We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, May 25. 2023
Solar storms have dramatically increased this year.
I blame climate change
Early Apes Lived on Savannahs, Not in Forests. Two new studies suggest that 21 million years ago African primates frequented edge habitat and fed on leaves
Scientific American is Now the Bud Light of Science Journals
Plastic Recycling Now Contributing to Microplastics Pollution Mania
Nebraska Becomes 18th State To Ban Transgender Surgeries On Children…
What Banks Do
Leftist Cancellation is the New Rite of Passage
Trump’s ‘Hush Payment’ Trial to Begin Months Before 2024 Presidential Election
Why my GOP competitors should take my lead and visit America’s inner cities: Ramaswamy
Joe Biden Keeps Lying That His Son Died in Iraq. In fact, he lies about an assortment of his dead relatives.
Contrary To Popular Myth, Brexit Was Not A Bad Decision And Did Not Fail
Scotland moves toward removing trial by jury
The Ukraine War Was Provoked - & Why That Matters To Achieve Peace
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I see that Victoria Nuland is mentioned, regarding the Ukrainian situation. She is the poison-toad spearpoint at the forefront of the US gambit, I think. Her family is from Belarus, and she has that deep, implacable, eastern European resolve when it comes to hating Russians. She was on hand to orchestrate the color revolution / election overturn in 2014, handing out both sandwiches and disinformation, to keep the wheels turning. And she's in the thick of every pivotal event since.
As I've said before, the absence of even any suggestions of peace talks means that war is on the menu as the favored solution, for now.
There is a reason Eastern Europeans hate Russia and Ukrainians have even more reason.
Yes, just so. But... why are Eastern European sentiments animating the foreign policy goals of the most powerful nation on the planet, and why are they are a back-door policy secret?
Most Americans want no part of the Ukranian conflict, and yet the country has been led to the brink of it as the proxy antagonist over the past decade, together with the slow tide of NATO expansion.
Both of these things were explicitly promised never to happen by the US, to Russia, when Glasnost was laid out and formalized, and the Soviet nuclear inventory was mostly dismantled.
Not promoting Russia here, far from it. But the vacuum of information and media coverage, together with activities that are clearly counter to American public sentiment, has me riled. Our foreign policy focus is on the wrong country, for an ancient animus I think.
Aggie: Most Americans want no part of the Ukranian conflict
A stable 65% of U.S. adults prefer that the United States support Ukraine in reclaiming its territory, even if that results in a prolonged conflict.
Aggie: Both of these things were explicitly promised never to happen by the US, to Russia
If it had been explicit that NATO would not expand eastward, then there would have been a written agreement to that effect.
EVERY war was provoked. This story is blatant anti-American propaganda. Yes some of the actors are jerks or worse since when does that justify this terrible invasion and war crimes.
I confess that while I understand the American isolationist impulse, I just don't understand why it seems to have become so pro-Russian in this matter.
I might not agree with an argument like "nothing to do with us, we shouldn't be involved" but I could accept it. What I don't get is all the silly conspiracy-theory nonsense bolted onto that argument.
The Russians chose to step up the game on 24 February 2022. Their invasion has been a failure from the get-go, due in no small part to their own military incompetence.
The essay on What Banks Do was interesting reading. As one commentator pointed out about QE is that the regulators think they have the magic abilities to control the invisible hand of the market. But, of course, the regulators only swing in one direction: more regulation. More regulation, stacked upon old regulations creates many barriers to the market. There is no magic ability to control a free market. You’ll never convince a regulator of that. It’s why regulators are authoritarian in nature, and the economy would be much better with fewer of them in government.
No one can really effectively explain to ordinary people just how bad it will get if our banking system fails. It would be 1929-1941 all over again but this time far worse. Worse because there is a plethora of left wing politicians and special interests circling like vultures for that chaos to use that opportunity to devour the corpse of what was the middle class. This might be the last hurrah for America. Our country, our government, our freedom has passed it's prime and we are in a decline. We "could" decline peacefully for 100 years or so, kind of like Great Britian did. But the "prize" is too big for the vultures to ignore and they are just waiting for that "trigger" that inflection point to rush in and feast on the spoils.
What the bankers/regulators have been doing for at least the last 80 years or so is propping up the system. That's what we see them doing now. This is their only choice. Our congress and special interests destroyed our money decades ago and now we are in the business of kicking the can down the road. Do we want them to stop? Hell no! At this point that's all we got. And it comes with more and more regulations as the glue and bindings that hold this stinking mess together. It is one package, take it or leave it. Either way, it stinks. And the worst part is most of those politicians, bureaucrats and special interests who caused it have long since gone to hell leaving you holding the empty bag and inflated money,
I had read the Power Line post Trans-Madness from a few days ago, and clicked on the link concerning Nebraska to see if, as shown at Power Line, it included the deranged lunatic, elected to the Nebraska legislature. No, the Weaselzippers link didn’t show her, but the comments section was even more disturbing. Someone posted a picture of what appears to be, as Rush Limbaugh called them, an add-a-dick to me surgery. Jeepers creepers. Is that real? Is that really what these surgeries do? If so, as gross as the picture is, it should be shown often. As with ultrasound showing the gestation of babies, changing many minds, this picture will do the same.
If you don’t have a strong stomach, don’t look. What kind of sick demented psychopath could do such a thing to another human being?
Contrary To Popular Myth, Brexit Was Not A Bad Decision And Did Not Fail
Brexit was based on a nonsensical position and was sold based on a fantasy.
Due to geographic proximity and wealth, continental Europe is the biggest trading partner of Britain. To trade with the continent from within the EU, Britain had to meet all the requirements set forth by the EU, of which it was an influential member. After Brexit, to trade with the continent, Britain still has to meet all the requirements set forth by the EU, but now there is paperwork and delays and uncertainty. And, not being an EU member, Britain no longer has a say in setting those rules.
With regards to immigration, Britain still needs workers, only instead of immigrants from the continent (e.g. Poland), immigrants are coming in from more distant lands and cultures. Furthermore, many Brits who wanted to keep people from the continent out, are shocked, shocked to discover that they can no longer travel freely on the continent.
Last year more Americans died from drugs from China and Mexico than died in the Vietnam war. Why is this largely ignored? It is a difficult problem but why aren't we at least doing the basic things that would reduce those deaths. Like economic measures aimed at Mexico and China until they ended their drug production and export to our country. It is likely that merely the threat of economic sanctions would accomplish this.
Other common sense steps would be more expensive and difficult but should be taken. Like forcing drug addicts into a program to give them a chance to kick the addiction. I would urge you to look on YouTube for "The streets of Philadelphia". It shows hundreds of people on the streets unable to function, many abused and used simply because they are addicted. It is our moral responsibility to help them and not by giving them money or food but actual "care" that might allow them to kick the habit. Does this approach work/fail? Yeah something like 40%-60% fail to kick the habit after finishing the program. But it saves many of them. As for those who reoffend then re-commit to the program and do it again and again if necessary. That is still better than letting them die on the streets.
Leftist Cancellation is the New Rite of Passage
Even as we grieved, we grew.
Twisted Sisters: Marxism and Fascism
Gee whiz. Who does this sound like?
Nazism’s mission was based on the mobilization of mass hatred and the destruction of all traditional social, religious, and cultural bonds. In its drive to complete the collectivization of all social forces within “the community of destiny” – a process they called “coordination” (Gleichschaltung) – National Socialism’s true forbear was the Jacobin Terror and its true counterpart was Bolshevism’s similar agenda for destruction in Russia. Just as Stalin invented “the kulaks” as the enemies of happiness and peace whose extermination would bring about utopia, so Hitler invented “the Jews.”
And the Democrats have invented "white supremacists".
Conservatives are NOT fascists.
feeblemind: Conservatives are NOT fascists.
Of course not. While fascism and conservatism are both on the political right, fascists are reactionaries who want to uproot modernity and return society to a mythical purer form.
One common feature of tyrannical governments is state ownership and confiscatory powers.
No. Tyranny can exist without state ownership, as with many historical tyrannies, such as the Mongol Empire.
The left-right spectrum dates to the French revolutionary period. The political left is defined by a belief in greater equality, while the political right is defined by adherence to hierarchies. Conservatives are placed on the political right because they want to preserve, as much as practical, existing cultural forms, including hierarchical institutions.
Nazism advocates for a very strict hierarchical society. Nazism sees struggle as not only unavoidable, but something that gives meaning to national and personal existence. Nazism found its primary support on the political right. And, if you look at the far right today, you will find Nazi ideas and symbology. For instance, at the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, they chanted "Jews will not replace us!"
Fascism is a very specific version of Socialism. The left rewrote history slowly over time redrawing what Fascism was so they could foist it on the right. But it is a far left philosophy never was on the right and still isn't.
OneGuy: Fascism is a very specific version of Socialism.
Fascists, co-opted the term socialism to mean the unity of the people (defined by nationalism or ethnicity) under a dictatorial leader, as symbolized by the fasces. Fascism strongly opposed class conflict, egalitarianism, and internationalism. Fascists saw national, ethnic, and personal struggle as not only inevitable, but desirable. Marxism decries war as undesirable, as the result of the class system with the masses paying the price of the ambition of the upper classes; and further believe that the class system, war, money, and even government would wither away.
OneGuy: The left rewrote history slowly over time redrawing what Fascism was so they could foist it on the right.
Fascism has almost always been considered to be on the political right. That's because fascists advocate for a hierarchical, even militaristic society. It's socialist in the sense that the military is socialist, that is, nothing like what people mean when speaking of socialism as a form of political or economic organization.
The right believes in: God, country, family, the constitution, limited government, law and order, A strong military defense, equal justice and treatment under law, common sense, individuality/self sufficiency, the right of privacy and to be left alone and the unequivocal right of self defense.
Please point out which of those political positions resembles fascism.
Fascism originally described a Socialist philosophy where factory and business owners retained ownership of their factories and businesses BUT the state maintained control over them. As I said the term Fascism was quietly morphed to mean something still sinister but that could be foisted on the right. I don't blame the left for wanting to lose their relationship with fascism and I'm not surprised that they used their classic technique of foisting it all on conservatives but what they did and how they did it is there for all to see. Ask Bernie Sanders and the squad if they believe in traditional fascism. They do of course but likely are not intelligent enough to know what actual fascism is.
OneGuy: The right believes in: God, country, family, the constitution, limited government, law and order, A strong military defense, equal justice and treatment under law, common sense, individuality/self sufficiency, the right of privacy and to be left alone and the unequivocal right of self defense.
There are people on the political left who ascribe to those beliefs, and people on the political right don't; so those are not distinguishing characteristics. Take limited government, for instance. Social conservatives believe in using the power of the state to enforce moral standards.
OneGuy: Fascism originally described a Socialist philosophy where factory and business owners retained ownership of their factories and businesses BUT the state maintained control over them.
Fascism is not an economic philosophy. Italian fascists, for instance, experimented with different economic policies.
"Social conservatives believe in using the power of the state to enforce moral standards."
Give me one and only one example of this. Take your best shot.
"Italian fascists, for instance"
So prior to Italian fascists what examples of fascists can you identify? The Italian fascists definitely modeled their fascism exactly as I described and they were the model for fascism and they were definitely not right wing.
"There are people on the political left who ascribe to those beliefs"
Oh! Good! Name a prominent example.
OneGuy: Give me one and only one example of this.
Sure. The Moral Majority advocated for laws against sodomy and homosexuality, that is, using the power of the state to enforce moral strictures.
OneGuy: The Italian fascists definitely modeled their fascism exactly as I described
When Mussolini came to power, his economic policy was classical liberal under Alberto de' Stefani, who instituted free-trade, tax cuts, and privatisation.
OneGuy: Name a prominent example.
An example of someone on the political left who advocates for limited government would be Noam Chomsky, who is a left-libertarian, which represents an entire school of thought on the political left. You might also consider a hippie commune as an example of people who reject state structures, but advocate for an egalitarian society.
Similarly, on the political right, Latin American military dictators have used the power of the state to push indigenous people off their land, hardly a case of limited government.
"privatisation" Define that. It sounds strangely like allowing companies to exist but having the government control them. That is fascism, i.e. socialism by fiat rather than an actual takeover of private companies. Since you didn't provide any examples of fascism prior to Mussolini I think we have found the original definition of fascism. And it ain't right wing!
"Noam Chomsky"!!! Really!!! You think Noam Chomsky believes in "God, country, family, the constitution, limited government, law and order, A strong military defense, equal justice and treatment under law, common sense, individuality/self sufficiency, the right of privacy and to be left alone and the unequivocal right of self defense." You clearly don't know who Mr Chomsky is. Try again.
OneGuy: "privatisation" Define that.
privatisation, the transfer of a business, industry, or service from public to private ownership and control.
OneGuy: Since you didn't provide any examples of fascism prior to Mussolini I think we have found the original definition of fascism.
Fascism originated in Italy but is not the only form of fascism. In any case, you claimed that fascism originally described a socialist philosophy, but Mussolini began his rule with laissez-faire economic policy. Fascism is not inherently an economic philosophy, but an ultranationalist, authoritarian one. Mussolini rarely delved directly into economic policy, but adopted various economic policies that thought would strengthen his ultranationalist goals.
OneGuy: "Noam Chomsky"!!!
Chomsky is an example of someone who sees limited government as central to his leftist politics. We also provided an example of leaders who see government control as central to their rightist politics. King Louis XVI and his supporters were on the right. They were hardly for limited government.
"Fascism originated in Italy but is not the only form of fascism"
Yes there is the ne the left made up so they could foist it onto the conservatives. I think you finally proved that correct.
"King Louis XVI and his supporters"
Seriously! Now you are saying that King Louis XVI and his supporters believed in God, country, family, the constitution, limited government, law and order, A strong military defense, equal justice and treatment under law, common sense, individuality/self sufficiency, the right of privacy and to be left alone and the unequivocal right of self defense. Seriously!
"you string together many different policy positions"
No! That is what conservatives believe in. What you have to do is cherry pick things that you can attribute to someone not a conservative as though that was a meaningful response or argument. It's like a recipe not like a supermarket shelf.
If I had to quickly pick a "anti-conservative" it would be Noam Chomsky.
OneGuy: Yes there is the ne the left made up so they could foist it onto the conservatives.
Fascism isn't conservative but reactionary. However, fascism is on the political right as it advocates a hierarchical society.
OneGuy: That is what conservatives believe in.
We were discussing the political left and political right, which are a spectrum.
OneGuy: If I had to quickly pick a "anti-conservative" it would be Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky is left-libertarian.
"Chomsky is left-libertarian."
Chomsky is a radical socialist/anti-capitalist.
"fascism is on the political right as it advocates a hierarchical society."
Balderdash. You don't even know what you are talking about.
"which of those political positions resembles fascism.
Country, law and order, and a strong military defense."
More balderdash. LOL! You think That is what those radical leftists are thinking when they accuse someone of being a fascist?
OneGuy: Chomsky is a radical socialist/anti-capitalist.
Chomsky is a libertarian socialist, meaning he believes in small government. But he is decidedly on the political left as he also advocates for socialism based on anarcho-syndicalism or participatory decision-making.
Quite the argument. Are you claiming fascism doesn't advocate for a hierarchical society?
OneGuy: More balderdash.
Are you claiming that Hitler didn't say he wanted to Make Germany Great Again? Or didn't support law and order and a strong military?
Nationalism and Socialism had to be redefined and they had to be blended into one strong new idea to carry new strength which would *make Germany great again*. -- Adolf Hitler
OneGuy: Now you are saying that King Louis XVI and his supporters believed in
King Louis XVI and his supporters were on the political right, by definition. Indeed, that's the very origin of the left-right political spectrum. Those who supported the monarchy sat on the right of the National Assembly. Those who supported a Republic sat on the left. Those who were more moderate and supported a constitutional monarchy sat in the middle.
Your digging up ancient history and references that have nothing to do with American conservatives just to smear with a broad brush.
OneGuy: Your digging up ancient history and references that have nothing to do with American conservatives just to smear with a broad brush.
As already noted, conservatism is not the same as fascism, though both are on the political right. However, the use of the left-right spectrum dates to the French Revolution and soon entered the English vocabulary. The use of the terms has changed little since then.
Returning to your point above: As a definition, you string together many different policy positions. That makes for a poor definition, and it is contrary to centuries of how the left-right spectrum has been used, as well as current usage. To simplify, we chose limited government for discussion. If we chose God, then we could point to believing Catholic clerics on the political left who have fought for the right of indigenous peoples under threat from rightist efforts to appropriate their land.
OneGuy: Please point out which of those political positions resembles fascism.
Country, law and order, and a strong military defense.
Another view of course ...
Left/Right is a meaningless concept except in American academia where socialism is praised as a religion.
In Europe the left/right is/was a seating arrangement in government. The various political parties, such as the French, govern primarily as authoritarians whether as communist socialists or fascist socialists. Examples are Mitterrand to Macron.
The commonalities of each are fascists struggle between race where communists are struggle between classes (modified by Gramsci and Marcuse)
They each rule as authoritarians with censorship and secret police. Economically, fascists direct corporations to national goals while communists run a centralized command economy.
Fascist religion, like its economy, is directed to national goals while communists enforce atheism. In both, rights are surrendered to the ruling authority.
The irrationality of the French model is evident in "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. There is no liberty if you have equality (someone will take and someone will give ...by force) and if you have actual liberty there are no takers and givers provide voluntarily.
indyjonesouthere: Left/Right is a meaningless concept except in American academia where socialism is praised as a religion.
The left-right political spectrum is still in wide currency in the United States. With the current partisan sorting, the Democratic Party leans left, while the Republican Party leans right. A few generations ago, both parties were home to both liberal and conservative factions.
indyjonesouthere: The various political parties, such as the French, govern primarily as authoritarians whether as communist socialists or fascist socialists.
France is not authoritarian. The president is elected directly by the people, as are members of the National Assembly. Control of the government has passed between opposing parties many times since the advent of the Fifth Republic.
indyjonesouthere: The irrationality of the French model is evident in "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. There is no liberty if you have equality (someone will take and someone will give ...by force)
That's black-and-white thinking. There is a balance that can be struck between the goals of liberty and equality.
indyjonesouthere: and if you have actual liberty there are no takers and givers provide voluntarily.
Well, that's obviously not true, as French history makes clear. The aristocracy, who had the liberty to decide, worked to maintain the extreme disparities in political, legal, and economic life.
Black and white thinking ... then the balancing act means there is neither actual liberty nor is their actual equality.
French history makes it clear that they practice authoritarian socialism and their historical Vendee massacre indicates that only religion, that is subservient to the ruling elite, will survive.
The opposing parties are all socialist. Whether they are national socialists or international socialists is all that is to be determined by democracy.
indyjonesouthere: then the balancing act means there is neither actual liberty nor is their actual equality.
You mean there is no perfect liberty, nor is there perfect equality. However, people in the West enjoy more liberty, and society is more equal under the law and economically, than in centuries past. So, it is possible to increase both liberty and equality. But to see that, you have to abandon your black-and-white thinking.
indyjonesouthere: Whether they are national socialists or international socialists is all that is to be determined by democracy.
Well, in a democracy, the people choose, even if you think those choices are poorly made. How did you think it worked?
In any case, until Mitterand, all the presidents of France were on the political right. Since then, Sarkozy and Chirac were not socialists, while Le Pen on the far-right has a real chance at power.
There is blue and there is yellow. When mixed you do not get either. You get green.
A republic, established by wiser men than Europe could retain. Post Enlightenment Europe is like an addled old fart that mixed utopian Marxism with a hopeful Fascism destroying itself in world wars, colonial adventures, religious wars, and insane philosophers like Sartre. And then we imported their worst crap from the Frankfort School. Now our academy is as insane as theirs.
indyjonesouthere: There is blue and there is yellow. When mixed you do not get either. You get green.
Compare modern democracies to feudalism. Is there more liberty today? Is there more equality today? If the answer is yes, then liberty and equality are not zero-sum. You can have more of both.
Europe is full of modern day feudal lords and ladies and as usual their democracies do not protect them. Macron just raised the retirement age on his own. All the lords and ladies demand immigration and the peons are just beginning to object. It is neither blue nor yellow. It is socialist green.
indyjonesouthere: Europe is full of modern day feudal lords and ladies and as usual their democracies do not protect them.
America is part of the West. So, you are saying people do not have more liberty than when serfdom was the order of the day?
(Macron's action under article 49.3 of the French Constitution, and fiercely opposed by the political left, was approved by the Constitutional Council. Parliament can stop enactment of the law by passing a motion of no confidence. Regardless, Macron will have to face the voters at the end of his term. How did you think constitutional democracy worked?)
We are part of the Western culture but well separated from European culture. Macrons action on retirement age is why we are quite different from Europe. Can you see Biden upping the retirement age on his own? Europe is stuck in socialism and is now only realizing that it has no military power to speak of and relies on the US for protection. And the US abused that protection by destroying the Russia/Germany pipeline. It does seem that the US wants to run European diplomacy. At least they have begun a military/police force. The riot police in France are not French speakers but it has been reported that they are a European force stationed out of Brussels to be called upon to put down internal dissent that has been rising in Europe. The peons are beginning to resent the lords and ladies.
indyjonesouthere: We are part of the Western culture but well separated from European culture
Okay. Are you saying Americans do not have more liberty than when serfdom was the order of the day? Are you saying Europeans do not have more liberty than when serfdom was the order of the day?
indyjonesouthere: Macrons action on retirement age is why we are quite different from Europe.
Because raising the retirement age of a guaranteed pension in France from 62 to 64 (it's above 66 in the United States) is just like serfdom, notwithstanding the power of the Constitutional Council to rule on the law's constitutionality, notwithstanding the power of Parliament to overrule Macron, and notwithstanding that Macron can be kicked out in the next election. Just like King John.
indyjonesouthere: The riot police in France are not French speakers
There are legitimate complaints to be made about the Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité, but they are a native French police reserve force.
In the US you can equate liberty to be the inverse of the number of laws the government enacts. Start with gun laws.
In Europe you will currently find no direct voting ability of the general public to change anything in Brussels. Brussels is the kingdom of the ruling elite.
The constant rioting in France speaks for itself. Macron is deaf.
The local French are reporting that militarized police, unable to speak French, have been brought into France. Reports also indicate that they come from Brussels. It doesn't matter if you believe the French or not. Those are reports from a couple of weeks ago from the French.
You didn’t answer. Do people in the West today have more liberty than when serfdom was the order of the day? Do people in the West today have greater equality than when serfdom was the order of the day?
Which serf and which country. You are generalizing what should not be generalized.
indyjonesouthere: Reports also indicate that they come from Brussels.
Nearly everyone in Brussels speaks French.
If you had actually read the statement you would have understood that I said they were stationed in Brussels. See 932221. They are likely selected from all the Euro countries. There is not a Euro language even if you think it should be French.
indyjonesothere: Which serf and which country.
During feudalism, most people were peasants, with many of those serfs. Society was strictly hierarchical, with a small number of people, constituting the aristocracy, who held the vast majority of the political, legal, military, and economic power. Feel free to discuss any serf from twelfth century Europe, as they all had virtually no liberty and were subservient to their lords.
indyjonesouthere: There is not a Euro language even if you think it should be French.
You provided no evidence to support your claim that "militarized police, unable to speak French, have been brought into France."
Cultural Marxists in todays western society are quite adept at destroying and harassing any that do not abide by Marxist rules. It hardly needs to be pointed out that the academy is poisoned by such individuals, along with government at any level and also the corporate elite and military elite. Those people are the new aristocratic thugs. FBI, CIA, State dept, EPA, BLM, DOJ, IRS, and even the DMV as starters constantly mettle in our affairs and on a daily basis. At least the old aristocracy had far less contact with the average citizen. So yes, we have more laws, more social controllers and less privacy, less liberty, and mandated less equality. That is why ever more people are voting with their feet to get the hell away from as many of you as we can get.
So blue and yellow have yielded only that socialist, envious green that few, other than marxists, seem to adore.
So, you can't or won't answer the question: Are you saying people in the West do not have more liberty than when serfdom was the order of the day? Are you saying people in the West do not have greater equality than when serfdom was the order of the day?
That's exactly what I'm saying. We're neck deep in marxist theology and I moved to where there is far less of it. Europe is less fortunate as they act as schizophrenics that move from fascism to marxism. Not even the aristocracy was a bloody, naggy, hypocritical, or boring as the marxists of America and Europe. At least they kept their distance most of the time. Marxists do not, they are predictable scolds.
Post 93222241 should have made that self evident but you pretend not to understand.
indyjonesouthere: That's exactly what I'm saying
What? That people have less liberty now than during the time of serfdom? Just want to make sure we know what you are claiming.
You can be sure of that and by all means do not conflate either with the day to day hardships of making a living and having a family to support.
indyjonesouthere: and by all means do not conflate either with the day to day hardships of making a living
That's not the issue, but liberty and equality. But, note that the hardships of making a living didn't apply to the aristocracy. The vast majority of wealth and income was concentrated in the hands of the aristocracy, who lived on the backs of the peasantry.
indyjonesouthere: You can be sure of that
Thank you for the direct answer.
indyjonesouthere: I moved to where there is far less of it.
And there you are. If you had been a serf, you wouldn't have been allowed to leave the country. Nor would you have been allowed to leave the county. You wouldn't even have been allowed to leave the farm you were born on and tied to by law.
Furthermore, you wouldn't have been allowed to complain about your condition. Your lord would own most of the land thereabouts, including probably the town. You would have no say in political matters. Your lord would have legal power over you, including transferring you along with the farm to a new lord.
Is that your current situation? Are you a serf? Or something worse?
Find a politician, academic, or corporatist that doesn't live on the backs of common people. They will even import cheap labor to subsidize their life.
In the current age they just use substitutes. Pandemic lockdowns, weekly tax deductions, mandated vaccines, license required to work, code of federal regulations enforced by FBI,CIA,IRS and a host of other thug institutions that play favorites and enforce as they wish. Real estate taxes that ensure you never really own your property unless you keep paying the tax rent. Does one really have to go on with your nonsense? And if my lord (corporation) sells out I simply get passed on to the next lord and lady.
To recap, you had claimed that liberty and equality were zero-sum, that to increase the one means to decrease the other. While there is certainly a relationship between them, history has shown that it is possible to have both increased liberty and increased equality. An example is the American Revolution, which eliminated the inequalities inherent in the aristocracy while at the same time making gains in essential liberties.
History has shown that the marxists have taken over the American revolution. Simply view the law code growth year by year on the federal, state and local level. If that isn't enough view the academic mandates for race and gender foolishness along with the corporate rules in the new race and pervert classes. Not enough for you yet? On the contrary, liberty can disappear under the new marxist mandates and we will surely be equally destitute and pillaged for what we may have. The academic intellectuals, such as the Sartres of the world, can fuck up anything if left to their desires.
indyjonesouthere: Find a politician, academic, or corporatist that doesn't live on the backs of common people.
Congratulations on noticing that there are inequalities in modern society. The problem with your position, though, is black-and-white thinking.
You point to economic inequalities, which are much, much lower than they were under feudalism. There are social inequalities, including lingering racial inequalities. There are legal inequalities, the poor often having little power when caught up in the legal system. However, these inequalities are much less than they were in the past.
In any case, you have already shown you have more liberty than a serf. You moved to better your situation, a liberty denied to the serf.
The problem with your position is that you think marxism, or in your world democratic socialism, solves problems. It doesn't ... it creates problems and then pretends to solve them.
You have no idea what you are talkng about as you have little experience in the real world. You may catch on some day but I doubt it ... characters like Pocahontas, Chomsky, Obama, and Shiff less add nothing to life except more problems for more people. But heh, hang with your Borg commune ... its your safe space.
indyjonesouthere: The problem with your position is that you think marxism, or in your world democratic socialism, solves problems.
We don’t hold to Marxism or world democratic socialism. Private property is an important bulwark of liberty. But, our position on the best current social system is irrelevant to the observation that the people of the modern world enjoy more liberty and greater equality than most people during the feudal period.
I disagree with both of your assertions. You embrace democratic socialism and that completely clouds your embrace of the French schizophrenic idea of equality and liberty.
indyjonesouthere: You embrace democratic socialism
No, and we gave our reasoning as to why we reject Marxism and other forms of state socialism: Private property is an important bulwark of liberty. You are fighting a straw man. Let us know when you are willing to grapple with our actual position.
Your actual position is as a DEI socialist. You simply can't admit your attraction to big government ESG mandates, and any other big government mandates.
Not a straw man but a borg critter. You are straight out of the social justice academic world.
Ham radio operators are enjoying the interesting propagation effects of the solar storm season.
In 1955 I built a crystal radio from a kit I got for Christmas. Living just outside of Boston I could pick up California and Mexican pirate radio after midnight. My antenna was a 100' long copper wire from my windowsill to the top of the clothesline wooden pole in the backyard.
In the 50's and 60s from Minnesota we could pick up AM stations all over the US. KOMA in Oklahoma was a pop station everyone listened to along with WDGY in Chicago. It is hard to pick up many stations on AM at all anymore. The solar cycles have not been helpful in propagating stable radio frequencies of any kind.
When I saw Scotland was trying to eliminate trial by jury I just assumed that they were bringing back trial by combat. Quite disappointed that's not the case. I was looking forward to lawyers armed with broadswords.
I'd approve of claymores and grenades and away from crowds.