@matrix you follow Richard Spencer's Twitter account, don't you haha
This article is kinda retarded.
>Historically, the American right was better than the left on economics
Uh, no lol
Reagan destroyed the American economy over the long-term.
FDR (Democrat) for example was the guy who birthed the massive "economic boom" that this guy still sips off of. It was the "high IQ C(r)apitalists" of his day who were against him.
> "Trump was elected largely because he was the anti-woke candidate"
DEI policies are better than fake "meritocracy" (which is just Trumpian nepotism), all things considered. And I DON'T have a soft-spot for DEI. And Trump is doing all the "woke" shit x10 (especially with regards to freedom of speech).
> "The goal is to bring about a better world."
The guy who's bashing "MAGA-Communism" for unworkable utopianism wrote that...
> 1975
Why is he focusing on that date rather arbitrarily? Bruh...
"Domestically, Ford (Republican) presided over the worst economy in the four decades since the Great Depression, with growing inflation and a recession."
> Trickle-down economics bullshit that one doesn't even have to get into to say how it's stupid
> We need elites/"long march through the institutions"
Yes and no. Like in the period before the French Revolution, it depends on what these "elites" believe and how strongly they believe in it.
> It will set the stage for a left-wing backlash
This guy is trying to scapegoat Trump for the coming decline of retard "right-wing" globalism even though his "high IQ C(r)apitalist" views are part of the reason why Trump got elected in the first place (failings of C(r)apitalism providing for the ordinary man).
> "Using Trumpian means to undo what Trump did"
So is this guy against Trumpism, or for it?
> Shpeel about "Pax Americana" where America did nothing wrong, ever, and everyone loves America around the world yadda yadda bullshit "rules based order" "free market"
I'm not saying another world hegemon should rise, or that they'd do a better job, but this fucking shit that Cofnas wrote sucks. It's like Gadaffi saying "without me, you will become cavemen", even though he was a "tyrant" himself.
"Right-wingers" love this stupid concept of "freedom", but then tie it with "comfort", which means that it's not actual freedom. It is the "freedom" that is given (not taken) to a slave.
@Aldo2 No, Spencer is either a glowie or a retard. I follow Cofnas.
The right is better on economics in principle, however the Republicans don't always follow RW ecomics (they like cutting taxes, but not reducing spending -> inflation).
FDR's term was followed by a post WW2 boom. Generally Dem or Rep in the WH has very little effect on the economy (unless he does something retarded like Trump).
>DEI policies are better than fake "meritocracy"
kinda, it's like saying shooting yourself once is preferable to shooting yourself twice. However you are presenting a false dichotomy.
>"without me, you will become cavemen"
the unfortunate reality is that this is more true than it is false. Power vacuums simply cannot exist. It's not about US being a good boy who dindu nuthin'.
And people do generally view US positively.
Did you read the article?
>depends on what these "elites" believe and how strongly they believe in it.
That's what Cofnas is saying
>is this guy against Trumpism
The implication of that paragraph is that it's bad. It's destruction outweighing the fixing actual problems.
>failings of C(r)apitalism providing for the ordinary man
objectively that's simply false, you have that in the article.
> "Better in principle" but not in practice, ergo, it doesn't work in "reality" (Cofnas is obsessed with "living in reality")
> "False dichotomy" I didn't say it was an either or. I said that one is better to pursue than the other, just looking at it objectively. I'd rather have a society that prides itself on "egalitarianism" than one based on "yes men" (Trump's "yes men" are also very "diverse" as well, which is an irony in of itself).
> "Might makes right". This theory is cancerous nonsense that never works out long-term (the "mighty" always fall, either due to their own hubris or due to their victims ganging up on them). "Unfortunate reality" my ass. It's the "reality" that sociopaths made and then sold to their people to try and justify their behavior.
> "Depends on elites". Cofnas is saying that he supports elites who want to perpetuate the very same system that led to Trump in the first place (unequal C(r)apitalism), thereby repeating the same cycle. Hardly "elites" worth supporting for their "care for society" nor "elites" with good, forward-thinking ideas. If anything, they are backward-thinking. Those same "elites" were dragged before the guillotine in France for being secret Royalists. Foreshadowing?
> "The implication...". He is against Trump, then for Trump, then against him, then for him, then against... As I wrote earlier, he wants to perpetuate the system that we have now. Trump, in his view, wants to destroy the system. Both are bad, obviously. But there is nothing here about "reform" or "fixing" the problem. THAT is the issue. The system needs to be reformed so that the ordinary man can benefit again (like under FDR; a "New Deal"). Cofnas argues that just revert to "default" and go back to Reaganism (under "high IQ C(r)apitalists") will solve the issues (even though Reaganism destroyed the American economy and society in the long-term).
> "Objectively that's simply false". This is like Stephen Pinker saying violent conflicts have decreased and then cooking the numbers and refusing to give a concrete definition of "violence" to suit his thesis. "Source: Heritage Foundation", I mean come the fuck on.
Even then, any "good" that has happened in the last 50 + years has been brought about by (some) Democrats regulating the excesses of C(r)apitalism, not because of Republicans removing regulation and making the market more pro-C(r)apitalist and libertarian-oriented (Thiel/Musk axis).
