will follow FDR and Ted Kennedy for a bizarre alliance with another state-loving partner.
Fair point. I suppose my implicit assumption is that the Managerial Regime views China, and her very real power, as an inherent threat to itself, and that this recognition of threat would make them unwilling to court the Chinese in domestic matters. I also supposed that the Dems would be aware of the danger of allowing direct foreign meddling in internal affairs (ala Maccabees and the Romans). Despite the view of Dems as short sighted and dumb, I think that they are smart, but in smart in terms of maintaining their power. I struggle to believe that they would allow direct Chinese meddling against their internal enemies; it appears like a short-term gain (which is both uncertain and of dubious efficacy) for the possibility of a massive long-term loss. But that's just my two cents, and stranger things have definitely happened.
I think liberals will be able to program entertainment software (sports, "news", mass culture, quotas, legal discrimination against white men, etc.) within their empire, as Balaji illustrated in a chart, and let the Chinese filter out the stuff they don't like – because they, the Chinese, are not white.
Modern liberalism’s real enemy is unapologetic white men. Putin was linked with Trump right away. Nobody has a clue why we are so obsessed with Russia other than this. I believe they will continue to use Russian interference as a go-to cause for "misinformation." That and white supremacists, whom Biden identified as the biggest single threat to the US and by extension the empire. They need to maintain the state religion of fake-victimhood (Kneeling Nancy), with white men as the soul oppressor group. This is modern liberalism’s life blood.
Their big problem is how to turn white men into helots and second class citizens without destroying the infrastructure, armed forces or their cities. I don’t see why the Chinese would have any problem with that. They would even try to help, I would think.
The Chinese supposedly just kicked out 500K Africans from Guangzhou so they’re letting liberals understand where the red line is.
Great rundown as usual. The question of whether getting rid of cash or not is a "conspiracy" is dumb and pointless. Conspiracy or not, and as you point out, it's a project the financial class would love to complete. It's a terrible idea for a lot of reasons of course but the one argument I'd pick to throw in their faces is that capitalism is supposed to be about freedom of choice. Narrowing options is not the way you increase that freedom.
It's also terrible because we have become over-reliant on digital everything and that's bad for resiliency. Cash as a backup system is not to be underestimated. It's also terrible because it reduces privacy and increases the power of an already too-powerful financial oligarchy. I'd also argue that it's a fantasy of control in a lot of ways because the idea that "every transaction will be tracked" in a cashless world belies the fact that there are so many ways (that will grow exponentially w/o cash) to obfuscate money flows already. It's an idiot idea by people who don't really understand the limits of technology. These same people want us to use biometric data to identify ourselves, as if creating infrastructure with a "password" you can never change is a good idea.
There are no good reasons to get rid of cash from the perspective of the citizen and we should all fight tooth and nail for our US greenbacks (Europe may be hopeless).
If the government wants to ration your purchase of goods, they can do so. The United States did it during the war effort, and they didn't need high tech methods.
During a state of war governments do things they're not permitted to otherwise do. What we have now is a permanent state of exception from 9/11 through covid that the govt has implemented to get us used to losing our rights. I have not gotten used to it.
It's not directly about protection from the govt. It's about all the things I wrote in my original comment primarily privacy and having the ability to purchase some goods without the govt/corporate state knowing about it. It's about being able to keep some money out of their reach if they decide to "unbank" you as they've started doing. It's about having a backup system in case the digital systems fail - and they can fail. It's a fundamental freedom to chose how we transact.
Having the ability to purchase some goods without feeling embarrassed is nice. Other than that, your points are related to protection from external forces. I'm suggesting cash is a poor substitute for having skills, owning property, and being self-sufficient.
"There are no good reasons to get rid of cash from the perspective of the citizen."
I disagree. The effects it would have on crime is one good reason for going cashless. I'm not saying it would eliminate financial crimes or crimes with a financial element, but it would go a long way towards it.
I think a lot of libertarian style fears of the powers of new technologies, surveillance, central bank digital currency, and so on are second order effects from the primary cause of bad governance. There is no legitimate reason to hide your legitimate actions from a legitimate government. Just as there is no good reason to lie to your doctor.
I think Curtis Yarvin did a bit on this, it runs something like, you may have to show your naked arsehole to your doctor, they may even have to take photos of it and show it to other doctors.
Decent people fear masked and hooded people for good reasons, "hood" is of course a synonym for criminal.
I doubt it would be a meaningful, long term deterrent to any crime. I've never been mugged or had a physical asset stolen from me, but I have had my CC hacked numerous times. Whether it's physical or in the ether, some nefarious person will find a way to beat all the safeguards.
As to the fears, while the doctor example may be true - you do share very intimate things with them in a fully truthful way, but they are fairly decentralized. Currency and banking is already tightly centralized and to continue to tighten the reigns with purely digital currency and hand more power over your life to bankers is a scary thought.
I can get a new doctor more easily than I can print my own currency.
A small but decently organized criminal class is a sign of a healthily sized govt. If we, as a whole society, cannot curb crime except through the direct intervention of a state, then we have simply kicked the coercive power up the chain. Then if those at the top realize that they have power to be criminals? Well, there's nothing to stop them.
I specifically said that I didn't expect it to stop all crime involving money. I have heard convincing arguments that anything that stopped ALL crime would come at such a price as to leave society worse off.
But isn't ANY power used to stop crime, from a citizen's posse to a neighborhood watch a use of government power? If it's governing and regulating, it is government regulation, just done at a local micro level, which will ensure it's effectiveness.
If you want a decently organized and suitably sized criminal class then you want government and regulation, you just want to cast a discreet veil over it, again for effectiveness. You want to enjoy some illicit pleasures, but you want to do it on the darker side of the street. Dark enough so your wife and the kids don't see, but not so dark that they cut your throat and dump you in the river.
That's what they do in China, they don't have brothels and gambling houses, they have a certain section of town with beauty salons and tea houses only open from dusk till dawn. Effective government regulation.
No, the nature of the thing is the function of the thing not the name of the thing. If there are some dudes with badges and certificates who call themselves "Phe Police" but do nothing but sit on their arse and write reports, while there are some other guys who patrol the streets, track down and stop criminals and get back your stolen property, then who is really "The Police"?
I admit to being wrong on that. For one thing, without a government presence somewhere in the chain of events, there are no criminal statutes for a posse or neighborhood watch group to presume to enforce.
"There is no legitimate reason to hide your legitimate actions from a legitimate government. Just as there is no good reason to lie to your doctor."
Comparing govt to your doctor is a massive category error. I can leave my doctor. I don't have to listen to my doctor. My doctor, barring the rare exception of extreme psychiatric distress and a decision from a psychiatrist, cannot incarcerate me for not following his edicts. He cannot seize my bank account. He can't draft me to fight in a war. I can go on all day. So no, wrong.
And if crime is your concern, it is far more common in the digital world. Far more money gets stolen online than from peoples' wallets. I'm not masked and hooded when I use cash to buy something so that's another conceptual error on your part. You clearly feel comfortable in this world with govt mandated experimental medicines. I do not. I don't feel this govt is legitimate nor if I did would I consent to it seeing everything about me. We have a Bill of Rights for a reason and it's not so the govt can know every detail of my life. Quite the opposite. And yet we live in a society where most government actions are completely unaccountable and many are hidden from the people while they demand more and more access to every facet of our personal lives. The system is completely inverted and I don't see it reverting anytime soon. And again, even if it did, for me, that doesn't mean it would for you. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights imposes limits on government and inalienable rights on citizens. Those limits are in tatters and our inalienable rights have been abrogated in a thousand ways. You should be fighting for the Constitution rather than unlimited govt intrusion into our private lives.
And Curtis Yarvin? Really? Assholes? What? Do your own thinking next time.
An excellent comment with views I share, but convenience and nothing more would be enough to see cash off. Technology opens doors and then those doors open more, perhaps falling dominoes are a better analogy. If routine day-to-day life is made easier (though it is already easy beyond the wildest dreams oldies like me had when we were young) it will be welcomed, in particular if the costs of doing so, like those you point out, are ignored or not apparent to the ignorant until they become quite real, but even then only to a few. Real needs were met long ago, now it is all degrees of convenience. It's what drives Americans on. Unwanted stuff may likely come but if things are easier to do, the price will be eagerly paid. Most people are on auto-pilot now.
Firstly, your points about doctors, society gives them greater powers because they have greater responsibilities. If they abuse those powers, and if the system works, then they will be punished and corrected. If you are unhappy with the powers your doctor has, the power to create, store and dispense powerful and dangerous narcotics, the power to know and store intimate personal information, the power to slice people open with knives and so you decide to leave such a doctor, then you are just left with some very weak and ineffective quacks and you suffer because of it.
It doesn't have to be doctors of course, firefighters for example have the power to smash down your door and ruin all your stuff, because they need that power for the greater good.
Deny any and all groups those powers because they might do bad with them is to totally shut down any possibility of the good they could do with them also. A good and strong government is a better answer to the problem of a bad and strong government than is a bad and weak government.
And that comes to the second point, digital currency and crime. All the examples you have pointed to are failures of effective legitimate government. Criminals who have evaded and obscured themselves from society and can thereby prey upon it. Humans and human society thrive in the bright light not the dark shadows. You may do only legitimate business in cash, but if you were to do illegitimate business (and there are plenty to choose from) would you do it in easily traceable digital or in untraceable cash? It reminds me of a bit in one of William Gibson's old Cyberpunk novels set in his near future (that's our now), when one of the punks wants to buy a weapon, he tells us that it's not exactly that cash is illegal now, it's just that nobody ever does anything legal with it.
So, I like Gibson, and I like Yarvin. I use what I like but I also believe in giving credit where it's due.
Incidentally, you might enjoy some of the old British political sitcom "Yes Minister". It's full of more ideas that aren't mine and I don't mind using. Some of the early episodes are set in the late 70s when the civil service was just getting computers. Many people had serious concerns, and legitimate ones too, about how the bureaucracy was going get so much new power. The government could see everything with the push of a button. But people learnt and adapted. Would we have all been better off sticking with paper filing cabinets?
I absolutely mean the pain language meaning of what I wrote.
Perhaps you, like Peebo, above won't recognize those government powers because you feel as if you are laboring under an illegitimate regime, maybe you are. As part of any government's responsibility is to maintain the confidence of their people, they have failed at least in that regard.
Nobody objects to people fleeing or evading a tyrant, but I can't accept that there is some sort of natural right to fight against ANY regime. There has to be a two-way street of both rights and obligations between the individual and the collective.
Perhaps an analogy will make my point clearer,
The captain of a ship, with the responsibility of command, has the absolute right to examine every last inch of that ship, open any box or door, to know where any passenger or crewman is and what they are doing at any time. These powers are needed for the safety of the ship and success of the mission. Change the captain if needed, but you're not going to make a bad captain into a good one by making him a weaker captain.
"I absolutely mean the pain language meaning of what I wrote."
That's some typo. But let's move on. I think I get your intended meaning.
Your use of the word "legitimacy" is not plain English. It's a monumental question-beg that assumes the assent of the reader to its propositions. A turf claim, masquerading as a fact claim.
We're citizens of a republic, not impressed and indentured into the Royal Navy of your solipsistic fantasy.
"Nobody objects to people fleeing or evading a tyrant"
How the hell do you presume to know that? All tyrants have informers and enforcers to carry out their dictates. Come on, this is basic.
As it happens, you're undercutting your own assertion before it even gets out of the gate. You're in favor of shutting down the anonymity of cash, which is crucial to personal agency and autonomous decision making. The lynchpin of individual rights.
"There has to be a two-way street of both rights and obligations between the individual and the collective"
There's no "two-way street" to be had in a society without privacy. Too much of a power asymmetry. The relationship inherently consists of a mirror on one side and a window on the other; that's why we have a Bill Of Rights, to protect individuals from an overreaching government. The omniscient State empowered by a cashless society has the ability to audit every last detail of an individual's economic activity- and, potentially, to control it. Completely. The technology to do this didn't exist in the 20th century. But it does now.
But individuals per se have neither the legal recourse or the practical ability to audit any of the activities of the State, much less to assess its "legitimacy" and disallow any of the decisions of any of its branches.
The difference between a totalitarian state and one that's merely authoritarian is that totalitarianism leaves no arena of human activity outside of the realm of supervision by the State. The corollary to that proposition is that the State leaves no realm of human activity beyond the realm of active intervention and interference- because otherwise, why maintain an interest in supervising it? In such a system, the State holds the default position of omniscient, omnipotent arbiter.
No matter how many examples one might provide as unlikely to become targets of active surveillance, interference, and penalty, the fact remains that a totalitarian State holds that power in reserve. Individuals are no longer acting autonomously; the State has merely extended its Mercy and Leniency toward some realms of behavior. A mercy and leniency that can be withdrawn at any time, at the behest of those holding officially ordained State Power, based on their fiat judgements of Legitimacy.
The "collective" known as Society issues judgements of "legitimacy" much more informally and dynamically, based on criteria such as mores and values. When individual interest comes into conflict with wider group concerns, other avenues are available for resolution than making a Federal case out of it. In the US, the foundational principle is "live and let live." Don't get into your neighbor's private personal business.
I like it that way. I'm all too aware of the exceptions, like criminalizing individuals for their use of "illegitimate" substances. But I view that situation as a bug in the American system, not a feature. Whereas the Drug War prohibitionists typically sound like they view the provisions of the Drug War as a feature of the new and improved American Way- and hence, a "legitimate" part of a paradigm that deserves to be extended to all human activity: that determinations of "legitimacy" in all realms of behavior are to be held in the hands of the State, as the first resort. Preemptively. So, for example, if the State decides that you're spending too much money on restaurant meals and not enough on servicing your credit card debt, the State can just lock you out.
The ultimate rationale for conferring such an extraordinary increase in government power is always the same: "Trust Us."
There is certainly a possibility that working out what is a "legitimate" government can run into self-referential solipsism, where the government declares itself legitimate because it has the legitimate authority to do so.
But government is defined by action not description, a verb not a noun. A function not a title
If you govern then you are the governor. It's like the old Jacobites whole claimed the old Stuarts were the legitimate kings of England. But they weren't.
As the old time Chinese had it "After the war the outlaw is the emperor and the emperor is the outlaw".
If your job is baking cakes and bread, you are a baker, if your job is creating and dispensing medicines, setting broken bones and stitching wounds then you are a doctor. If you can't do any of those things then you are neither, regardless of certificates, tiles or robes.
A man who is consistently sinking his ship is no captain at all regardless of what the badge on his hat says.
Things must be made to work.
For things to work certain powers are needed. One of those is the absolute power to examine records and transactions. That power existed a long time before the 20th century, it was just slower and more difficult. Those difficulties didn't make the state any better and smoother and faster techniques will not make it any worse.
The state must have these powers, including the power to control how much you eat and spend, common names for these powers are rationing and welfare and are often used in times of war, poverty and emergency.
We haven't seen the back of any of those.
The state must also have the power to require people to give an accurate account of themselves and their business. Privacy is also needed to get essential human business done, so to get that essential business done, privacy must be provided as a functional necessity.
But rats are not entitled to be in my house and gangsters are not entitled to be in my community. So, I will hunt out and block up anything that looks like a mouse hole and put a cat on the case. The state must hunt out anything that looks like criminal transactions and put detectives on the case.
Anything less will just cause unnecessary human suffering.
How was crime during COVID? Most businesses in NYC would not take cash because of the germs and change for infection. People stole goods instead. Where there is a will, there is a way. Thiefs will find something else to steal and we'll all be worse off for the elimination of cash.
Another reason to never get rid of cash is what happens when power fails and credit card machines don't work?
China should release another COVID variant that only kills fatties, that would be more than effective in subduing America instead of dealing with Newsom.
The notion of white identity is strange to even contemplate, not in the least because I’ve been taught all my life that such a thing would be unimaginably racist. I can scarcely imagine anything stranger to me than attaching significance to the color of my skin LOL!
Well, if you happen to observe certain "e-racist" corners, they will be happy to tell you that it's not just skin color, but skull shape, nose shape, "average beauty", IQ, "innate criminality", etc.
From what I've seen, racial identitarians of all stripes tend to be very eager to adopt what essentially amounts to "updated" versions of 19th century race science when it suits them.
Clearly race is more than skin color. My most recent common ancestor to a sub-saharan was at least 80,000 years ago and possibly much longer. To what extent evolution altered more than physically-identifiable traits, among them skin color and skeleton proportion etc., is still an open question but I have to say I think the evidence, despite every institutional roadblock erected against it for nearly a century, is clearly trending one way and it's not towards the blank slate.
Genetics determine biology, and heredity determines genetics, leading to vast and easily-observed discrepancies between human groups isolated from each other for tens of thousands of years in wildly disparate environments... that is, except for information processing ability, impulsivity, violence, impulse control, time preference, abstract thought, empathy, and reason, of course! All of these traits are magically imparted by the Inner Light and have absolutely no connection such the voodoo as "biology" or "genetics." Brain and brain, what is brain? Darwin was probably a NAHT-ZEE anyways, right guise? I read it on r/ifuckinglovescience.
That is the product of 60+ years of concerted propaganda. @thltd on xitter has a chart I keep saved showing how Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Hispanics rate their own racial group and others. Every group except for Whites shows the same pattern, a high rating for their own group, a low rating for Whites, and a more moderate rating for everyone else. Whites on the other hand give every group the same moderate rating, including themselves.
In a real way the propaganda of 1960s Star Trek has come true. It is possible for people to see past racial differences and treat people equally. The problem is other than Whites no other racial group seems willing to do this.
Dec 2, 2023·edited Dec 2, 2023Liked by Niccolo Soldo
If war breaks out between Venezuela and Guyana and the USA gets sucked in, I heard it here first. This is not on the radar for most people, is my guess.
The Chinese would love to break the bipartisan consensus against them. They spend a lot of money here, and they are persistent. It is surprising they are doing so poorly. They need an image makeover.
White racial nationalism may someday be something, but I am not seeing it as anything serious at the moment. Maybe it will grow out of released members of prison gangs? That seems to be the one place that white racial consciousness is real, and in fact is a necessity for survival. Hard to tell if it is anything other than an Internet phenomenon, memes not reality. And any apparently real white nationalist activities are most likely regime fakes, anyway. Who was it who said that in the 1940s half of the people at Communist Party meetings in the USA were FBI agents?
1. I'd say that I don't think the Venezuelans would be stupid enough to try anything, given the horrific state of their country, but crazier things have been tried for far lesser reasons, and a sufficiently desperate Maduro might be willing to roll the dice on this.
2. Gavin Newsom's wheelings and dealings with China definitely suggest, at minimum, that he's trying to form a sort of "shadow alliance" between them and his faction of the Democrat Party of the United States. It's almost certainly going to provide endless campaign fodder for his opponents, who will (not unreasonably) accuse of of being a Chinese plant, spy, and/or shill.
3. The inchoately growing consciousness and political "(re)activation" of "White American" identity is a natural counterforce/reaction to the ideologically "anti-white" dogmas of much of the "woke"/"Cultural Marxist"/DEI politics that permeate media, academia, NGOs, left-wing activist groups, and left-wing politics more broadly (in short, the activism industrial complex). They've left such a mark that even if these things were to all completely fall apart tomorrow, it would likely still take some time before the currently hyper-racialized ("hyphenated") state of politics of the US goes away in full.
That piece by Balaji is one of the most cynical things I’ve ever read. Considering the subject matter is the Democratic Party, and the article essentially accuses them of treason, it’s also probably realistic.
Dec 2, 2023·edited Dec 2, 2023Liked by Niccolo Soldo
Very interesting cornucopia with great links and analysis - thanks.
Two comments:
China is mad at the Biden admin because Joe didn’t stay bought (the CHIPs act was a step too far). Joe tried to make it up to Xi with the IRA, which heavily subsidizes Chinese battery and renewables components with US taxpayer cash, but apparently it wasn’t enough. They expect Gavin to be more loyal.
The Monroe doctrine hasn’t been enforced by the US since the Obama years, when Obama and the leftists at State decided to entreat Cuba as well as Chavez as well as leftists from the Andes to Honduras, most of whom were cooperating closely with Russia and China (including arms purchases, military training and stopovers by ships and military aircraft) as well as Iran.
Trump tried to shake things up during the interregnum between Obama I and Obama 2 (er- I mean Biden) but the bureaucracy wasn’t having any of it.
"America is not a “nation” in the European sense."
I beg to disagree. Every economically successful country sees lots of immigration and becomes a kind of melting pot. France is a good example. Turkey too. When you look at the abundance of Slavic names there the Germans have been quite good at it too in the past. At the moment their culture is less open for assimilation but most likely this will only delay the process.
Sometimes ethnic groups get politicized. That happened to Turks in Germany. It happened to different ethnic groups in the past in the US: Germans, Japanese, Hispanics and now Chinese have all been politicized at some moment.
The case of Bulgaria is interesting. Bulgarians were originally a Turkish speaking tribe that got Slavicized when they established themselves at their present location.
I just googled them and turns out there's an NYT article about the Gagauz language dying. I never knew Bulgaria was such an interesting part of the world, an amalgamation of various peoples, cultures, languages and empires.
Unless there's a dramatic change in human nature I believe some form of 'white racial consciousness' in the United States is almost guaranteed, albeit likely not in the immediate future.
The Democratic Party will be majority-minority within this decade and increasingly moreso thereafter. Simultaneously they will become electorally dominant as demographics continue to shift in their favor - Texas will be blue within 10 years. That's a recipe for racial polarization and I can't really see how it might be broken. The Democratic party isn't going to stop offering racial redistribution, for instance. If anything, they're likely to increase it.
I couldn't speculate about whatever the effects of "white consciousness" might be though. Uncharted territory for a Western country.
>Simultaneously they will become electorally dominant as demographics continue to shift in their favor - Texas will be blue within 10 years.
WN's have been saying this for 20 years, and it's still not going to happen. Hispanics assimilate. Increasingly, blue-state Hispanics are becoming more liberal, and red-state Hispanics are becoming more conservative, especially the second- and third-generation ones. If anything, the increasing hispanicization of America will instead shift right-wing politics in a more thoroughly militaristic, traditionalist, authoritarian, and explicitly white supremacist direction. Violent and authoritarian white supremacism & ornately-designed racial hierarchies are the twin essence of "Latino culture" #TheAltRightIsLatinx.
>I couldn't speculate about whatever the effects of "white consciousness" might be though. Uncharted territory for a Western country.
It isn't, thoughtbeit. Up until the successful suppression of the Great Gentile Uprising during the Second Brother War, and even beyond, the mainstream of American politics and even culture was EXTREMELY racially conscious. No people, beset constantly by the Damoclean dual threat of Red Savages from without and Black Slaves from below, could not have developed such a consciousness. But of course, their racial identity was never thought of being important AT THE EXPENSE of their patriotism in their country, because they understood, like all peoples pre-1945, that their culture and country are the fruit of their particular biology. There are innumerable quotes about this; YouTube has removed a good video summarizing it, but the racial views of such esteemed Americans as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, etc. are all a matter of public record. Hitler copied the both his eugenics program as well as the Generalplan Ost plan to exterminate & colonize Slavic lands east of the Reich from America #RealRecognizesReal.
Let me know when Hispanics, or white college-educated women and the sexually confused for that matter, demand the end of racial and sexual quotas and the restitution of freedom of association. The fake-victim culture is too dependent to voluntarily change.
"Violent and authoritarian white supremacism & ornately-designed racial hierarchies are the twin essence of 'Latino culture.'"
It's not the 19th century and this isn't Mexico (though one could be forgiven for mistaking it as such given how many mestizos our ruling class employs as servants). Insofar as it's true that Latinos will better-assimilate, what's the system into which they're assimilating? There is nothing ornate about Civil Rights law or the regime that has grown up around it since 1964. "Fuck whitey"---that's it. In 1991 "-especially if he's a man" got added.
And if you think there's any countervailing force in the US to stop this, including Latino voters, I've got a dilapidated bridge to sell you. The current dearth of air traffic controllers is directly downstream of the Obama administration noticing in 2013 that the FAA is too damn white (https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/think-twice-before-you-fly/).
In other words, the DEI revolutionaries will let commercial airliners crash into each other before they reconsider their grand project or turn away a single client from their vast patronage network. And no 'conservative movement'---whether Latino or generally fairer-skinned---can stop them.
Second article made my head hurt. The infantile writing style, sophomoric "insights," and inscrutable chain of logic ("X extraordinary and unsupported statement is true because... it just IS, okay?") all coalesce into the singular Truth that "Ba-la-gee" thinks and writes with all the intelligence (or lack thereof) of your typical SubCon.
The reality is that Newsom, like all Late Republican politicians (other than Donald Trump ﷺ), is a Very Stupid and Very Vain Man. Meeting with a foreign leader is just him LARPing as President, which is his entire persona btw (have you heard him speak? It's just an Obama impression).
Ba-la-gee reads lurid conspiratorial tales of Mohammedan Nazi DemoKKKrats (note the usage here of terms like "(((white-adjacents)))" and "BLM/Hamas" - as a (((Tamil))), he instinctively lays cover for his fellow (((Cosmopolitan Mercurian Sons of Shem))) (cf. the Elam-Elaam connection)) allying with Racist Eugenicist Nazi ChiComs against an imagined Wholesome Chungus Multiracial Working Class GOP because he is infantile, delusional, stupid, and above all else, Indian (but, I repeat myself).
He must go back to doing manual labor for the British Empire, and learn to Take the Poo to the Loo while he's at it. I hope to hear nothing more from this Brahmin-privileged turmeric monster or his ilk so long as I may live.
Imagine the Incompetence of the Hated Elites having a Martyrdom Show Trial of their worst enemy, a TV Superstar, during an election year. But you don’t have to imagine it! They did it!
After decades of godlessness and chaos America will have its Savior return; ORANGE JESUS.
He won’t be Trump anymore after he’s Crucified on TV (TV is not the place to match wits with our Lord and Savior) ... no he’ll be
ORANGE JESUS TRUMP suffering for our sins.
As we speak, NBC, WAPO and other major media have joined forces with Trump’s lawyers to have the Trial Televised.
DOJ doesn’t want this, but WAPO et al will not allow the Trial of the Millennium to not be televised.
America's business is business. The cash value of a spectacle like that takes priority over the reputation of the system of justice which won't survive the process. The only people more theatrical and ego-focused than Trump are his judges. I expect to see Clown World at its finest.
This 🇺🇸remains a deeply religious country whose religious energy was foolishly directed into politics. For 60 years we have wandered in the desert but no more. For to Crown Orange Jesus Caesar, first we 🇺🇸 must crucify him. And Caesar it will be...
.... we were overdue for Caesaropapism and here it is...
.... in Orange form.
We 🇺🇸 will in 2024 Crown (Orange) Jesus as Caesar.
I didn’t think it possible he’d get re-elected , but by next summer they’ll be trembling too much to dare cheat again.
Fully agree that the passion of Trump is a religious event...the Democrats unwisely invested the 45th president with cosmic significance and then decided to subject him to a 3rd World standard of politicised justice. Strongly believed in November 2020 that Biden should have had Trump around for dinner, named an aircraft carrier or airport after him and given an ambassadorial job to one or other of Trump's kids. It would have outraged Biden's base but it would have weakened MAGA.
Click the like button at the top of the page to like this entry. Use the share and/or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so.
This one is a very long one.....apologies in advance!
First.
I have my doubts that the Administrative State/Managerial Regime of the US would accept a proper defection. If Newsome really wants to pivot Democrats against Republicans by using China's active power, I think he would be acting as a lone agent. The regime is pretty clearly opposed to any real increase in the power of China, and since the Democrats are the regime party, I have a hard time seeing them change their attitude.
In short, I think the Democrats and the Managerial Regime love power more than they hate Republicans.
I didn't see any contradiction. He, Balaji, says the Democrats want power and are losing the thread, and that they are international in outlook compared to Republicans. So, they will follow FDR and Ted Kennedy for a bizarre alliance with another state-loving partner.
Fair point. I suppose my implicit assumption is that the Managerial Regime views China, and her very real power, as an inherent threat to itself, and that this recognition of threat would make them unwilling to court the Chinese in domestic matters. I also supposed that the Dems would be aware of the danger of allowing direct foreign meddling in internal affairs (ala Maccabees and the Romans). Despite the view of Dems as short sighted and dumb, I think that they are smart, but in smart in terms of maintaining their power. I struggle to believe that they would allow direct Chinese meddling against their internal enemies; it appears like a short-term gain (which is both uncertain and of dubious efficacy) for the possibility of a massive long-term loss. But that's just my two cents, and stranger things have definitely happened.
I think liberals will be able to program entertainment software (sports, "news", mass culture, quotas, legal discrimination against white men, etc.) within their empire, as Balaji illustrated in a chart, and let the Chinese filter out the stuff they don't like – because they, the Chinese, are not white.
Modern liberalism’s real enemy is unapologetic white men. Putin was linked with Trump right away. Nobody has a clue why we are so obsessed with Russia other than this. I believe they will continue to use Russian interference as a go-to cause for "misinformation." That and white supremacists, whom Biden identified as the biggest single threat to the US and by extension the empire. They need to maintain the state religion of fake-victimhood (Kneeling Nancy), with white men as the soul oppressor group. This is modern liberalism’s life blood.
Their big problem is how to turn white men into helots and second class citizens without destroying the infrastructure, armed forces or their cities. I don’t see why the Chinese would have any problem with that. They would even try to help, I would think.
The Chinese supposedly just kicked out 500K Africans from Guangzhou so they’re letting liberals understand where the red line is.
Great rundown as usual. The question of whether getting rid of cash or not is a "conspiracy" is dumb and pointless. Conspiracy or not, and as you point out, it's a project the financial class would love to complete. It's a terrible idea for a lot of reasons of course but the one argument I'd pick to throw in their faces is that capitalism is supposed to be about freedom of choice. Narrowing options is not the way you increase that freedom.
It's also terrible because we have become over-reliant on digital everything and that's bad for resiliency. Cash as a backup system is not to be underestimated. It's also terrible because it reduces privacy and increases the power of an already too-powerful financial oligarchy. I'd also argue that it's a fantasy of control in a lot of ways because the idea that "every transaction will be tracked" in a cashless world belies the fact that there are so many ways (that will grow exponentially w/o cash) to obfuscate money flows already. It's an idiot idea by people who don't really understand the limits of technology. These same people want us to use biometric data to identify ourselves, as if creating infrastructure with a "password" you can never change is a good idea.
There are no good reasons to get rid of cash from the perspective of the citizen and we should all fight tooth and nail for our US greenbacks (Europe may be hopeless).
If the government wants to ration your purchase of goods, they can do so. The United States did it during the war effort, and they didn't need high tech methods.
During a state of war governments do things they're not permitted to otherwise do. What we have now is a permanent state of exception from 9/11 through covid that the govt has implemented to get us used to losing our rights. I have not gotten used to it.
I have gotten used to the idea that cash won't protect you from the government. Weird how people talk about cash as if it were a magical shield.
It's not directly about protection from the govt. It's about all the things I wrote in my original comment primarily privacy and having the ability to purchase some goods without the govt/corporate state knowing about it. It's about being able to keep some money out of their reach if they decide to "unbank" you as they've started doing. It's about having a backup system in case the digital systems fail - and they can fail. It's a fundamental freedom to chose how we transact.
Having the ability to purchase some goods without feeling embarrassed is nice. Other than that, your points are related to protection from external forces. I'm suggesting cash is a poor substitute for having skills, owning property, and being self-sufficient.
"There are no good reasons to get rid of cash from the perspective of the citizen."
I disagree. The effects it would have on crime is one good reason for going cashless. I'm not saying it would eliminate financial crimes or crimes with a financial element, but it would go a long way towards it.
I think a lot of libertarian style fears of the powers of new technologies, surveillance, central bank digital currency, and so on are second order effects from the primary cause of bad governance. There is no legitimate reason to hide your legitimate actions from a legitimate government. Just as there is no good reason to lie to your doctor.
I think Curtis Yarvin did a bit on this, it runs something like, you may have to show your naked arsehole to your doctor, they may even have to take photos of it and show it to other doctors.
Decent people fear masked and hooded people for good reasons, "hood" is of course a synonym for criminal.
I doubt it would be a meaningful, long term deterrent to any crime. I've never been mugged or had a physical asset stolen from me, but I have had my CC hacked numerous times. Whether it's physical or in the ether, some nefarious person will find a way to beat all the safeguards.
As to the fears, while the doctor example may be true - you do share very intimate things with them in a fully truthful way, but they are fairly decentralized. Currency and banking is already tightly centralized and to continue to tighten the reigns with purely digital currency and hand more power over your life to bankers is a scary thought.
I can get a new doctor more easily than I can print my own currency.
A small but decently organized criminal class is a sign of a healthily sized govt. If we, as a whole society, cannot curb crime except through the direct intervention of a state, then we have simply kicked the coercive power up the chain. Then if those at the top realize that they have power to be criminals? Well, there's nothing to stop them.
I specifically said that I didn't expect it to stop all crime involving money. I have heard convincing arguments that anything that stopped ALL crime would come at such a price as to leave society worse off.
But isn't ANY power used to stop crime, from a citizen's posse to a neighborhood watch a use of government power? If it's governing and regulating, it is government regulation, just done at a local micro level, which will ensure it's effectiveness.
If you want a decently organized and suitably sized criminal class then you want government and regulation, you just want to cast a discreet veil over it, again for effectiveness. You want to enjoy some illicit pleasures, but you want to do it on the darker side of the street. Dark enough so your wife and the kids don't see, but not so dark that they cut your throat and dump you in the river.
That's what they do in China, they don't have brothels and gambling houses, they have a certain section of town with beauty salons and tea houses only open from dusk till dawn. Effective government regulation.
"isn't ANY power used to stop crime, from a citizen's posse to a neighborhood watch a use of government power?"
Not unless/until the police are called.
No, the nature of the thing is the function of the thing not the name of the thing. If there are some dudes with badges and certificates who call themselves "Phe Police" but do nothing but sit on their arse and write reports, while there are some other guys who patrol the streets, track down and stop criminals and get back your stolen property, then who is really "The Police"?
Substance before style.
I admit to being wrong on that. For one thing, without a government presence somewhere in the chain of events, there are no criminal statutes for a posse or neighborhood watch group to presume to enforce.
Though your response is tongue-in-cheek, this is more or less what I would advocate.
"There is no legitimate reason to hide your legitimate actions from a legitimate government. Just as there is no good reason to lie to your doctor."
Comparing govt to your doctor is a massive category error. I can leave my doctor. I don't have to listen to my doctor. My doctor, barring the rare exception of extreme psychiatric distress and a decision from a psychiatrist, cannot incarcerate me for not following his edicts. He cannot seize my bank account. He can't draft me to fight in a war. I can go on all day. So no, wrong.
And if crime is your concern, it is far more common in the digital world. Far more money gets stolen online than from peoples' wallets. I'm not masked and hooded when I use cash to buy something so that's another conceptual error on your part. You clearly feel comfortable in this world with govt mandated experimental medicines. I do not. I don't feel this govt is legitimate nor if I did would I consent to it seeing everything about me. We have a Bill of Rights for a reason and it's not so the govt can know every detail of my life. Quite the opposite. And yet we live in a society where most government actions are completely unaccountable and many are hidden from the people while they demand more and more access to every facet of our personal lives. The system is completely inverted and I don't see it reverting anytime soon. And again, even if it did, for me, that doesn't mean it would for you. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights imposes limits on government and inalienable rights on citizens. Those limits are in tatters and our inalienable rights have been abrogated in a thousand ways. You should be fighting for the Constitution rather than unlimited govt intrusion into our private lives.
And Curtis Yarvin? Really? Assholes? What? Do your own thinking next time.
An excellent comment with views I share, but convenience and nothing more would be enough to see cash off. Technology opens doors and then those doors open more, perhaps falling dominoes are a better analogy. If routine day-to-day life is made easier (though it is already easy beyond the wildest dreams oldies like me had when we were young) it will be welcomed, in particular if the costs of doing so, like those you point out, are ignored or not apparent to the ignorant until they become quite real, but even then only to a few. Real needs were met long ago, now it is all degrees of convenience. It's what drives Americans on. Unwanted stuff may likely come but if things are easier to do, the price will be eagerly paid. Most people are on auto-pilot now.
Firstly, your points about doctors, society gives them greater powers because they have greater responsibilities. If they abuse those powers, and if the system works, then they will be punished and corrected. If you are unhappy with the powers your doctor has, the power to create, store and dispense powerful and dangerous narcotics, the power to know and store intimate personal information, the power to slice people open with knives and so you decide to leave such a doctor, then you are just left with some very weak and ineffective quacks and you suffer because of it.
It doesn't have to be doctors of course, firefighters for example have the power to smash down your door and ruin all your stuff, because they need that power for the greater good.
Deny any and all groups those powers because they might do bad with them is to totally shut down any possibility of the good they could do with them also. A good and strong government is a better answer to the problem of a bad and strong government than is a bad and weak government.
And that comes to the second point, digital currency and crime. All the examples you have pointed to are failures of effective legitimate government. Criminals who have evaded and obscured themselves from society and can thereby prey upon it. Humans and human society thrive in the bright light not the dark shadows. You may do only legitimate business in cash, but if you were to do illegitimate business (and there are plenty to choose from) would you do it in easily traceable digital or in untraceable cash? It reminds me of a bit in one of William Gibson's old Cyberpunk novels set in his near future (that's our now), when one of the punks wants to buy a weapon, he tells us that it's not exactly that cash is illegal now, it's just that nobody ever does anything legal with it.
So, I like Gibson, and I like Yarvin. I use what I like but I also believe in giving credit where it's due.
Incidentally, you might enjoy some of the old British political sitcom "Yes Minister". It's full of more ideas that aren't mine and I don't mind using. Some of the early episodes are set in the late 70s when the civil service was just getting computers. Many people had serious concerns, and legitimate ones too, about how the bureaucracy was going get so much new power. The government could see everything with the push of a button. But people learnt and adapted. Would we have all been better off sticking with paper filing cabinets?
A weaker government is not a better government.
"There is no legitimate reason to hide your legitimate actions from a legitimate government"
Wait- what?
I absolutely mean the pain language meaning of what I wrote.
Perhaps you, like Peebo, above won't recognize those government powers because you feel as if you are laboring under an illegitimate regime, maybe you are. As part of any government's responsibility is to maintain the confidence of their people, they have failed at least in that regard.
Nobody objects to people fleeing or evading a tyrant, but I can't accept that there is some sort of natural right to fight against ANY regime. There has to be a two-way street of both rights and obligations between the individual and the collective.
Perhaps an analogy will make my point clearer,
The captain of a ship, with the responsibility of command, has the absolute right to examine every last inch of that ship, open any box or door, to know where any passenger or crewman is and what they are doing at any time. These powers are needed for the safety of the ship and success of the mission. Change the captain if needed, but you're not going to make a bad captain into a good one by making him a weaker captain.
You're basically saying no one has the right to privacy.
"I absolutely mean the pain language meaning of what I wrote."
That's some typo. But let's move on. I think I get your intended meaning.
Your use of the word "legitimacy" is not plain English. It's a monumental question-beg that assumes the assent of the reader to its propositions. A turf claim, masquerading as a fact claim.
We're citizens of a republic, not impressed and indentured into the Royal Navy of your solipsistic fantasy.
"Nobody objects to people fleeing or evading a tyrant"
How the hell do you presume to know that? All tyrants have informers and enforcers to carry out their dictates. Come on, this is basic.
As it happens, you're undercutting your own assertion before it even gets out of the gate. You're in favor of shutting down the anonymity of cash, which is crucial to personal agency and autonomous decision making. The lynchpin of individual rights.
"There has to be a two-way street of both rights and obligations between the individual and the collective"
There's no "two-way street" to be had in a society without privacy. Too much of a power asymmetry. The relationship inherently consists of a mirror on one side and a window on the other; that's why we have a Bill Of Rights, to protect individuals from an overreaching government. The omniscient State empowered by a cashless society has the ability to audit every last detail of an individual's economic activity- and, potentially, to control it. Completely. The technology to do this didn't exist in the 20th century. But it does now.
But individuals per se have neither the legal recourse or the practical ability to audit any of the activities of the State, much less to assess its "legitimacy" and disallow any of the decisions of any of its branches.
The difference between a totalitarian state and one that's merely authoritarian is that totalitarianism leaves no arena of human activity outside of the realm of supervision by the State. The corollary to that proposition is that the State leaves no realm of human activity beyond the realm of active intervention and interference- because otherwise, why maintain an interest in supervising it? In such a system, the State holds the default position of omniscient, omnipotent arbiter.
No matter how many examples one might provide as unlikely to become targets of active surveillance, interference, and penalty, the fact remains that a totalitarian State holds that power in reserve. Individuals are no longer acting autonomously; the State has merely extended its Mercy and Leniency toward some realms of behavior. A mercy and leniency that can be withdrawn at any time, at the behest of those holding officially ordained State Power, based on their fiat judgements of Legitimacy.
The "collective" known as Society issues judgements of "legitimacy" much more informally and dynamically, based on criteria such as mores and values. When individual interest comes into conflict with wider group concerns, other avenues are available for resolution than making a Federal case out of it. In the US, the foundational principle is "live and let live." Don't get into your neighbor's private personal business.
I like it that way. I'm all too aware of the exceptions, like criminalizing individuals for their use of "illegitimate" substances. But I view that situation as a bug in the American system, not a feature. Whereas the Drug War prohibitionists typically sound like they view the provisions of the Drug War as a feature of the new and improved American Way- and hence, a "legitimate" part of a paradigm that deserves to be extended to all human activity: that determinations of "legitimacy" in all realms of behavior are to be held in the hands of the State, as the first resort. Preemptively. So, for example, if the State decides that you're spending too much money on restaurant meals and not enough on servicing your credit card debt, the State can just lock you out.
The ultimate rationale for conferring such an extraordinary increase in government power is always the same: "Trust Us."
There is certainly a possibility that working out what is a "legitimate" government can run into self-referential solipsism, where the government declares itself legitimate because it has the legitimate authority to do so.
But government is defined by action not description, a verb not a noun. A function not a title
If you govern then you are the governor. It's like the old Jacobites whole claimed the old Stuarts were the legitimate kings of England. But they weren't.
As the old time Chinese had it "After the war the outlaw is the emperor and the emperor is the outlaw".
If your job is baking cakes and bread, you are a baker, if your job is creating and dispensing medicines, setting broken bones and stitching wounds then you are a doctor. If you can't do any of those things then you are neither, regardless of certificates, tiles or robes.
A man who is consistently sinking his ship is no captain at all regardless of what the badge on his hat says.
Things must be made to work.
For things to work certain powers are needed. One of those is the absolute power to examine records and transactions. That power existed a long time before the 20th century, it was just slower and more difficult. Those difficulties didn't make the state any better and smoother and faster techniques will not make it any worse.
The state must have these powers, including the power to control how much you eat and spend, common names for these powers are rationing and welfare and are often used in times of war, poverty and emergency.
We haven't seen the back of any of those.
The state must also have the power to require people to give an accurate account of themselves and their business. Privacy is also needed to get essential human business done, so to get that essential business done, privacy must be provided as a functional necessity.
But rats are not entitled to be in my house and gangsters are not entitled to be in my community. So, I will hunt out and block up anything that looks like a mouse hole and put a cat on the case. The state must hunt out anything that looks like criminal transactions and put detectives on the case.
Anything less will just cause unnecessary human suffering.
How was crime during COVID? Most businesses in NYC would not take cash because of the germs and change for infection. People stole goods instead. Where there is a will, there is a way. Thiefs will find something else to steal and we'll all be worse off for the elimination of cash.
Another reason to never get rid of cash is what happens when power fails and credit card machines don't work?
China should release another COVID variant that only kills fatties, that would be more than effective in subduing America instead of dealing with Newsom.
Covid was a holocaust for fatties. One of the reasons the US had so many more deaths than other countries.
That's enough proof for me to conclude that it was a lab made bioweapon.
Weird. Using the Substack app on my iPhone the like button is at the bottom of the screen. Will click it anyway.
The notion of white identity is strange to even contemplate, not in the least because I’ve been taught all my life that such a thing would be unimaginably racist. I can scarcely imagine anything stranger to me than attaching significance to the color of my skin LOL!
Well, if you happen to observe certain "e-racist" corners, they will be happy to tell you that it's not just skin color, but skull shape, nose shape, "average beauty", IQ, "innate criminality", etc.
From what I've seen, racial identitarians of all stripes tend to be very eager to adopt what essentially amounts to "updated" versions of 19th century race science when it suits them.
Clearly race is more than skin color. My most recent common ancestor to a sub-saharan was at least 80,000 years ago and possibly much longer. To what extent evolution altered more than physically-identifiable traits, among them skin color and skeleton proportion etc., is still an open question but I have to say I think the evidence, despite every institutional roadblock erected against it for nearly a century, is clearly trending one way and it's not towards the blank slate.
Genetics determine biology, and heredity determines genetics, leading to vast and easily-observed discrepancies between human groups isolated from each other for tens of thousands of years in wildly disparate environments... that is, except for information processing ability, impulsivity, violence, impulse control, time preference, abstract thought, empathy, and reason, of course! All of these traits are magically imparted by the Inner Light and have absolutely no connection such the voodoo as "biology" or "genetics." Brain and brain, what is brain? Darwin was probably a NAHT-ZEE anyways, right guise? I read it on r/ifuckinglovescience.
That is the product of 60+ years of concerted propaganda. @thltd on xitter has a chart I keep saved showing how Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Hispanics rate their own racial group and others. Every group except for Whites shows the same pattern, a high rating for their own group, a low rating for Whites, and a more moderate rating for everyone else. Whites on the other hand give every group the same moderate rating, including themselves.
In a real way the propaganda of 1960s Star Trek has come true. It is possible for people to see past racial differences and treat people equally. The problem is other than Whites no other racial group seems willing to do this.
If war breaks out between Venezuela and Guyana and the USA gets sucked in, I heard it here first. This is not on the radar for most people, is my guess.
The Chinese would love to break the bipartisan consensus against them. They spend a lot of money here, and they are persistent. It is surprising they are doing so poorly. They need an image makeover.
White racial nationalism may someday be something, but I am not seeing it as anything serious at the moment. Maybe it will grow out of released members of prison gangs? That seems to be the one place that white racial consciousness is real, and in fact is a necessity for survival. Hard to tell if it is anything other than an Internet phenomenon, memes not reality. And any apparently real white nationalist activities are most likely regime fakes, anyway. Who was it who said that in the 1940s half of the people at Communist Party meetings in the USA were FBI agents?
True, Bono Nico , he broke the real details here first-
1. I'd say that I don't think the Venezuelans would be stupid enough to try anything, given the horrific state of their country, but crazier things have been tried for far lesser reasons, and a sufficiently desperate Maduro might be willing to roll the dice on this.
2. Gavin Newsom's wheelings and dealings with China definitely suggest, at minimum, that he's trying to form a sort of "shadow alliance" between them and his faction of the Democrat Party of the United States. It's almost certainly going to provide endless campaign fodder for his opponents, who will (not unreasonably) accuse of of being a Chinese plant, spy, and/or shill.
3. The inchoately growing consciousness and political "(re)activation" of "White American" identity is a natural counterforce/reaction to the ideologically "anti-white" dogmas of much of the "woke"/"Cultural Marxist"/DEI politics that permeate media, academia, NGOs, left-wing activist groups, and left-wing politics more broadly (in short, the activism industrial complex). They've left such a mark that even if these things were to all completely fall apart tomorrow, it would likely still take some time before the currently hyper-racialized ("hyphenated") state of politics of the US goes away in full.
Why would they ever fall away? If they can avoid the consequences, so what?
That piece by Balaji is one of the most cynical things I’ve ever read. Considering the subject matter is the Democratic Party, and the article essentially accuses them of treason, it’s also probably realistic.
An excellent roundup as usual. Thank you
Very interesting cornucopia with great links and analysis - thanks.
Two comments:
China is mad at the Biden admin because Joe didn’t stay bought (the CHIPs act was a step too far). Joe tried to make it up to Xi with the IRA, which heavily subsidizes Chinese battery and renewables components with US taxpayer cash, but apparently it wasn’t enough. They expect Gavin to be more loyal.
The Monroe doctrine hasn’t been enforced by the US since the Obama years, when Obama and the leftists at State decided to entreat Cuba as well as Chavez as well as leftists from the Andes to Honduras, most of whom were cooperating closely with Russia and China (including arms purchases, military training and stopovers by ships and military aircraft) as well as Iran.
Trump tried to shake things up during the interregnum between Obama I and Obama 2 (er- I mean Biden) but the bureaucracy wasn’t having any of it.
Hi Niccolo,
Wanted to point out to you this excellent column by Ed West on Ireland....just read it.
https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/irelands-rebellion-problem
Thanks! 'Liked' done.
foreign meddling in the Americas --> foreign meddling in sovereign states of the Americas
[comment: covers the British and French territories which are permitted to exist]
resources available to it --> resources available
was its alliance with --> was with
[Redundant]
After all, it has now tried --> After all, the US has now tried
[the grammatical subject is otherwise V. of it]
"America is not a “nation” in the European sense."
I beg to disagree. Every economically successful country sees lots of immigration and becomes a kind of melting pot. France is a good example. Turkey too. When you look at the abundance of Slavic names there the Germans have been quite good at it too in the past. At the moment their culture is less open for assimilation but most likely this will only delay the process.
Sometimes ethnic groups get politicized. That happened to Turks in Germany. It happened to different ethnic groups in the past in the US: Germans, Japanese, Hispanics and now Chinese have all been politicized at some moment.
The case of Bulgaria is interesting. Bulgarians were originally a Turkish speaking tribe that got Slavicized when they established themselves at their present location.
Previous examples you mention hadn't developed a religion based on fake victimhood. See, Kneeling Nancy.
I never knew that about Bulgarians. So cool. So they are genetically Turkic but culturally Slavic and religiously Orthodox? What a combo.
Bulgarian history is interesting. The first Bulgarian empire was in East Ukraine.
There are still Orthodox Turks: the Gagauz in Southern Moldova and adjacent Ukraine.
I just googled them and turns out there's an NYT article about the Gagauz language dying. I never knew Bulgaria was such an interesting part of the world, an amalgamation of various peoples, cultures, languages and empires.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/04/world/europe/moldova-gagauz-languages-soviet-union.html
Unless there's a dramatic change in human nature I believe some form of 'white racial consciousness' in the United States is almost guaranteed, albeit likely not in the immediate future.
The Democratic Party will be majority-minority within this decade and increasingly moreso thereafter. Simultaneously they will become electorally dominant as demographics continue to shift in their favor - Texas will be blue within 10 years. That's a recipe for racial polarization and I can't really see how it might be broken. The Democratic party isn't going to stop offering racial redistribution, for instance. If anything, they're likely to increase it.
I couldn't speculate about whatever the effects of "white consciousness" might be though. Uncharted territory for a Western country.
>Simultaneously they will become electorally dominant as demographics continue to shift in their favor - Texas will be blue within 10 years.
WN's have been saying this for 20 years, and it's still not going to happen. Hispanics assimilate. Increasingly, blue-state Hispanics are becoming more liberal, and red-state Hispanics are becoming more conservative, especially the second- and third-generation ones. If anything, the increasing hispanicization of America will instead shift right-wing politics in a more thoroughly militaristic, traditionalist, authoritarian, and explicitly white supremacist direction. Violent and authoritarian white supremacism & ornately-designed racial hierarchies are the twin essence of "Latino culture" #TheAltRightIsLatinx.
>I couldn't speculate about whatever the effects of "white consciousness" might be though. Uncharted territory for a Western country.
It isn't, thoughtbeit. Up until the successful suppression of the Great Gentile Uprising during the Second Brother War, and even beyond, the mainstream of American politics and even culture was EXTREMELY racially conscious. No people, beset constantly by the Damoclean dual threat of Red Savages from without and Black Slaves from below, could not have developed such a consciousness. But of course, their racial identity was never thought of being important AT THE EXPENSE of their patriotism in their country, because they understood, like all peoples pre-1945, that their culture and country are the fruit of their particular biology. There are innumerable quotes about this; YouTube has removed a good video summarizing it, but the racial views of such esteemed Americans as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, etc. are all a matter of public record. Hitler copied the both his eugenics program as well as the Generalplan Ost plan to exterminate & colonize Slavic lands east of the Reich from America #RealRecognizesReal.
Let me know when Hispanics, or white college-educated women and the sexually confused for that matter, demand the end of racial and sexual quotas and the restitution of freedom of association. The fake-victim culture is too dependent to voluntarily change.
"Violent and authoritarian white supremacism & ornately-designed racial hierarchies are the twin essence of 'Latino culture.'"
It's not the 19th century and this isn't Mexico (though one could be forgiven for mistaking it as such given how many mestizos our ruling class employs as servants). Insofar as it's true that Latinos will better-assimilate, what's the system into which they're assimilating? There is nothing ornate about Civil Rights law or the regime that has grown up around it since 1964. "Fuck whitey"---that's it. In 1991 "-especially if he's a man" got added.
And if you think there's any countervailing force in the US to stop this, including Latino voters, I've got a dilapidated bridge to sell you. The current dearth of air traffic controllers is directly downstream of the Obama administration noticing in 2013 that the FAA is too damn white (https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/think-twice-before-you-fly/).
In other words, the DEI revolutionaries will let commercial airliners crash into each other before they reconsider their grand project or turn away a single client from their vast patronage network. And no 'conservative movement'---whether Latino or generally fairer-skinned---can stop them.
"Everything is bad, there's no hope, let's all kill ourselves." Bold insights as always from the Roman Statue PFP-Americans.
Second article made my head hurt. The infantile writing style, sophomoric "insights," and inscrutable chain of logic ("X extraordinary and unsupported statement is true because... it just IS, okay?") all coalesce into the singular Truth that "Ba-la-gee" thinks and writes with all the intelligence (or lack thereof) of your typical SubCon.
The reality is that Newsom, like all Late Republican politicians (other than Donald Trump ﷺ), is a Very Stupid and Very Vain Man. Meeting with a foreign leader is just him LARPing as President, which is his entire persona btw (have you heard him speak? It's just an Obama impression).
Ba-la-gee reads lurid conspiratorial tales of Mohammedan Nazi DemoKKKrats (note the usage here of terms like "(((white-adjacents)))" and "BLM/Hamas" - as a (((Tamil))), he instinctively lays cover for his fellow (((Cosmopolitan Mercurian Sons of Shem))) (cf. the Elam-Elaam connection)) allying with Racist Eugenicist Nazi ChiComs against an imagined Wholesome Chungus Multiracial Working Class GOP because he is infantile, delusional, stupid, and above all else, Indian (but, I repeat myself).
He must go back to doing manual labor for the British Empire, and learn to Take the Poo to the Loo while he's at it. I hope to hear nothing more from this Brahmin-privileged turmeric monster or his ilk so long as I may live.
A bit OT but... Trump Trial 24.
Imagine the Incompetence of the Hated Elites having a Martyrdom Show Trial of their worst enemy, a TV Superstar, during an election year. But you don’t have to imagine it! They did it!
After decades of godlessness and chaos America will have its Savior return; ORANGE JESUS.
He won’t be Trump anymore after he’s Crucified on TV (TV is not the place to match wits with our Lord and Savior) ... no he’ll be
ORANGE JESUS TRUMP suffering for our sins.
As we speak, NBC, WAPO and other major media have joined forces with Trump’s lawyers to have the Trial Televised.
DOJ doesn’t want this, but WAPO et al will not allow the Trial of the Millennium to not be televised.
Thank you Democrats!
I certainly can’t thank the Republicans.
PRAISE ORANGE JESUS.
SAINT DONALD, pray for us...
America's business is business. The cash value of a spectacle like that takes priority over the reputation of the system of justice which won't survive the process. The only people more theatrical and ego-focused than Trump are his judges. I expect to see Clown World at its finest.
We’ll exceed your expectations.
This 🇺🇸remains a deeply religious country whose religious energy was foolishly directed into politics. For 60 years we have wandered in the desert but no more. For to Crown Orange Jesus Caesar, first we 🇺🇸 must crucify him. And Caesar it will be...
.... we were overdue for Caesaropapism and here it is...
.... in Orange form.
We 🇺🇸 will in 2024 Crown (Orange) Jesus as Caesar.
I didn’t think it possible he’d get re-elected , but by next summer they’ll be trembling too much to dare cheat again.
Philip you misunderstand us.
Our business may be business but this remains a Deeply and Energetically Religious country for 400 years.
What do you think Woke is?
That’s not politics.
Before that the mania for money?
Before that the Hedonism, John Lennon? That wasn’t music.
“All you need is Love?”
SOUND FAMILIAR?
The religious energy of Americans was directed in the 20th century into politics.
And now.... behold... our Martyr shall be Crowned.
PS actually you’ll see Clown 🤡 World shaking, like Wojtyła did when he returned to Poland as Pope. They visibly shook.
> Trump is no Saint.
Fully agree that the passion of Trump is a religious event...the Democrats unwisely invested the 45th president with cosmic significance and then decided to subject him to a 3rd World standard of politicised justice. Strongly believed in November 2020 that Biden should have had Trump around for dinner, named an aircraft carrier or airport after him and given an ambassadorial job to one or other of Trump's kids. It would have outraged Biden's base but it would have weakened MAGA.
Devilish idea that would have taken some of the wind out of the sails of Trump.