This is what I think when I see the words "Make America Great Again!"

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

(I posted half of this text in another thread, but I feel it deserved its own thread)

People keep saying when did America used to be great and they point to various periods be it before or after the Civil War, or the 1950s just after World War 2, and what have you. But this is what I think when I see the words "Make America Great Again"

I'd say deep down its the William McKinley/Teddy Roosevelt era where at that point the USA essentially became an overseas Empire. The whole construction of the Panama Canal, the victory and spoils of the Spanish-American War, along with the whole general "Manifest Destiny" rhetoric. I mean the US at that time were going as far as to potentially annex Canada since it was part of the plan along with taking Alaska, but of course history showed that it was an impossibility.

What do you guys think?

I think of both the 1950s and 1980s. The 1950s due to it being a period of unprecedented economic growth and infrastructure projects that actually gave incredible returns on investment rather then what we have today where any returns are debatable on most projects, while in the 1980s we saw the cultural and economic stagnation of the 70s turned around. Funny enough I'd say Eisenhower (who was and still remains the best president in US history), Reagan and Trump have a lot in common even if ideologically they are all different from each other, namely they where someone who came from outside the establishment (yes I know Reagan was governor of California, but he wasn't a traditional republican even then), shuck up the party and set it down a new path that reflected the reality of that time period.

Zontar:
I think of both the 1950s and 1980s. The 1950s due to it being a period of unprecedented economic growth and infrastructure projects that actually gave incredible returns on investment rather then what we have today where any returns are debatable on most projects, while in the 1980s we saw the cultural and economic stagnation of the 70s turned around. Funny enough I'd say Eisenhower (who was and still remains the best president in US history), Reagan and Trump have a lot in common even if ideologically they are all different from each other, namely they where someone who came from outside the establishment (yes I know Reagan was governor of California, but he wasn't a traditional republican even then), shuck up the party and set it down a new path that reflected the reality of that time period.

Did a decline happened in the 1990s or that was a plateau decade?

Samtemdo8:

Did a decline happened in the 1990s or that was a plateau decade?

It was a decline in terms of what came before it since growth wasn't anywhere near the level it was in the 80s. Though it was a much safer decade due to crime rates collapsing, but I personally subscribe to the idea that it was because those most likely to commit that crime where never born to begin with due to the legalisation of abortion two decades earlier.

Personally I think of the roaring twenties. The economy is doing good for the moment, even if the common person isn't doing that great, no one gives a fuck about minorities or LGBT people, and while things are good for the moment it's steaming right along for a crash because of short sighted greed.

I think it depends on sides, and thus favourable presidents from your side. FDR being one for the Left and Reagan for the Right. I in particular picked both of those because of their fascists leanings and that pretty much sums my feelings on it. MAGA is more about forcing your political opponents to follow your ideals. McCarthyism is the clear reason why the 1950s is so popular, along with what Zontar stated about it. 1920 was just off the first Red Scare and had a pre-cursor Lavender. So much so that homosexuals etc were pretty much underground. But since Prohibition turned many people underground for their drinking, this was actually fortuitous for homosexuals and other minority as the general population got to know them. Drag Queens became incredibly popular

Two possible candidates:

-the time period before 1773: no SJWs polluting harbors and real men paying their taxes

-the time period before 1492: illegal immigration is limited to a few Scandinavians

Nope. I can't think of a time America was Great™. For every good thing that was better, there were two that were worse in general. Just the tangible threat of a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War makes the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's perfect candidates for the top decades of "No thanks Never Again!".

Zontar:
I think of both the 1950s and 1980s. The 1950s due to it being a period of unprecedented economic growth and infrastructure projects that actually gave incredible returns on investment rather then what we have today where any returns are debatable on most projects, while in the 1980s we saw the cultural and economic stagnation of the 70s turned around. Funny enough I'd say Eisenhower (who was and still remains the best president in US history), Reagan and Trump have a lot in common even if ideologically they are all different from each other, namely they where someone who came from outside the establishment (yes I know Reagan was governor of California, but he wasn't a traditional republican even then), shuck up the party and set it down a new path that reflected the reality of that time period.

And exactly which populations did the 50's and 80's benefit?

Zontar:
I think of both the 1950s and 1980s. The 1950s due to it being a period of unprecedented economic growth and infrastructure projects that actually gave incredible returns on investment rather then what we have today where any returns are debatable on most projects, while in the 1980s we saw the cultural and economic stagnation of the 70s turned around. Funny enough I'd say Eisenhower (who was and still remains the best president in US history), Reagan and Trump have a lot in common even if ideologically they are all different from each other, namely they where someone who came from outside the establishment (yes I know Reagan was governor of California, but he wasn't a traditional republican even then), shuck up the party and set it down a new path that reflected the reality of that time period.

To be fair American's prosperity was because A. the rest of the world was in ruins and factories could afford to pay living wages to workers because they had no competition in their markets and B. soldiers returning from WW2 got free college thanks to the GI Bill.

So it was good because of high living wages and a socialist program for free college.

Also of note the 50s weren't that great for women, minorities, gays or anyone not a straight white christian male.

Nielas:
Two possible candidates:

-the time period before 1173: no SJWs polluting harbors and real men paying their taxes

-the time period before 1492: illegal immigration is limited to a few Scandinavians

okay. I don't get the 1173 reference

Silentpony:
Also of note the 50s weren't that great for women, minorities, gays or anyone not a straight white christian male.

I believe that this is the point. In fact, straight white Christian men not having privileges over everyone else is white genocide

trunkage:

Silentpony:
Also of note the 50s weren't that great for women, minorities, gays or anyone not a straight white christian male.

I believe that this is the point. In fact, straight white Christian men not having privileges over everyone else is white genocide

That's... a gross misrepresentation of the idea. Look, I might not like the white supremacists but lets at least be honest about what their ideas are so they can be properly debunked, posting strawmen does nothing to foil them. They believe in a "replacement" idea of genocide, that is, white people will be outbred into a minority by immigration and birth rates.

Now, when considering this, and looking at some data, birth rate declines strongly correspond with increases in wealth over cultures and anything else. If you're more well off you're less likely to have a big family. It's not really genocide, but it's not something that should be handwaved either, lest nations become completely reliant on immigration from outside to make up birth rate declines, or else become like Japan.

The main part where I disagree with the Alt-Right on this is that this is the product of some massive conspiracy, judging by the data, this is a worldwide phenomenon where wealthier regions and classes in various societies have a lower birth rate, Since Europe and North America are the wealthiest regions on earth, it would make sense that it would be concentrated there.

There, I've explained what they actually believe and done a pretty decent job of pulling it down. I hope that helps.

vallorn:

trunkage:

Silentpony:
Also of note the 50s weren't that great for women, minorities, gays or anyone not a straight white christian male.

I believe that this is the point. In fact, straight white Christian men not having privileges over everyone else is white genocide

That's... a gross misrepresentation of the idea. Look, I might not like the white supremacists but lets at least be honest about what their ideas are so they can be properly debunked, posting strawmen does nothing to foil them. They believe in a "replacement" idea of genocide, that is, white people will be outbred into a minority by immigration and birth rates.

Now, when considering this, and looking at some data, birth rate declines strongly correspond with increases in wealth over cultures and anything else. If you're more well off you're less likely to have a big family. It's not really genocide, but it's not something that should be handwaved either, lest nations become completely reliant on immigration from outside to make up birth rate declines, or else become like Japan.

The main part where I disagree with the Alt-Right on this is that this is the product of some massive conspiracy, judging by the data, this is a worldwide phenomenon where wealthier regions and classes in various societies have a lower birth rate, Since Europe and North America are the wealthiest regions on earth, it would make sense that it would be concentrated there.

There, I've explained what they actually believe and done a pretty decent job of pulling it down. I hope that helps.

Racially based nations are an old and out-dated idea that I am fine going away. If one day most 'Japanese people' are of African decent, who cares? (Racists do).

Humanity now is not humanity thousands of years ago, but who cares? We're better now, and hopefully we will be better in the future. (My cynicism says no)

If white people go extinct merely cause of being out-bred or inter-bred with other ethnicities, who cares? (Racists do). Most people only prefer their skin color cause they were born with it.

Culture and traditions are overrated. Just as people grow old and die to make room for the young and new, so must cultures. Cars and the internet, even fire have destroyed and made new cultures, and those cultures will die and make new ones too, and that is a good thing, or else we would all be like the Amish. (And even the Amish were once a new idea)

Saelune:
Racially based nations are an old and out-dated idea that I am fine going away. If one day most 'Japanese people' are of African decent, who cares? (Racists do).

Humanity now is not humanity thousands of years ago, but who cares? We're better now, and hopefully we will be better in the future. (My cynicism says no)

If white people go extinct merely cause of being out-bred or inter-bred with other ethnicities, who cares? (Racists do). Most people only prefer their skin color cause they were born with it.

Indeed, you have a global humanistic viewpoint to this. Nevertheless, would you defend it with something more than "racists do" against people who disagree with your views?

Culture and traditions are overrated. Just as people grow old and die to make room for the young and new, so must cultures. Cars and the internet, even fire have destroyed and made new cultures, and those cultures will die and make new ones too, and that is a good thing, or else we would all be like the Amish. (And even the Amish were once a new idea)

And maybe those young and new cultures move away from ideals you hold dear.

trunkage:

Nielas:
Two possible candidates:

-the time period before 1173: no SJWs polluting harbors and real men paying their taxes

-the time period before 1492: illegal immigration is limited to a few Scandinavians

okay. I don't get the 1173 reference

Stupid typo. :(

It was supposed to be 1773, the year of the Boston Tea Party.

There is no specific period of time when America was "great", because the plea to make America great again trades exclusively on inaccurate and misinformed nostalgia rather than historical fact.

The reality is that the past sucked ass, and most of human history is a story of people improving on the past to make it suck less ass. In terms of quality of life, almost every decade is better than the one that preceded it. The only threat to this otherwise-inevitable bulldozer of human improvement is the people who stop and think about how great things used to be, and why can't things be that great now, and why don't we try to make it that great again? Problem: the past, as stated, sucked ass. If you try to make the future more like the past, all you're gonna do is make the future suck ass.

The future will be what it will be. It doesn't give a shit about your nostalgia. Nostalgia is the immovable object to the unstoppable force of human progress. And like all immovable object/unstoppable force matchups, it makes a ton of noise and hurts your brain if you look at it too hard.

Saelune:
Culture and traditions are overrated. Just as people grow old and die to make room for the young and new, so must cultures. Cars and the internet, even fire have destroyed and made new cultures, and those cultures will die and make new ones too, and that is a good thing, or else we would all be like the Amish. (And even the Amish were once a new idea)

So I assume you also agree with the wiping out of cultures by means of Empire and such? I'm being facetious but I know you don't actually believe that for all cultures, just the ones you don't like.

I mean, there's also a ton of other negatives from having to drain the populations of other countries to make up for your own shortcomings, when you take away all the smart or able-bodied working age people from an area that area won't have anyone to help improve it. I'd rather not brain drain areas of the world and keep them in subsistence farming or industrial revolution era factory jobs forever.

vallorn:

Saelune:
Culture and traditions are overrated. Just as people grow old and die to make room for the young and new, so must cultures. Cars and the internet, even fire have destroyed and made new cultures, and those cultures will die and make new ones too, and that is a good thing, or else we would all be like the Amish. (And even the Amish were once a new idea)

So I assume you also agree with the wiping out of cultures by means of Empire and such? I'm being facetious but I know you don't actually believe that for all cultures, just the ones you don't like.

I mean, there's also a ton of other negatives from having to drain the populations of other countries to make up for your own shortcomings, when you take away all the smart or able-bodied working age people from an area that area won't have anyone to help improve it. I'd rather not brain drain areas of the world and keep them in subsistence farming or industrial revolution era factory jobs forever.

You assume a lot. None of it accurate. I love Japanese culture, but I do not think Samurai have any place in modern society, nor do I think modern Japan needs an Emperor, and as much as I love Japanese culture, they have alot of old and very outdated values that I would love to go away. But I dont live in Japan, so I dont make it a habit to go on about such things.

But go on and claim to 'know' something about me that is just blatantly untrue.

I am a socialist and a globalist that peoples the people of the world should all work to help each other. 'Not my problem' is the bane of humanity.

McElroy:

Saelune:
Racially based nations are an old and out-dated idea that I am fine going away. If one day most 'Japanese people' are of African decent, who cares? (Racists do).

Humanity now is not humanity thousands of years ago, but who cares? We're better now, and hopefully we will be better in the future. (My cynicism says no)

If white people go extinct merely cause of being out-bred or inter-bred with other ethnicities, who cares? (Racists do). Most people only prefer their skin color cause they were born with it.

Indeed, you have a global humanistic viewpoint to this. Nevertheless, would you defend it with something more than "racists do" against people who disagree with your views?

Culture and traditions are overrated. Just as people grow old and die to make room for the young and new, so must cultures. Cars and the internet, even fire have destroyed and made new cultures, and those cultures will die and make new ones too, and that is a good thing, or else we would all be like the Amish. (And even the Amish were once a new idea)

And maybe those young and new cultures move away from ideals you hold dear.

I am saying racists disagree with me. Other people might, but racists definitely do. Really I am putting it on supposed non-racists to prove they oppose it for some reason besides racism. It is not on me to figure that out for them though, is it?

What ideals do you mean? I may complain about the trend of modern music, but I'd rather all music be terrible but all people not be. But if a modern culture of bigotry occurs, then I hope for it to be quickly replaced again with a non-bigoted, fair and equal culture and society. I do not think morality is truly subjective (we may not all agree on what is morally right, but that is because a lot of people are just wrong, and yes, I may be wrong about some of it too).

Saelune:
I am saying racists disagree with me. Other people might, but racists definitely do. Really I am putting it on supposed non-racists to prove they oppose it for some reason besides racism. It is not on me to figure that out for them though, is it?

There is the brain-drain mentioned already. Also related to that: countries that cannot sustain their population growth have no right to spread that lack of sustainability to other places -- they have to stay and fix their shit. Now that might be hard when they don't have as much material goodies as we do. Okay then if the world went into economic altruism mode and spread its wealth evenly, actually nobody would have an incentive to be sustainable, because multiplying would get you more stuff! Well, since these are no-brainers, most people hope it's global ingenuity that will save us through technology. That's fine until you realize it's multinational corporations we would have to trust to do that. So that's for starters.

You say that "Not my problem is the bane of humanity". In my opinion swearing by globalist altruism has the same idea in other words. Everyone else is the problem.

What ideals do you mean? I may complain about the trend of modern music, but I'd rather all music be terrible but all people not be. But if a modern culture of bigotry occurs, then I hope for it to be quickly replaced again with a non-bigoted, fair and equal culture and society. I do not think morality is truly subjective (we may not all agree on what is morally right, but that is because a lot of people are just wrong, and yes, I may be wrong about some of it too).

Even universal morals run into discordance now and then, and that's when priorities clash. For example people aren't going to move to socialism voluntarily, so maybe a tyranny would be required to get it going.

So no one is gonna say anything about my suggested idea of what was "America's Greatest Era" being the William Mickenly/Teddy Roosevelt era?

McElroy:

Saelune:
I am saying racists disagree with me. Other people might, but racists definitely do. Really I am putting it on supposed non-racists to prove they oppose it for some reason besides racism. It is not on me to figure that out for them though, is it?

There is the brain-drain mentioned already. Also related to that: countries that cannot sustain their population growth have no right to spread that lack of sustainability to other places -- they have to stay and fix their shit. Now that might be hard when they don't have as much material goodies as we do. Okay then if the world went into economic altruism mode and spread its wealth evenly, actually nobody would have an incentive to be sustainable, because multiplying would get you more stuff! Well, since these are no-brainers, most people hope it's global ingenuity that will save us through technology. That's fine until you realize it's multinational corporations we would have to trust to do that. So that's for starters.

You say that "Not my problem is the bane of humanity". In my opinion swearing by globalist altruism has the same idea in other words. Everyone else is the problem.

What ideals do you mean? I may complain about the trend of modern music, but I'd rather all music be terrible but all people not be. But if a modern culture of bigotry occurs, then I hope for it to be quickly replaced again with a non-bigoted, fair and equal culture and society. I do not think morality is truly subjective (we may not all agree on what is morally right, but that is because a lot of people are just wrong, and yes, I may be wrong about some of it too).

Even universal morals run into discordance now and then, and that's when priorities clash. For example people aren't going to move to socialism voluntarily, so maybe a tyranny would be required to get it going.

The 'brain-drain' just sounds like some extreme dystopian, somewhat racist unrealistic theory. Most Mexicans aren't trying to get into the US and most US citizens aren't fleeing to Canada. There are a shit ton of people in the world. Seriously, it comes off like 'Too many gay people will doom humanity cause there wont be any children anymore!'. If every single person in the world turned gay, humanity would be fine. Even without science, the desire to have offspring would probably motivate plenty to breed, regardless of the lack of pleasure. (Not trying to go on an LGBT tangent, just trying to point out that I find the notion you and vallorn are suggesting is absurd)

Ya know what? I think it is worth the risk. (Cause we are never going to ever actually get to that point, cause bad people aint going away).

Saelune:

Culture and traditions are overrated.

This right here, this attitude is why globalists lost before anyone even realised there was a fight going on. Like it or not at the end of the day globalists value nothing but the all mighty dollar, and fight for nothing but the all nightly dollar. Oh sure many will claim ideals of equality and liberty, but then they turn around and import their own oppression by replacing the formerly liberal population with a theocratic one, or a hyper traditionalists one, or an otherwise oppressive one, usually in combination.

People are shockingly ignorant about how the demographic change of the West is going to change society, it isn't going to be a socialist paradise where everyone can go hand-in-hand all day and be merry. A white minority America is going to be extremely conservative outside of welfare spending, it's going to be extremely anti-LGBT, it's going to be extremely conservative, and the fact multiculturalism is still being push all these decades after it became an objective failure means these changes need to be accepted rather then assimilated out of these groups.

Globalists lost because they played themselves into a corner where now the only outcome is nationalists winning (which, in the arena of ideas, would be inevitable in a fair fight), or they win, but due to how ultraconservative the nation becomes outside of the sphere of welfare spending, they still loose. The only winner in that scenario is the rich, but then that's what globalism always was: the poor and middle class being broken for the benefit of the rich while using socialists as the foot soldiers to accomplish that task.

History repeats itself once more, Rome is about to fall. Lets hope whoever takes her place rises is that which rises from the ashes instead of the alternative.

I don't think it refers to any specific point in time so much as every point of unhealthy historical nostalgia, meaning the 50s, 80s or 20s depending on how old or far to the right the recipient is, a time where the straight white christian man was percieved as more dominant than in the present, but really it mostly means 'before the Obama years'. It seems pretty obvious to me that Trump didn't take those years very well to put it mildly, viewing his own antequated view of the US as endangered which is presumably what caused him to shed whatever liberal views he was previously pretending to hold in the name of TV ratings in big cities. He is the living embodiment of the conservative backlash that began basically the moment Obama took office

Zontar:

Saelune:

Culture and traditions are overrated.

This right here, this attitude is why globalists lost before anyone even realised there was a fight going on. Like it or not at the end of the day globalists value nothing but the all mighty dollar, and fight for nothing but the all nightly dollar. Oh sure many will claim ideals of equality and liberty, but then they turn around and import their own oppression by replacing the formerly liberal population with a theocratic one, or a hyper traditionalists one, or an otherwise oppressive one, usually in combination.

People are shockingly ignorant about how the demographic change of the West is going to change society, it isn't going to be a socialist paradise where everyone can go hand-in-hand all day and be merry. A white minority America is going to be extremely conservative outside of welfare spending, it's going to be extremely anti-LGBT, it's going to be extremely conservative, and the fact multiculturalism is still being push all these decades after it became an objective failure means these changes need to be accepted rather then assimilated out of these groups.

Globalists lost because they played themselves into a corner where now the only outcome is nationalists winning (which, in the arena of ideas, would be inevitable in a fair fight), or they win, but due to how ultraconservative the nation becomes outside of the sphere of welfare spending, they still loose. The only winner in that scenario is the rich, but then that's what globalism always was: the poor and middle class being broken for the benefit of the rich while using socialists as the foot soldiers to accomplish that task.

History repeats itself once more, Rome is about to fall. Lets hope whoever takes her place rises is that which rises from the ashes instead of the alternative.

All the citations needed.

Saelune:
The 'brain-drain' just sounds like some extreme dystopian, somewhat racist unrealistic theory. Most Mexicans aren't trying to get into the US and most US citizens aren't fleeing to Canada. There are a shit ton of people in the world.

If conditions in a country are unsustainable (as in people can't make a living), it's often the most capable folk that leave, because first of all they understand the situation the best and secondly they know they have the better chance of making it elsewhere let alone surviving the journey. This slows down the development of their own countries AND does nothing to curb overpopulation. Globalism is about the whole world, right? Rich countries can set the example, but letting immigrants escape their poor conditions instead of fixing them isn't the right call. That only helps a few people and as you said the world has a shit ton of people.

Seriously, it comes off like 'Too many gay people will doom humanity cause there wont be any children anymore!'. If every single person in the world turned gay, humanity would be fine. Even without science, the desire to have offspring would probably motivate plenty to breed, regardless of the lack of pleasure. (Not trying to go on an LGBT tangent, just trying to point out that I find the notion you and vallorn are suggesting is absurd)

I... I can't figure out where you're going with this.

Ya know what? I think it is worth the risk. (Cause we are never going to ever actually get to that point, cause bad people aint going away).

What is worth the risk? Something suggested in this thread? Who are the bad people in this equation? Everyone not working for the globalist cause or somebody else? And c'mon, you practically confirm what I wrote about swearing by globalist altruism. This' some paradox shit m8 and I'm not sure I'm following.

Anyway, to boil it down: global humanism seeks to improve human living conditions globally, and that means billions of people "should" have the chance to catch up with developed countries. However, we know that's a lie and most of those people aren't allowed to do it. I think that's the biggest dilemma, which some believe technology will be solve. That brings us to the big corporations, because they have the incentive to truly develop tech globally. After all, more consumers means more business. But we don't want more consumers, and thus we are back at the dilemma.

I'm makes me think of someone trying to pull a fast one, of someone appealing to the worst aspects of america. I'm not talking about just trump, I'm talking about anyone who tries to appeal to nationalism and patriotism with words like these. They are almost only used by conman trying to get you agree to something without a real reason too, its like being proud to be an american but literally only having been born here. If you served or are an elected official then having pride makes some sense, otherwise it is just the happenstance of your birth location.

Saelune:

McElroy:

Saelune:
Racially based nations are an old and out-dated idea that I am fine going away. If one day most 'Japanese people' are of African decent, who cares? (Racists do).

Humanity now is not humanity thousands of years ago, but who cares? We're better now, and hopefully we will be better in the future. (My cynicism says no)

If white people go extinct merely cause of being out-bred or inter-bred with other ethnicities, who cares? (Racists do). Most people only prefer their skin color cause they were born with it.

Indeed, you have a global humanistic viewpoint to this. Nevertheless, would you defend it with something more than "racists do" against people who disagree with your views?

Culture and traditions are overrated. Just as people grow old and die to make room for the young and new, so must cultures. Cars and the internet, even fire have destroyed and made new cultures, and those cultures will die and make new ones too, and that is a good thing, or else we would all be like the Amish. (And even the Amish were once a new idea)

And maybe those young and new cultures move away from ideals you hold dear.

I am saying racists disagree with me. Other people might, but racists definitely do. Really I am putting it on supposed non-racists to prove they oppose it for some reason besides racism. It is not on me to figure that out for them though, is it?

What ideals do you mean? I may complain about the trend of modern music, but I'd rather all music be terrible but all people not be. But if a modern culture of bigotry occurs, then I hope for it to be quickly replaced again with a non-bigoted, fair and equal culture and society. I do not think morality is truly subjective (we may not all agree on what is morally right, but that is because a lot of people are just wrong, and yes, I may be wrong about some of it too).

So, everyone is a racist unless they agree with you, otherwise they have to undergo some kind of inquisition to prove they aren't racists. I'm honestly lost for words.

Eh, I know I'm not a racist though, Race isn't as big of a cultural issue outside the North American bubble anyway, in Europe the dividing lines in society remain Class for example.

Zontar:

Saelune:

Culture and traditions are overrated.

This right here, this attitude is why globalists lost before anyone even realised there was a fight going on. Like it or not at the end of the day globalists value nothing but the all mighty dollar, and fight for nothing but the all nightly dollar. Oh sure many will claim ideals of equality and liberty, but then they turn around and import their own oppression by replacing the formerly liberal population with a theocratic one, or a hyper traditionalists one, or an otherwise oppressive one, usually in combination.

People are shockingly ignorant about how the demographic change of the West is going to change society, it isn't going to be a socialist paradise where everyone can go hand-in-hand all day and be merry. A white minority America is going to be extremely conservative outside of welfare spending, it's going to be extremely anti-LGBT, it's going to be extremely conservative, and the fact multiculturalism is still being push all these decades after it became an objective failure means these changes need to be accepted rather then assimilated out of these groups.

Globalists lost because they played themselves into a corner where now the only outcome is nationalists winning (which, in the arena of ideas, would be inevitable in a fair fight), or they win, but due to how ultraconservative the nation becomes outside of the sphere of welfare spending, they still loose. The only winner in that scenario is the rich, but then that's what globalism always was: the poor and middle class being broken for the benefit of the rich while using socialists as the foot soldiers to accomplish that task.

History repeats itself once more, Rome is about to fall. Lets hope whoever takes her place rises is that which rises from the ashes instead of the alternative.

Have a cup of tea and calm down, that was quite the post to extrapolate from one line,

Saelune:

McElroy:

Saelune:
I am saying racists disagree with me. Other people might, but racists definitely do. Really I am putting it on supposed non-racists to prove they oppose it for some reason besides racism. It is not on me to figure that out for them though, is it?

There is the brain-drain mentioned already. Also related to that: countries that cannot sustain their population growth have no right to spread that lack of sustainability to other places -- they have to stay and fix their shit. Now that might be hard when they don't have as much material goodies as we do. Okay then if the world went into economic altruism mode and spread its wealth evenly, actually nobody would have an incentive to be sustainable, because multiplying would get you more stuff! Well, since these are no-brainers, most people hope it's global ingenuity that will save us through technology. That's fine until you realize it's multinational corporations we would have to trust to do that. So that's for starters.

You say that "Not my problem is the bane of humanity". In my opinion swearing by globalist altruism has the same idea in other words. Everyone else is the problem.

What ideals do you mean? I may complain about the trend of modern music, but I'd rather all music be terrible but all people not be. But if a modern culture of bigotry occurs, then I hope for it to be quickly replaced again with a non-bigoted, fair and equal culture and society. I do not think morality is truly subjective (we may not all agree on what is morally right, but that is because a lot of people are just wrong, and yes, I may be wrong about some of it too).

Even universal morals run into discordance now and then, and that's when priorities clash. For example people aren't going to move to socialism voluntarily, so maybe a tyranny would be required to get it going.

The 'brain-drain' just sounds like some extreme dystopian, somewhat racist unrealistic theory. Most Mexicans aren't trying to get into the US and most US citizens aren't fleeing to Canada. There are a shit ton of people in the world. Seriously, it comes off like 'Too many gay people will doom humanity cause there wont be any children anymore!'. If every single person in the world turned gay, humanity would be fine. Even without science, the desire to have offspring would probably motivate plenty to breed, regardless of the lack of pleasure. (Not trying to go on an LGBT tangent, just trying to point out that I find the notion you and vallorn are suggesting is absurd)

Ya know what? I think it is worth the risk. (Cause we are never going to ever actually get to that point, cause bad people aint going away).

Okay, so let me explain Brain Drain because I don't think you understand it. Essentially, it boils down to the ability of people to move to where they can benefit the most from their skills. lo and behold, usually those with higher education, or notable skills are more able to move around, as are younger people.

Now, people trend towards moving to areas where they can make the most from their skills, this is why even within nations you often see people going for where they think the opportunities are such as booming cities. Extrapolating this to more global scales, and taking into account how immigration and work visa systems always prioritise those with higher education and technical skills, and you can see how the best and brightest of countries are both disproportionally more mobile and, able to emigrate.

This, necessarily leaves many others who might have the intelligence and skills, but not the formal education to prove it, behind. Now, you've skimmed the cream of a population, the people who come up with most new ideas, or implement them.

Essentially that's the basic idea behind brain drain, we've seen it in many circumstances, the North of England is a good example since the demise of industry there meant a dearth of opportunities and many of the kids who could get out, did. It's not some kind of paranoid theory, it's just what happens when people move to more booming areas, the most most mobile are disproportionally going to be able to go for it. I'd frankly rather not impoverish areas of the planet of their most vital resource just to feed an ever hungry, unsustainable system.

Worgen:
I'm makes me think of someone trying to pull a fast one, of someone appealing to the worst aspects of america. I'm not talking about just trump, I'm talking about anyone who tries to appeal to nationalism and patriotism with words like these. They are almost only used by conman trying to get you agree to something without a real reason too, its like being proud to be an american but literally only having been born here. If you served or are an elected official then having pride makes some sense, otherwise it is just the happenstance of your birth location.

90% of modern politics is not "What is true", and is "What can I con the public into believing?" It's quite vile but that's what happens when the demos repeatedly elects demagogues who promise the populace all sorts of impossible (usually "free") things.

Zontar:

People are shockingly ignorant about how the demographic change of the West is going to change society, it isn't going to be a socialist paradise where everyone can go hand-in-hand all day and be merry. A white minority America is going to be extremely conservative outside of welfare spending, it's going to be extremely anti-LGBT, it's going to be extremely conservative, and the fact multiculturalism is still being push all these decades after it became an objective failure means these changes need to be accepted rather then assimilated out of these groups.

...as opposed to a white majority America, which was distinctly all of those things?

McElroy:

Saelune:
The 'brain-drain' just sounds like some extreme dystopian, somewhat racist unrealistic theory. Most Mexicans aren't trying to get into the US and most US citizens aren't fleeing to Canada. There are a shit ton of people in the world.

If conditions in a country are unsustainable (as in people can't make a living), it's often the most capable folk that leave, because first of all they understand the situation the best and secondly they know they have the better chance of making it elsewhere let alone surviving the journey. This slows down the development of their own countries AND does nothing to curb overpopulation. Globalism is about the whole world, right? Rich countries can set the example, but letting immigrants escape their poor conditions instead of fixing them isn't the right call. That only helps a few people and as you said the world has a shit ton of people.

In the same vein, forcing people in poor conditions to stay in said poor conditions to try and make a go of it without, you know, helping?

Sounds like your idea to curb overpopulation is to just let a bunch of people die.

vallorn:

Worgen:
I'm makes me think of someone trying to pull a fast one, of someone appealing to the worst aspects of america. I'm not talking about just trump, I'm talking about anyone who tries to appeal to nationalism and patriotism with words like these. They are almost only used by conman trying to get you agree to something without a real reason too, its like being proud to be an american but literally only having been born here. If you served or are an elected official then having pride makes some sense, otherwise it is just the happenstance of your birth location.

90% of modern politics is not "What is true", and is "What can I con the public into believing?" It's quite vile but that's what happens when the demos repeatedly elects demagogues who promise the populace all sorts of impossible (usually "free") things.

Its fun to say everyone is bad, but really it seems more like one side is primarily attempting to con the populous.

https://www.politicususa.com/2013/05/29/sides-it-study-finds-republicans-lie-times-democrats.html

Samtemdo8:
So no one is gonna say anything about my suggested idea of what was "America's Greatest Era" being the William Mickenly/Teddy Roosevelt era?

I certainly wouldn't disagree with the Roosevelt era as a candidate. All things considered - including the time period, naturally - Roosevelt was a very decent president. He was progressive, reform-minded, a conservationist, committed to regulating monopolies, transportation, and the quality of food and drugs, and willing to negotiate when necessary - if also a bit too willing to use force when possible.

The key thing to remember is that what made presidents like Teddy Roosevelt so "great" was their willingness to pursue a progressive agenda based on bold new ideas that often involved tackling politically entrenched interest groups whose goals were ultimately harmful to the country at large. Regulating the quality and sale of medicinal drugs was necessary for public health, but ran counter to the interests of some very wealthy people whose businesses amounted to selling snake oil cut with cocaine. Antitrust law, consumer protection, and securities regulation - ideas that would be abhorrent to a modern Republican - were all necessary to ensure a fairer economy and a strong middle class, but ran counter to the interests of the burgeoning American plutocrats - whose only goal was to use their personal wealth to influence politics to make it easier for them to amass more personal wealth. (Sound familiar?)

It's that bold willingness to break with old traditions and entrenched interests to pursue a forward-thinking and progressive agenda that made Roosevelt a good president. The people trying to replicate the facile "greatness" of these earlier eras are doomed to fail, because they're ignoring the vital qualities that made those eras "great"; their willingness to let go of the past and start building the future. Rather than build something bold and new, the #MAGA movement is about regressing to an idealised past state when America was "great" - ignoring that the people who made America "great" back then did so by being progressive.

That's what #MAGA pundits like Laura Ingraham or Tucker Carlson either don't recognise or refuse to acknowledge. They spend their time bitching about how America isn't white anymore, and these nefarious Democrats want to change things, and all these immigrants want to come over to America and have children who are citizens and who will grow up and God forbid they vote, and no-one voted to let these brown people in, this is a coup! An invasion! America as we knew it is dead! We need to make America great like it was in those vaguely-defined historical periods when it was great, which it isn't right now!

But how did America get to be great in the first place? Was it by sitting around bitching about kids these days and their weird, radical, un-American ideas like "no taxation without representation" or "all men are created equal"? Because something about that doesn't sound quite right.

vallorn:
Have a cup of tea and calm down, that was quite the post to extrapolate from one line,

image

Sorry man, it's just globalists always get to me whenever they bring up the fact they don't care at all about culture, community, history or family, the things which bind a nation together without which you're nothing but a place that isn't worth living it (which, shock of shocks, leads to white people leaving for places actually worth residing in). Really gets on my nerves when they go so far as to pretend my culture being eradicated is a good thing, and that it's "progress" to see it replaced with ones that are, even by their own stated beliefs, backwards.

Globalists will be remembered as the great evil of our generation, compared to the defeat of fascism in the 40s and communism in the 90s.

altnameJag:
...as opposed to a white majority America, which was distinctly all of those things?

Yes, was, as in past tense, not the present, not the future, not something we have to deal with now or in the time to come, the past, which we are not living in. That's kind of the problem, the very people who claim to be "progressives" are intentionally moving us towards a hyper conservative, highly religious, openly bigoted society that is anti-LGBT, where women are 2nd to men in the law, where racism is the socially acceptable norm, and because the source is a non-white non-western one then we can't complain, "and that's a good thing" as progressive propagandists would say.

Some people would say I'm just barking man, and to them I say that London isn't a fictional place, only it being 1st world is.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here