Anglos have never been big on political executions. Compare the English revolution which limited itself to executing the king with the French or Russian revolution.
> I'd rather buy overpriced American than pay taxes to fund warrens of resentful welfare recipients and an American Gulag Archipelago to house those who misbehave in frustration.
The data shows that those who misbehave aren't doing it out of frustration.
Read Le Morte D'Arthur. The knights spent their time alternating between recreational fighting and having "good cheer." They never did productive work. That was for churls. Very gangsta.
> Technically speaking, a true nationalist respects the rights of all nations to be self governed and choose who enters their borders. We are the true peaceniks. We are the ones who respect the right of foreigners to defend their own ways of life in their own lands. We're the ones who call for bringing troops home. We are the ones who say that spreading Democracy through Shock and Awe makes more enemies than friends. Adolf Hitler was not a true nationalist; Adolf Hitler was a genocidal imperialist with bad hair.
In other words you think that if you ignore the rest of the world it'll go away.
> How about Isolationist? This is better, but there are inherent problems with Isolationism. Weapons can go to the other side of the planet in less than an hour these days. The oceans aren't the shield they once were. And rational self-interest says that it is better to fight three unnecessary wars abroad than one necessary war at home. Some alliances and interventions are likely necessary to maintain our independence, alas.
Care to list which alliances you think those are? The crux of your position appears to be being intentionally vague on that point.
> How about Anti Imperialist?
Speaking of which, what's your position on Russian or Chinese imperialism?
Kind of frightening. China is basically a national socialist state, albeit one with a much higher population than Germany. Continued alliances with potentially conquered surrounding states might be a good idea. I'd rather not have to contain China's expansion at the California coast.
Compared to China, the U.S. is pretty empty. (population/carrying capacity that is.) We're a rather tempting target.
That's why I framed such problems as For Serious Contemplation. I intentionally created an ambiguity for such problems because such problems cannot be solved by Proof by Definition.
I believe it is reasonable to be an Anti Imperialist and be on either side of the argument as to what to do about Taiwan. Ditto for Ukraine. (OK, while I am sympathetic for Ukraine's desire for independence, I also respect Russian fears about NATO incursions into what was once Russian Empire territory. This is a scenario where Anti Imperialists can disagree and still be Anti Imperialists.)
> So what would the world be like if we pumped our own oil and built our own toys?
Well, we'd have to do something about all the Green hippies who make a huge stink whenever we attempt to expand domestic production or build a new pipeline.
Also we'd have to roll back all the labor and environmental regulations that make it impossible to produce things domestically at a reasonable cost.
Funny how you omit that aspect, probably because openly stating that would cost the support of most of the labor and hippie voters you've been trying to appeal to.
I did mention that moving production here would lead to cleaner manufacturing techniques, since we are a finicky first world nation. And I did mention buying "overpriced American."
I'm old enough to remember when it paid to repair things. I remember when shoes were kept in the back room at stores instead of try it yourself. Clothing used to be expensive. The reason why clothing stores have become largely self serve is that the clothes are incredibly cheap compared to what they were 50 years ago. (Small towns in Rural America generally had a garment factory instead of a prison.)
Back in "those days" the minimum wage was nearly twice what it is today in CPI adjusted terms. In 1968 the minimum wage was $1.60 and the Consumer Price Index was 34.8. The CPI is now 302.9, which means the 1968 minimum wage would be $13.93 in today's dollars.
Subsidized outsourcing and subsidized strikebreakers have clobbered the working lower classes.
I've been working on a Rules for Revolution series, and I have been contemplating how the right doesn't really have a sense of itself or the messaging to truly inspire. I think this piece is a good start.
Looks like we are on the same page. (I'll be going deep on the environmental angle when I get to Rule 11. But first, I need to rewrite my tax chapter...)
Just looked at it. Half the points are about COVID. The other half are about asking the conservatives to get with the times and move to where the left was twenty years ago, you weren't even willing to criticize LGBT, just make minor quibbles about how the T was being imposed.
Fair criticisms. But I just re-read it and would quibble with your assessment about half of it being about covid. As for my points supposedly exhorting conservatives be like old-school liberals, I'd call it more like old-school libertarian. As for not criticizing LGBT sufficiently, I have elaborated more than once.
> As for not criticizing LGBT sufficiently, I have elaborated more than once.
That article says nothing about sodomy in general, and the only criticism of trans you can muster is that it reduces fertility. Furthermore, since you accept the Malthusian premise, you can't even explain why reducing fertility is a bad thing.
Well, I'm sure I've declared it marxist/globalist eugenics ten dozen times....
As for Malthus, if 8 billion want to live the consumerist Way, I imagine he might triumph in the end. Though, I've no doubt humanity could choose to thrive more ecologically, though I see no sign of that really.
Re Malthus: much of what makes America America is that fact that we have a low population to carrying capacity ratio. Uncle Ben Franklin pointed it out in his writings before we became a separate nation, and Adam Smith included his insights in "The Wealth of Nations."
The Dark Herald has some interesting thoughts on the subject:
Radical essay with actual empathy towards what deserves none from or by the civilian people of this country. That which are the lifeblood of their Nation. Americans don't vote on whichever country the politicians want to medal with or anything of that nature. But somehow they make us responsible and it always works because they make everything seem like it's America's fault in one way or another. Because most of us are portraits of arrogance by the foreign media. We're all just sick of it absolutely. And I agree with Anti-Imperializm. If we need a label to identify as American then so beit but we're not going to change the world to our liking either. And that's a reasonable explanation for the other points made in this exceptional essay here.
The comparison to late Republic Rome is very apt. Where's our Sulla? Let's make executing senators great again.
Anglos have never been big on political executions. Compare the English revolution which limited itself to executing the king with the French or Russian revolution.
It's a shame.
> I'd rather buy overpriced American than pay taxes to fund warrens of resentful welfare recipients and an American Gulag Archipelago to house those who misbehave in frustration.
The data shows that those who misbehave aren't doing it out of frustration.
Perhaps I should have written "welfare recipients who are acting like knights from the Dark Ages."
How does that address what I wrote?
Read Le Morte D'Arthur. The knights spent their time alternating between recreational fighting and having "good cheer." They never did productive work. That was for churls. Very gangsta.
Yes, and look at what demographic modern gangstas are from.
> Technically speaking, a true nationalist respects the rights of all nations to be self governed and choose who enters their borders. We are the true peaceniks. We are the ones who respect the right of foreigners to defend their own ways of life in their own lands. We're the ones who call for bringing troops home. We are the ones who say that spreading Democracy through Shock and Awe makes more enemies than friends. Adolf Hitler was not a true nationalist; Adolf Hitler was a genocidal imperialist with bad hair.
In other words you think that if you ignore the rest of the world it'll go away.
> How about Isolationist? This is better, but there are inherent problems with Isolationism. Weapons can go to the other side of the planet in less than an hour these days. The oceans aren't the shield they once were. And rational self-interest says that it is better to fight three unnecessary wars abroad than one necessary war at home. Some alliances and interventions are likely necessary to maintain our independence, alas.
Care to list which alliances you think those are? The crux of your position appears to be being intentionally vague on that point.
> How about Anti Imperialist?
Speaking of which, what's your position on Russian or Chinese imperialism?
Kind of frightening. China is basically a national socialist state, albeit one with a much higher population than Germany. Continued alliances with potentially conquered surrounding states might be a good idea. I'd rather not have to contain China's expansion at the California coast.
Compared to China, the U.S. is pretty empty. (population/carrying capacity that is.) We're a rather tempting target.
To make this concrete, what do you think the US response should be were China to attempt to invade Taiwan?
I don't really know.
That's why I framed such problems as For Serious Contemplation. I intentionally created an ambiguity for such problems because such problems cannot be solved by Proof by Definition.
I believe it is reasonable to be an Anti Imperialist and be on either side of the argument as to what to do about Taiwan. Ditto for Ukraine. (OK, while I am sympathetic for Ukraine's desire for independence, I also respect Russian fears about NATO incursions into what was once Russian Empire territory. This is a scenario where Anti Imperialists can disagree and still be Anti Imperialists.)
They however need to be solved to have something resembling a serious policy.
> A leaky border means that cocaine farms in Columbia and poppy farms in Afghanistan become our problem,
Wait, are you advocating some tariff increases or full-blown autarky? Apparently with a force field strong enough to prevent drug smuggling?
With a 30% tariff rate, we could afford to inspect the containers.
> So what would the world be like if we pumped our own oil and built our own toys?
Well, we'd have to do something about all the Green hippies who make a huge stink whenever we attempt to expand domestic production or build a new pipeline.
Also we'd have to roll back all the labor and environmental regulations that make it impossible to produce things domestically at a reasonable cost.
Funny how you omit that aspect, probably because openly stating that would cost the support of most of the labor and hippie voters you've been trying to appeal to.
I did mention that moving production here would lead to cleaner manufacturing techniques, since we are a finicky first world nation. And I did mention buying "overpriced American."
I'm old enough to remember when it paid to repair things. I remember when shoes were kept in the back room at stores instead of try it yourself. Clothing used to be expensive. The reason why clothing stores have become largely self serve is that the clothes are incredibly cheap compared to what they were 50 years ago. (Small towns in Rural America generally had a garment factory instead of a prison.)
So are you willing to roll back labor and environmental regulation to what they were back in those days?
Otherwise "overpriced American" becomes "the lower and middle class are priced out".
In fact this is starting to look remarkably like what the WEF Green agenda is trying to accomplish.
Back in "those days" the minimum wage was nearly twice what it is today in CPI adjusted terms. In 1968 the minimum wage was $1.60 and the Consumer Price Index was 34.8. The CPI is now 302.9, which means the 1968 minimum wage would be $13.93 in today's dollars.
Subsidized outsourcing and subsidized strikebreakers have clobbered the working lower classes.
I wasn't talking about minimum wage.
Minimum wage is a pretty good proxy for the wages of the lower classes in general. This does affect what they can afford.
I was talking about the supply side. And the various government regulations in particular.
I've been working on a Rules for Revolution series, and I have been contemplating how the right doesn't really have a sense of itself or the messaging to truly inspire. I think this piece is a good start.
You might enjoy my Call for Counter Revolution which starts this Substack:
https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/a-call-for-counter-revolution
Interesting. Heading there now. I'll trade ya. This is one of my top posts:
https://williamhunterduncan.substack.com/p/a-conservative-counter-revolution
Looks like we are on the same page. (I'll be going deep on the environmental angle when I get to Rule 11. But first, I need to rewrite my tax chapter...)
Just looked at it. Half the points are about COVID. The other half are about asking the conservatives to get with the times and move to where the left was twenty years ago, you weren't even willing to criticize LGBT, just make minor quibbles about how the T was being imposed.
Fair criticisms. But I just re-read it and would quibble with your assessment about half of it being about covid. As for my points supposedly exhorting conservatives be like old-school liberals, I'd call it more like old-school libertarian. As for not criticizing LGBT sufficiently, I have elaborated more than once.
https://williamhunterduncan.substack.com/p/trans
> I'd call it more like old-school libertarian.
And yet you accept the basic Malthusian premise.
> As for not criticizing LGBT sufficiently, I have elaborated more than once.
That article says nothing about sodomy in general, and the only criticism of trans you can muster is that it reduces fertility. Furthermore, since you accept the Malthusian premise, you can't even explain why reducing fertility is a bad thing.
Well, I'm sure I've declared it marxist/globalist eugenics ten dozen times....
As for Malthus, if 8 billion want to live the consumerist Way, I imagine he might triumph in the end. Though, I've no doubt humanity could choose to thrive more ecologically, though I see no sign of that really.
Re Malthus: much of what makes America America is that fact that we have a low population to carrying capacity ratio. Uncle Ben Franklin pointed it out in his writings before we became a separate nation, and Adam Smith included his insights in "The Wealth of Nations."
The Dark Herald has some interesting thoughts on the subject:
https://arkhavencomics.com/2023/05/05/the-black-death-and-the-birth-of-the-west/
As for trans, it is the logical consequence of feminism and gay "marriage".
Feminism: Men and women are interchangeable in the office.
Gay "Marriage": Men and women are interchangeable in the bedroom.
Trans: Men and women are generally interchangeable.
Did I do something to offend you, because I feel like you have appreciated my work in the past?
Radical essay with actual empathy towards what deserves none from or by the civilian people of this country. That which are the lifeblood of their Nation. Americans don't vote on whichever country the politicians want to medal with or anything of that nature. But somehow they make us responsible and it always works because they make everything seem like it's America's fault in one way or another. Because most of us are portraits of arrogance by the foreign media. We're all just sick of it absolutely. And I agree with Anti-Imperializm. If we need a label to identify as American then so beit but we're not going to change the world to our liking either. And that's a reasonable explanation for the other points made in this exceptional essay here.
Muchos Gracias Amigos.
Are you and I the only two people in the country who remember Big Blue Marble? LOL
Great piece! I love the tactic of using a term the opposite of which "they" would hesitate or outright refuse to embrace!