✪ ✪ ✪ Counter-Narrative Thread - Truth and Better Ideas - Deprogramming the Left ✪ ✪ ✪

[HiDesertELR]

When under control Greed is a good thing.

Consider this....

View attachment 7532785

Agreed. I was more speaking to the "Dr. Evil rule the world megalomaniac" type greed.

No coffee yet, short on words at the moment.

 

[pmclaine]

@pmclaine - I would advise you to read Hayek's Use of Knowledge in Society in order to understand why exactly markets work better than non markets. It is probably the finest explainer of their advantages, and how we understand pricing that you can find without going into higher mathematics. It isn't easy, and if you run into trouble, I am happy to help explain.

It is a conundrum that market economics is actually value neutral. We always want the useful and the good to match. It is much easier to see our positions as not only right but also most moral. Economics does not afford us that luxury. It is why we have all been accused to seeing the world in the harsh realities of the market vs in love for our fellow humans. As I said, Marxism is really built on that concept. He admits readily that capitalism has made for great wealth, but it doesn't care for the common man. Now, we know that is incorrect because we see common man fair better under market systems, but that doesn't arrogate to the market any sort of morality. It is simply a more useful system. In the same way that a back hoe is better than a shovel is better than your hands.

We can also be right in our opinions on the basis of morality and virtue, but those are often distinct arguments, Again I recommend to you the above Hayek paper to understand why it is that these things work better. Cheers.

I agree markets work better than authoritarian controlled economies.

We are not arguing that point.

All Hayek is saying is that a large broad population comes to a consensus solution better than a small planning board that is only able to react to information they have on hand.

Conventional wisdom, "universal intuition" will come to the right answer while the small planning board can only act based on its limited knowledge base.

he goes beyond Adam Smith in that Smith only uses two variables to reach equilibrium Hayek feels that a free market can bring in variables not even considered to provide efficiency and greater good.

Its like the Bear Pit of economic truth. One individual in here can spew some real BS but when the entire community puts their focus on the issue each individual addition gets a step closer to truth by either eliminating a false path, finding a substitute path, or perhaps delivering an unrelated substitute that fills the need created by the original problem.

You can never separate the motivations for joining the market and the abuses it can bring.

Jonas Salk did great things for humanity without taking personal gain.

That was such because the culture cultivated that type of attitude.

What ails our current capitalist system isn't so much the system its that we have allowed the corruption of our culture.

That corruption, suppression of good citizenship and Patriotism was cultivated and is intentional.

We have had fabulously wealthy Americans in the past and what are they now remembered for.......they built libraries, supported the arts, funded hospitals and public improvements.

Today we have fabulously wealthy and they are creating a record of tyranny, stripping people of their civil rights, aligning themselves with political parties to hide truth and build schemes that enrich them further.

This is all at our expense.

Gettys, Carnegies, Smithsons etc were also cocksuckers to some extent but this latest batch is really despicable.

The same people asking to be the controllers of the market are the same that are destroying the free market.

 

[pmclaine]

Agreed. I was more speaking to the "Dr. Evil rule the world megalomaniac" type greed.

No coffee yet, short on words at the moment.

I have those "meglomaniacs" in mind in my last comments to Choid.

I didnt name them by name but one rhymes with bates, one reminds me of a clown name, one used his being on the spectrum to improve something hoping he could get pictures of the naked chicks he would never otherwise see in person, one is just a cranky old man that lives totally opposite of the way he preaches we should live, one is a bohemian beatnik piece of shit, and the worst of all learned his trade from the absolute most evil as a young boy happily sending people to their deaths.

 

[HiDesertELR]

I have those "meglomaniacs" in mind in my last comments to Choid.

I didnt name them by name but one rhymes with bates, one reminds me of a clown name, one used his being on the spectrum to improve something hoping he could get pictures of the naked chicks he would never otherwise see in person, one is just a cranky old man that lives totally opposite of the way he preaches we should live, one is a bohemian beatnik piece of shit, and the worst of all learned his trade from the absolute most evil as a young boy happily sending people to their deaths.

As usual, spot on...

A friend of mine has a saying... You do you, just don't get any on me...

They've been getting theirs on us for some time now...

 

[Choid]

I agree markets work better than authoritarian controlled economies.

We are not arguing that point.

All Hayek is saying is that a large broad population comes to a consensus solution better than a small planning board that is only able to react to information they have on hand.

Conventional wisdom, "universal intuition" will come to the right answer while the small planning board can only act based on its limited knowledge base.

he goes beyond Adam Smith in that Smith only uses two variables to reach equilibrium Hayek feels that a free market can bring in variables not even considered to provide efficiency and greater good.

Its like the Bear Pit of economic truth. One individual in here can spew some real BS but when the entire community puts their focus on the issue each individual addition gets a step closer to truth by either eliminating a false path, finding a substitute path, or perhaps delivering an unrelated substitute that fills the need created by the original problem.

You can never separate the motivations for joining the market and the abuses it can bring.

Jonas Salk did great things for humanity without taking personal gain.

That was such because the culture cultivated that type of attitude.

What ails our current capitalist system isn't so much the system its that we have allowed the corruption of our culture.

That corruption, suppression of good citizenship and Patriotism was cultivated and is intentional.

We have had fabulously wealthy Americans in the past and what are they now remembered for.......they built libraries, supported the arts, funded hospitals and public improvements.

Today we have fabulously wealthy and they are creating a record of tyranny, stripping people of their civil rights, aligning themselves with political parties to hide truth and build schemes that enrich them further.

This is all at our expense.

Gettys, Carnegies, Smithsons etc were also cocksuckers to some extent but this latest batch is really despicable.

The same people asking to be the controllers of the market are the same that are destroying the free market.

I would say it is more complex than that, but basically that is the gist of it.

At this point I would not read Adam Smith as an economist, but as a political philosopher. Much in the same way I would not read Newtonian physics as being more than a great building block to current knowledge. But with Smith it is more because he lived before the marginal revolution, which is the basis for our understanding of economic systems.

Much of the rest of what you write is true. I mean, our current fabulously wealthy are generous to causes that mean a lot to them. That is pretty hard to deny. Look at the Benioff hospital, all the money going in to modern art museums etc. And they are still young, giving tends to accelerate with age.

And I do agree that they are acting badly in many ways, though I am not sure I see it all the same as you.

But these aren't the arguments we were having. We were arguing over whether hard work or utility gets paid, and whether UBI is necessarily worthless because it is paid in fiat money, or if UBI is definitionally fiat money. Or whether we should feed wild animals. On these points I stand with everything I said. It is all based in sound reasoning and firm foundations, while I would suggest your arguments are based on the idea that you don't like these things. I don't like them either, at least not much, but as I have said many times in here, and have often been called a commie for saying so, it is better to understand things as they are, even if you don't like them, then to simply call them names and think that that will get you anywhere.

Best.

 

[pmclaine]

I would say it is more complex than that, but basically that is the gist of it.

At this point I would not read Adam Smith as an economist, but as a political philosopher. Much in the same way I would not read Newtonian physics as being more than a great building block to current knowledge. But with Smith it is more because he lived before the marginal revolution, which is the basis for our understanding of economic systems.

Much of the rest of what you write is true. I mean, our current fabulously wealthy are generous to causes that mean a lot to them. That is pretty hard to deny. Look at the Benioff hospital, all the money going in to modern art museums etc. And they are still young, giving tends to accelerate with age.

And I do agree that they are acting badly in many ways, though I am not sure I see it all the same as you.

But these aren't the arguments we were having. We were arguing over whether hard work or utility gets paid, and whether UBI is necessarily worthless because it is paid in fiat money, or if UBI is definitionally fiat money. Or whether we should feed wild animals. On these points I stand with everything I said. It is all based in sound reasoning and firm foundations, while I would suggest your arguments are based on the idea that you don't like these things. I don't like them either, at least not much, but as I have said many times in here, and have often been called a commie for saying so, it is better to understand things as they are, even if you don't like them, then to simply call them names and think that that will get you anywhere.

Best.

Things usually are more complex, little is black and white.

Thats why we need good governance.

Crony capitalism only guarantees bad outcomes.

"Something for Nothing" is not natural nor sound policy.

It is plain to see that which is given "free" is not valued nor appreciated.

Do you see many "Projects" residents out cleaning the yards or fixing gutters on their own?

Human Nature its the law.

 

[acudaowner]

 

[HiDesertELR]

Great! Now that melody will be stuck in my head the rest of the day

A little sparring, a little blood sport.... 'tis the "Pit" after all.

 

[Dunraven]

A

I would say it is more complex than that, but basically that is the gist of it.

At this point I would not read Adam Smith as an economist, but as a political philosopher. Much in the same way I would not read Newtonian physics as being more than a great building block to current knowledge. But with Smith it is more because he lived before the marginal revolution, which is the basis for our understanding of economic systems.

Much of the rest of what you write is true. I mean, our current fabulously wealthy are generous to causes that mean a lot to them. That is pretty hard to deny. Look at the Benioff hospital, all the money going in to modern art museums etc. And they are still young, giving tends to accelerate with age.

And I do agree that they are acting badly in many ways, though I am not sure I see it all the same as you.

But these aren't the arguments we were having. We were arguing over whether hard work or utility gets paid, and whether UBI is necessarily worthless because it is paid in fiat money, or if UBI is definitionally fiat money. Or whether we should feed wild animals. On these points I stand with everything I said. It is all based in sound reasoning and firm foundations, while I would suggest your arguments are based on the idea that you don't like these things. I don't like them either, at least not much, but as I have said many times in here, and have often been called a commie for saying so, it is better to understand things as they are, even if you don't like them, then to simply call them names and think that that will get you anywhere.

Best.

Aside: You, inadvertently, perfectly described the modern democrat in the last half of your last sentence. Well done.

 

[Choid]

A

Aside: You, inadvertently, perfectly described the modern democrat in the last half of your last sentence. Well done.

And? Do you think I am a Democrat or something?

 

[theLBC]

Democrats have spent 150 years trying to talk the Black population into forgetting that they were the ones who actually enslaved them ... by creating welfare handouts that have enslaved them again.

 

[theLBC]

Children in homes with male that is not their biological father is something like 30x more likely to be abused. That is why democrats love broken families and single mothers...it increases the number of available victims for them.

 

[Dunraven]

And? Do you think I am a Democrat or something?

Don't know what you are, or care. Just sayin'.

 

[HiDesertELR]

Human Nature its the law.

^^^
This.
Period.
Full stop.

Prove that wrong.
I'll wait.

(to be continued)

 

[Choid]

^^^
This.
Period.
Full stop.

Prove that wrong.
I'll wait.

(to be continued)

Whose human nature? Rousseau's noble savage? Locke's pre societal man? The conception of the ancients or the moderns? Maybe Christian man, or homo economicus. The point being that there is no understood concept of what human nature is, and to assert that human nature rules is simply an exercise in question begging.

 

[pmclaine]

I was thinking......

 

[pmclaine]

Democrats have spent 150 years trying to talk the Black population into forgetting that they were the ones who actually enslaved them ... by creating welfare handouts that have enslaved them again.

Remind me please......what was LBJs quote?

Perhaps I'm getting too close to the X with you @theLBC but why haven't interned American citizens of the WWII period, peeps that also got a full UnConstitutional fucking, ever been used as weapons by the DemoCommunists?

George Takei seems to be the only one beating that drum but he grinds a few axes.....seems to be his thing.

 

[HiDesertELR]

Whose human nature? Rousseau's noble savage? Locke's pre societal man? The conception of the ancients or the moderns? Maybe Christian man, or homo economicus. The point being that there is no understood concept of what human nature is, and to assert that human nature rules is simply an exercise in question begging.

A great line from the Matrix - Understanding in not a prerequisite for acceptance. I don't need to understand human nature to accept it. To ignore it would be a fool's errand.

I'd submit we're not talking theories and concepts here, we're talking reality, which you've stated before, you prefer, so, here goes... and pardon my pedestrian ways, I'm not a learned man when compared to some, but I've lived enough years and seen enough to affirm my viewpoint that "human nature" factors in to how we interact and what usually dictates any given outcome - there is no exception, and there are very few hard and fast rules, because of our individualities.

MY viewpoint, as shaped by the world and experiences I'VE lived. My reality is different than yours, thus, my viewpoint WILL be different than yours - both are valid as they relate to our personal experiences. Mine is no more right than yours, and vice versa. You can argue concepts and theories until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, reality is where we live and die. I don't live my life by "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts", I live by what I've learned through my own baptism of fire (nope, that little old lady SHOULDN'T have been driving the wrong way on the interstate at night with her headlights off and hit us head on, but it happened).

And you, naturally, live your life by your own experiences. That's not a concept or a theory, but a reality.

I'm nice to people, they're usually nice back. I'm an asshole to people, they're usually an asshole back to me. Why is that? Human nature. No need to get all philosophical about it, it manifests itself all day every day since the dawn of time.

Now, back to the intent of the thread... In my opinion, and I reserve the right to be wrong and pleasantly surprised, "our" side, i.e. conservatives, Republicans, whoever is opposed to the ideologies and policies of the newly sworn in administration, should use facts as truth as history and reality have demonstrated, in our arguments against them - pretty basic. Except, we're not dealing with people that share our human nature tendencies. To the left, the ends justify the means, and morality and ethics don't factor in. If they want to accomplish something, they have no problem abandoning decency because they believe that they are in the right. FSA to the goal line by any means necessary.

That notion is reprehensible to most of the like minded people I know - painting with a broad brush and purposefully manipulating the meanings of words to craft a seemingly innocuous, virtuous statement that on it's face seems reasonable, but in fact, insults the opposition to the core. The MSM and their pundits have mastered it, and I'd submit, have radicalized their core consumers to the point of rabid hatred of their opposition. Talk about inciting violence. Hell, we watched it all throughout 2020. But don't believe you're lying eyes or ears, no no no no. You're "mis-characterizing" what this is all about we've been told. Yet, it angers most of us to the bone. And why is that? Human nature? You see wrong, you think it's wrong, but the other side is telling you you're just not smart enough to understand it... so, on top of being lied to, and having elitists talking down to you, now they call you "dumb" without using the actual words. Raise your hand if that pisses you off? Ooops, was that your human nature showing?

And how do they pull it off?

I'd suggest once again - by preying on human nature.

Blah blah blah, wish I could type faster and my hands could keep up with my feeble mind.

Anyway, I don't need to know anything about Rousseau's noble creature or Locke's pre-societal man to know that the opposition has struck a blow to our Republic with their rhetoric, and it's time we stop relying on our plate carriers and AR's, but use truth, facts, history, demonstrable results, and a keen understanding of human nature to win the upcoming battles against them and their ideas.

Gotta take the dog out, back in a bit. Your turn.

 

[theLBC]

Remind me please......what was LBJs quote?

Perhaps I'm getting too close to the X with you @theLBC but why haven't interned American citizens of the WWII period, peeps that also got a full UnConstitutional fucking, ever been used as weapons by the DemoCommunists?

George Takei seems to be the only one beating that drum but he grinds a few axes.....seems to be his thing.

i don't understand your question.
the japanese were interned by executive order from a democrat scum racist. you think dems can use this?

george is not that different from the shit stuck to his dick.

 

[Choid]

A great line from the Matrix - Understanding in not a prerequisite for acceptance. I don't need to understand human nature to accept it. To ignore it would be a fool's errand.

I'd submit we're not talking theories and concepts here, we're talking reality, which you've stated before, you prefer, so, here goes... and pardon my pedestrian ways, I'm not a learned man when compared to some, but I've lived enough years and seen enough to affirm my viewpoint that "human nature" factors in to how we interact and what usually dictates any given outcome - there is no exception, and there are very few hard and fast rules, because of our individualities.

MY viewpoint, as shaped by the world and experiences I'VE lived. My reality is different than yours, thus, my viewpoint WILL be different than yours - both are valid as they relate to our personal experiences. Mine is no more right than yours, and vice versa. You can argue concepts and theories until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, reality is where we live and die. I don't live my life by "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts", I live by what I've learned through my own baptism of fire (nope, that little old lady SHOULDN'T have been driving the wrong way on the interstate at night with her headlights off and hit us head on, but it happened).

And you, naturally, live your life by your own experiences. That's not a concept or a theory, but a reality.

I'm nice to people, they're usually nice back. I'm an asshole to people, they're usually an asshole back to me. Why is that? Human nature. No need to get all philosophical about it, it manifests itself all day every day since the dawn of time.

Now, back to the intent of the thread... In my opinion, and I reserve the right to be wrong and pleasantly surprised, "our" side, i.e. conservatives, Republicans, whoever is opposed to the ideologies and policies of the newly sworn in administration, should use facts as truth as history and reality have demonstrated, in our arguments against them - pretty basic. Except, we're not dealing with people that share our human nature tendencies. To the left, the ends justify the means, and morality and ethics don't factor in. If they want to accomplish something, they have no problem abandoning decency because they believe that they are in the right. FSA to the goal line by any means necessary.

That notion is reprehensible to most of the like minded people I know - painting with a broad brush and purposefully manipulating the meanings of words to craft a seemingly innocuous, virtuous statement that on it's face seems reasonable, but in fact, insults the opposition to the core. The MSM and their pundits have mastered it, and I'd submit, have radicalized their core consumers to the point of rabid hatred of their opposition. Talk about inciting violence. Hell, we watched it all throughout 2020. But don't believe you're lying eyes or ears, no no no no. You're "mis-characterizing" what this is all about we've been told. Yet, it angers most of us to the bone. And why is that? Human nature? You see wrong, you think it's wrong, but the other side is telling you you're just not smart enough to understand it... so, on top of being lied to, and having elitists talking down to you, now they call you "dumb" without using the actual words. Raise your hand if that pisses you off? Ooops, was that your human nature showing?

And how do they pull it off?

I'd suggest once again - by preying on human nature.

Blah blah blah, wish I could type faster and my hands could keep up with my feeble mind.

Anyway, I don't need to know anything about Rousseau's noble creature or Locke's pre-societal man to know that the opposition has struck a blow to our Republic with their rhetoric, and it's time we stop relying on our plate carriers and AR's, but use truth, facts, history, demonstrable results, and a keen understanding of human nature to win the upcoming battles against them and their ideas.

Gotta take the dog out, back in a bit. Your turn.

I basically agree with everything you said, especially that we need to start fighting back with our brains and our words, but my comment was meant to point out something you already did in your post. We all have different understandings of what human nature is, which makes it difficult to appeal to it as a universal truth. But that is quite a conundrum, isn't it? We are appealing to something that we believe to be universal, but we all have a different view of what it is. Rosseau's or Locke's or whomever's doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters is that they are different, just like yours and mine.

If I were to point to a moment when this all went wrong, I would point to Herbert Marcuse, and his understanding that the best way to disrupt American society was through sexuality. Before 1960 or so, nobody really equated their fundamental nature with their sexual behavior, and America was basically a pretty prudish nation. We believed in freedom, hard work, etc. These were what we saw as the essential nature of good life. Marcuse sought to turn that on its head, and what we see now is that, to the left, the entire concept of our freedom, and our nature, is embodied in our sexuality. My wife likes to call this a decadent society that sees freedom as being "what drugs you take before you fuck, who you fuck, and how to kill your baby after you fuck." Crude but to the point. While there are other things they preach, the great trick of the left is turning our countries understanding of human nature into these three things. Note that while they talk a lot about race, their most potent tactic for changing young minds is marijuana legalization, her point number one.

Anyway, this seems off topic, but it isn't. My contention is that the left has been so successful because they have redefined what a society sees as the core of the human, human nature itself. And I would tell you that it is useless simply to appeal to human nature as why things have to be a certain way, because our current understanding of human nature, frankly, sucks balls. Maybe that is what we need to fight for, which is what I meant by the earlier comment was question begging. The most important question, really, is what is it, and how do we make others see it our way.

I have a lot more to say about this, but it is probably boring to everybody but me, so I will leave it there unless prompted to continue.

 

[Rthur]

As referred to in this thread about nature.
The weak and maimed are left for dead.
Are you sure you want to use nature as an example of rules?

R

 

[HiDesertELR]

I basically agree with everything you said, especially that we need to start fighting back with our brains and our words, but my comment was meant to point out something you already did in your post. We all have different understandings of what human nature is, which makes it difficult to appeal to it as a universal truth. But that is quite a conundrum, isn't it? We are appealing to something that we believe to be universal, but we all have a different view of what it is. Rosseau's or Locke's or whomever's doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters is that they are different, just like yours and mine.

If I were to point to a moment when this all went wrong, I would point to Herbert Marcuse, and his understanding that the best way to disrupt American society was through sexuality. Before 1960 or so, nobody really equated their fundamental nature with their sexual behavior, and America was basically a pretty prudish nation. We believed in freedom, hard work, etc. These were what we saw as the essential nature of good life. Marcuse sought to turn that on its head, and what we see now is that, to the left, the entire concept of our freedom, and our nature, is embodied in our sexuality. My wife likes to call this a decadent society that sees freedom as being "what drugs you take before you fuck, who you fuck, and how to kill your baby after you fuck." Crude but to the point. While there are other things they preach, the great trick of the left is turning our countries understanding of human nature into these three things. Note that while they talk a lot about race, their most potent tactic for changing young minds is marijuana legalization, her point number one.

Anyway, this seems off topic, but it isn't. My contention is that the left has been so successful because they have redefined what a society sees as the core of the human, human nature itself. And I would tell you that it is useless simply to appeal to human nature as why things have to be a certain way, because our current understanding of human nature, frankly, sucks balls. Maybe that is what we need to fight for, which is what I meant by the earlier comment was question begging. The most important question, really, is what is it, and how do we make others see it our way.

I have a lot more to say about this, but it is probably boring to everybody but me, so I will leave it there unless prompted to continue.

Fuck, you type fast!

 

[pmclaine]

i don't understand your question.
the japanese were interned by executive order from a democrat scum racist. you think dems can use this?

george is not that different from the shit stuck to his dick.

Ha ha.....

There is an aggrieved population that was injured for racist reasons.

I would think as part of their divide and conquer methodology they would want to try to create a voting block there.

Issue is that segment of Americans is way conservative and not ever willing to sell their autonomy for govt servitude.

I think Trump really dented the communist wall of the racial voting identity.

First Republican in about 60 years to increase support from traditionally communist voters.

As an aside the breadth of the Internment order of Japanese, Italian and German citizens was disgusting but what is not preached these days is that there were also events that somewhat backed the hysteria. In WWI German saboteurs took out an ammunition dock in New York, Pearl Harbor had the Niihau Incident that was kept secret for a long time.

What happened to west coast Japanese was tragedy though that has never been made whole. I could only imagine the value in todays dollars of the possessions they lost. The $24K or so they were paid in the 80s isnt close to cutting it.

How did they respond?

They became the 442nd RCT and kicked some serious ass for the country that wronged them.


Edit/add - If you are not familiar with LBJs quote regarding gaining votes for 200 years its reprehensible and shows the true nature of political party politics......That fucking douche would have meeting with subordinates while he was on the shitter just to make them feel small. Also stole a silver star for himself when guys were bleeding for theirs.

 

[theLBC]

Ha ha.....

There is an aggrieved population that was injured for racist reasons.

I would think as part of their divide and conquer methodology they would want to try to create a voting block there.

Issue is that segment of Americans is way conservative and not ever willing to sell their autonomy for govt servitude.

I think Trump really dented the communist wall of the racial voting identity.

First Republican in about 60 years to increase support from traditionally communist voters.

As an aside the breadth of the Internment order of Japanese, Italian and German citizens was disgusting but what is not preached these days is that there were also events that somewhat backed the hysteria. In WWI German saboteurs took out an ammunition dock in New York, Pearl Harbor had the Niihau Incident that was kept secret for a long time.

What happened to west coast Japanese was tragedy though that has never been made whole. I could only imagine the value in todays dollars of the possessions they lost. The $24K or so they were paid in the 80s isnt close to cutting it.

How did they respond?

They became the 442nd RCT and kicked some serious ass for the country that wronged them.

Edit/add - If you are not familiar with LBJs quote regarding gaining votes for 200 years its reprehensible and shows the true nature of political party politics......That fucking douche would have meeting with subordinates while he was on the shitter just to make them feel small. Also stole a silver star for himself when guys were bleeding for theirs.

i hardly believe they could use their own racist atrocities to get support.

my uncle was one, but i'll take no credit for his loyalty or bravery.

i thing that irks me is that the nazi party was parading through the streets of chicago while my relatives were being rounded up like enemies.

 

[pmclaine]

i hardly believe they could use their own racist atrocities to get support.

my uncle was one, but i'll take no credit for his loyalty or bravery.

i thing that irks me is that the nazi party was parading through the streets of chicago while my relatives were being rounded up like enemies.

Camp Siegfried - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This Former Nazi Neighborhood on Long Island with Adolf Hitler Street Still Exists - Untapped New York

A planned community in Yaphank, Long Island replete with an indoctrination Camp Siegfried was amidst streets named after Hitler, Goering, and Goebbel.

untappedcities.com

New York enclave finally ends Nazi-era policies

YAPHANK, N.Y. — An enclave of former summer bungalows, where Nazi sympathizers once proudly marched near streets named for Adolf Hitler and other Third Reich figures, is being forced to end policie…

nypost.com

And just an add to my last.....

Black families at one point were as conservative as could be.....being a larger population the Dems worked to cultivate bringing them into their sphere and destroyed their independence. Not all but some.

 

[Choid]

Fuck, you type fast!

You should hear how fast I talk.

 

[The King]

The entire Democratic position is ALSO a position of human nature.

The inevitable rise of evil is one of our very very human behaviors, and every society has seen this rise of evil since before history was written down.

Hell, the Constitution of the United States could easily be construed as a device meant to make evil people fight each other until evil eventually won 100% and the people were forced to act as the fourth branch of government.

Its all just part of the same machine, two sides to the same coin.

It will continue to spin until we finally figure out how to perfectly kill every last living thing on the Earth. Which is the true next evolution of this story. I'm sure the astronauts on the ISS will be pissed.

 

[PusherX11]

 

[theLBC]

i think he would win.

 

[PusherX11]

i think he would win.

With out a doubt! And POTUS again after 4 years of a fucking!

 

[UKDslayer]

Democrats have spent 150 years trying to talk the Black population into forgetting that they were the ones who actually enslaved them ... by creating welfare handouts that have enslaved them again.

Isn't ironic that the VP's family had over 200 slaves in their Jamaican sugar Plantations? (It's fact so it should be OK to post)

 

[UKDslayer]

i think he would win.

If we get some software writers and hackers, lots of last minute printers...

 

[OldSalty2]

Ladies and gentlemen, no need to worry, things are already better...

America's mood has improved on coronavirus, jobs, and more as President Biden era begins

Yahoo Finance, in conjunction with The Harris Poll, has been asking Americans about their outlook on the future since last summer.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[BullGear]

Ladies and gentlemen, no need to worry, things are already better...

America's mood has improved on coronavirus, jobs, and more as President Biden era begins

Yahoo Finance, in conjunction with The Harris Poll, has been asking Americans about their outlook on the future since last summer.

finance.yahoo.com

Of course. I'm surprised there's not rainbows over ever major city in America.

 

[WDN-K-9]

Ladies and gentlemen, no need to worry, things are already better...

America's mood has improved on coronavirus, jobs, and more as President Biden era begins

Yahoo Finance, in conjunction with The Harris Poll, has been asking Americans about their outlook on the future since last summer.

finance.yahoo.com

Wonder if that poll included the.... what, couple grand.....of pipeline workers he put out of work on his first day.....

 

[Snuby642]

A halt to fencing out crime and disease.

Will probably pay mexico to tare it down .

Fuck joe and the ho.

 

[HiDesertELR]

Albeit a left leaning source, again, using their resources against them... article works both ways

​

The power of framing: It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it​

The power of framing: It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it

The 2016 election and a wealth of psychological data show how much our reasoning can be influenced by how information is framed

www.theguardian.com

 

[SilentStalkr]

I basically agree with everything you said, especially that we need to start fighting back with our brains and our words, but my comment was meant to point out something you already did in your post. We all have different understandings of what human nature is, which makes it difficult to appeal to it as a universal truth. But that is quite a conundrum, isn't it? We are appealing to something that we believe to be universal, but we all have a different view of what it is. Rosseau's or Locke's or whomever's doesn't matter at all, the only thing that matters is that they are different, just like yours and mine.

If I were to point to a moment when this all went wrong, I would point to Herbert Marcuse, and his understanding that the best way to disrupt American society was through sexuality. Before 1960 or so, nobody really equated their fundamental nature with their sexual behavior, and America was basically a pretty prudish nation. We believed in freedom, hard work, etc. These were what we saw as the essential nature of good life. Marcuse sought to turn that on its head, and what we see now is that, to the left, the entire concept of our freedom, and our nature, is embodied in our sexuality. My wife likes to call this a decadent society that sees freedom as being "what drugs you take before you fuck, who you fuck, and how to kill your baby after you fuck." Crude but to the point. While there are other things they preach, the great trick of the left is turning our countries understanding of human nature into these three things. Note that while they talk a lot about race, their most potent tactic for changing young minds is marijuana legalization, her point number one.

Anyway, this seems off topic, but it isn't. My contention is that the left has been so successful because they have redefined what a society sees as the core of the human, human nature itself. And I would tell you that it is useless simply to appeal to human nature as why things have to be a certain way, because our current understanding of human nature, frankly, sucks balls. Maybe that is what we need to fight for, which is what I meant by the earlier comment was question begging. The most important question, really, is what is it, and how do we make others see it our way.

I have a lot more to say about this, but it is probably boring to everybody but me, so I will leave it there unless prompted to continue.

By all means, you and @HiDesertELR continue.

 

[theLBC]

share this with female liberals you know.

 

[Snuby642]

Talking to liberals?

Is that even a thing ?

 

[BullGear]

Talking to liberals?

Is that even a thing ?

Talking to them, yes. Having them understand and comprehend is a definite NO.

 

[addertooth]

Of humans, and human nature. We have three tiers of human nature (as pointed out earlier). Those who read Asimov's "Foundation" series of books, might recognize a bit of Hari Seldon in this commentary.

(Group 1) We have the nature of a single person, it is very random and chaotic. The person to person differences is huge.
However, the acts of a single person are easy to correct. If ONE many decides to riot, he is easily stopped. Those actions are VERY unpredictable.

(Group 2) We have the nature of Geographical/Social/Political/Ethnic groups, which is far more homogeneous than the nature of a single person.
The acts of a large group are much harder to correct, and they usually create an environment where their leaders are afraid to disenfranchise them. The behavior of this group is fairly predictable.
There are many different "Group 2 elements". Two common ones are those of liberal thought, and those of conservative though. Each of these groups act differently to the same stimulus, but within their own group, they are fairly consistent in their responses.

(Group 3) We have the nature of humanity as a whole, this represents the "center of mass" of the whole of human response.
The acts of this group are impossible to stop in the long-term, but they tend to be fueled by basic needs such as food, shelter, etc.
The responses and behavior of this group is Highly Predictable.

Perhaps the most dynamic of the three is the Group 2 series. This is where primary cultural differences are seen. Those differences are often dramatic. Each cultural group creates a "local leadership dynamic" which reflects the group it governs. Large cities often seek leaders who will capitulate to the apparent and overt desires of the masses, even if they are harmful TO the whole. That leadership will tolerate harm to a person, if it pleases the overt masses. Smaller towns tend to take the reverse view, the rights of a person is more protected, even if a group exists which wants to create harm. Case in point: We saw more damaging rioting, looting and arson in major cities, than in small towns. The concerns of the property owner in large cities was waved away by local leadership, as they did not want to upset the emotions of the very group creating the damage. They asked enforcement to either do nothing, stand back, or use less effective methods to stop the riots. The unruly masses voted in leadership which was more likely to be permissive, and thus, was less protective of the rights of an individual.

Even Group 2 dynamics are predictable. This is an example of two different Group 2 responses (responses are entirely based upon the group they are in). Should a White man, while in the process of committing a felony, get badly handled or shot by the police... there will be no rioting. Many conservative people would think "he took a risk, and was seeking to harm others for personal gain, and is unworthy of sympathy or a mass display of concern". We may be saddened by the loss of a life, but it does not rise to the level of burning down our neighbor's business (which had nothing to do with the police shooting). Certainly nobody is Rioting for the woman shot and killed by the Capitol Police on January 6th. But many will tell you they felt the force used was excessive. Other Group 2 populations respond in a very different fashion, but their behavior is true and repeatable across the USA (the examples of this are too numerous to list here).

For all of those who list the general models of human behavior above (Rousseau, Pascal, etc)... those are all Group 3 interpretations of behavior. We have all seen that Group 2 has a more immediate impact on our society at large. The larger the size of a Group 2 unit, the greater the impact. The Press has the huge power to emphasize or diminish any Group 2 following (example: the rise in power of the Nazi ideology in Germany). In the short term, Group 2 types, will remain to be the greatest problem for our society over the next few decades. As a nation, they will be the most destructive. I am sure that even the fictional Hari Seldon would struggle with this mighty problem. From a personal perspective, I may not be able to build a bulldozer, but I can spot one with great reliability.

 

[The King]

I read a rebuttal of the consipiracy theory today that said. - “Name one conspiracy that actually worked out.”.

If someone says that to you, one answer is “Every communist country that has ever existed was either a republic or a monarchy before they became a communist country. And the very action of converting them was carried on the backs of a conspiracy. A successful one. So the most successful type of conspiracy ever is the conversion of a good model of governance into a communist dictatorship - which is exactly the conspiracy we are asserting is in play here.”

 

[Snuby642]

I'm not entirely sure the left can be deprogramed. They would need cognitive thought first. Seriously most of them are not worth trying to salvage.

I believe it would be more effective to deplatform them.

Figure out ways to disrupt and ruin thier party. We need to divide them and hurt thier finances.

We need to boycott and financially hurt companies that have supported them, not ask for them to change but tell them to F-off and do buisiness elsewhere not to ever return.

Stop enabiling democrats at work, in the community and in your life including relatives and family.

 

[addertooth]

They are a fragile alliance made of diverse groups which normally could not tolerate each other. Already Biden has disenfranchised BLM, by refusing to hand them the keys to a cabinet position. They feel hurt that they did so much to help Biden, and got nothing for the deal. Biden has displeased many feminists, by reversing the protections that were put in place for female athletes.

It would be classical psyops to pit the GBLT community against the feminists, and to repeatedly (constantly) remind BLM of how they were used and discarded. Also, amplify Antifa's current concerns that the Democratic Cities that gave them a free ride without prison sentences are now cracking down on them, and their Democratic cohorts have now betrayed them as well. The Unions have also learned Biden will throw them under the bus as well, to achieve a policy goal.


Alliances between such different groups are easy to crack, and with Trump out of the office, the very mortar which bound them together is fading away.

 

[Snuby642]

True, thier hatred of President Trump was what bound them.

Joe and the ho made more than the normal amount of empty promises.

A rash of poor decisions come from thier camp by the day.

Now the dumdasses that are actually conscious will see, but that is a small minority of the communist sheep.

 

[HiDesertELR]

Posting for reference material - pretty good read. Click on the Download PDF blue button on right to access full article.

(PDF) Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations

PDF | How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

I understand the desire to not engage them and de-platform them, believe me I do... but first, I'm subscribing to the following, which compels me to understand them in order to engage them effectively:

 

[fx77]

FWIW, UBI is preferable to a lot of other social programs. Milton Friedman wrote a lot about this and why. It is problematic when it is in addition to other programs, but by itself it shouldn't be so quickly discarded.

UBI will be wastefully spent by impulsive recipients...then what ? Give a raise??

 

[Davo308]

A few years ago, there was a movement among gun owners to "take liberals shooting", that is teach them to shoot, how the gun purchasing process goes, etc.

The rationale was they would see that guns arent as bad as they thought, and that it would change their thinking.

I did this numerous times.

Later on, if the topic of political elections, etc came up they would enthusiastically declair their intention to vote for an obama, hillary, bernie, or biden. Many of them had purchased guns after I had taught them. They voted for the people who promised to take away.their guns.

Obviously this didnt work. Sure, you can make the case that more people owning more guns is good for.the 2nd but the bottom line is a lot of people have no interest in being deprogrammed.

More recently, hundreds of thousands of union members voted for Biden, even after he told them he was.going to end their jobs. The unions actually endorsed Biden. His first day in office he cut down those jobs and the retarded union issued a statement that they were dissapointed that he did exactly what he told them he was going to do.

This is besides the illegals hes welcoming who will only undercut union jobs further.

Point is these people aren't interested in reality. They want to live in lies.

 

[obk]

It might be worth trying to organize this by specific topic of what you're providing a counter-narrative for, including a bit of detail on the narrative being countered that's more than the common straw-man. The way this is shaping up it reads more like specific links and resources to make points already popular with the right and less like anything that would deconstruct arguments from the left in a way that makes the right more appealing. Seems unlikely that you'll find clever tactics in this framework, but I can see how it's a resource for the already converted.