@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).
@matrix when I say "led to Trump", I'm not just talking about his recent election.
I'm talking about all the way back in 2015/16 and his campaign in 2020.
@Aldo2
>"Better in principle" but not in practice
I forgot that in practice too, but on a state level
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/forty-years-of-economic-freedom-winning
>I didn't say it was an either or
You said you weren't fond of DEI either, which implied a picking between bad and worse.
Society that prides itself on "egalitarianism" is bad, because it's a utopian aspiration based on creationist tier assumptions.
It brings better results simply because it's a belief disproportionally held by elites. As a belief it's destructive, because outside of the naive elites, it fuels/is fueled by ethnic resentment. It too requires yes men willing to ignore that the oppressed don't share your utopian ideals.
>Trump's "yes men" are also very "diverse" as well, which is an irony in of itself
There is no irony. You see it simply because you've built a strawman.
> "Might makes right".
Might doesn't make right, but it's not feasible to have right without might.
>But there is nothing here about "reform" or "fixing" the problem
Yeah, I do kinda that Cofnas doesn't really much offer a way forward. However you simply can't not have elites.
>He is against Trump, then for Trump, then against him, then for him, then against...
Where is he for Trump?
>C(r)apitalism
There's simply no reason to blame capitalism here because the problems you're claiming it causes are either largely exaggerated or not real
>"Source: Heritage foundation"
Cmon you gotta have something better than that
@matrix right now I'm kinda inebriated, but I'll try to answer...
> Richard Hanania. I literally don't have to say any more than that.
> Egalitarianism is utopian but fake "meritocracy" is not.... Egalitarianism is not fueld by ethnic resentment. The originators of egalitarian policy were lilly White European elites (WASPs) who knew they were elite (elite liberals). You're talking about "the oppressed" as if they're a monolithic, which is false. If both require "yes men" and both promote "diversity" then I'd rather have the former than the latter.
> "There is no irony. You see it simply because you've built a strawman". Absolute LOL moment. Trump says that he was bringing back (fake) "meritocracy" because DEI was harmful for efficiency/effectiveness of governance. If there is no difference between the two, why change from DEI?
> "It's not feasible to have right without might". The point is Cofnas is not "right", ergo he doesn't deserve the "might" that comes with it (not that his side has it anymore anyways).
> "There's no reason to blame C(r)apitalism". There is EVERY reason to blame C(r)apitalism.
> Heritage Foundation. It's as good a representation of Cofnas' shitty arguments as any. HF literally huffs their own farts and then passes it off as "independent study".
@Aldo2
>Richard Hanania
Cmon, throw me something
>egalitarianism by WASPs
I know. That's what I said. WASPs have some naive ideals, but sometimes it's self hate and the reason they resonate with the oppressed is because they see it as way to get back at whitey. BLM is that
Lots of migrant crime in Europe is racially motivated.
>not all
They are the same in the eyes of the egalitarian elites.
Obviously, "the oppressed" aren't an united block, but the ones that get lifted up by activists, media etc do have, if not resentment, strong feelings of kinship with their ethic group. And in general are more likely to feel that way than westerners.
>Absolute LOL moment
Diversity as a goal you actively aim for isn't equivalent to diversity as a neutral consequence of policy.
>If there is no difference between the two, why change from DEI?
Because there's a difference between a personal dick sucker and an ideological stooge, even if both weren't hired on merit.
Explain why you can't have a presidency that doesn't support anti white discrimination and also isn't full of president's dick suckers.
>The point is Cofnas is not "right", ergo he doesn't deserve the "might" that comes with it
China or some warlord in some Bumfuckistan aren't right either but they don't give a fuck that they aren't
>There is EVERY reason to blame C(r)apitalism.
You gotta show me some
@matrix Richard Hanania is a guy who changes his opinion every few months. He is an opportunist first and foremost. He thinks of himself as an "elitist" in the same way that Richard Spencer (who positively reviewed Cofnas' piece) does, or Claire Lehmann (who left a comment saying "terrific article!") does, or Cofnas does. They are all the same. Me reading a Richard Hanania article is not going to convince me of anything, except convince me that I was right to disagree with Cofnas.
"Sometimes it's self-hate". It is not self-hate in this case. It was enlightenment, rationalistic pragmatic thinking. DEI came about before "woke" shit or BLM stuff or whatever.
Lol. So because someone is engaging in racially motivated crime, you're blaming White liberals? If White people engage in racially motivated crimes, is that also the fault of White liberals? Sounds like you just don't like WASPs...
"They are the same". Clearly you were projecting when you said I made up a strawman. Trust me when I say the current liberal elite are well-aware of the nuances of "diversity". They play one group against the other all the time!
Of course they have feelings of kinship. They are a minority. You can't expect minorities not to stick to each other. Jfc, this is sociology 1-0-1.
So, in your mind, Trumpian nepotism is better than DEI, even though both in the end have the same results? You think Trumpian nepotism is "neutral"? Again, I'd say Trumpian nepotism is worse.
"There's a difference between the two, even if both weren't hired on merit" susdog.meme. "You can't have a presidency that doesn't support anti-white discrimination and also isn't full of presidential dick-suckers". So you're saying a "pro-White" presidency is naturally not meritocratic in any way?
WASPs aren't pro-diversity to the same degree you think, so having an "idealogical stooge" would actually be less nepotistic than having a "White dick-sucker".
Also, being "pro-White" is also an ideology, just like being pro-DEI. The whole argument for being "pro-White" was a "return to meritocracy". Hundreds of articles were written about this.
"China or some warlord in Bumfuckistan". So you hate the Turd world, but look at them and want to do the same thing? How ironic. Import turd world ideas, become the turd world, no?
"You gotta show me some"
Come the fuck on. This article is from 2016, right after the election. There are hundreds of similar articles, from left-wing and right-wing publications. There are dozens of studies.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02692171.2023.2266331#d1e279
@Aldo2
>opportunist first and foremost
Trump, but in the same way I can just dismiss your Salon article.
>It is not self-hate
It often is. Or empathy one should have for children misplaced towards "oppressed" people. There is no pragmatic reason for subsidizing an unproductive group (ever growing if you consider the entire world), while also opposing ways of filtering out the productive ones.
>So because someone is engaging in racially motivated crime, you're blaming White liberals?
I'm not the best at expressing myself, but there's no way you can reasonably interpret my reply like that
>They play one group against the other all the time!
You're saying it like that makes it better
>this is sociology 1-0-1.
I know, you can't say that after claiming DEI is pragmatic.
>in your mind, Trumpian nepotism is better than DEI
From the start I've said it's same or worse depending on the angle.
>You think Trumpian nepotism is "neutral"
It's racially neutral. The criteria is "How many yes'es you can say", not "Are you non white"
>So you're saying a "pro-White" presidency is naturally not meritocratic in any way?
Explicitly pro-white implies racism so yes.
>Also, being "pro-White" is also an ideology, just like being pro-DEI
yes, that's why it's bad.
But being against anti-white racism isn't being pro-white
>The whole argument for being "pro-White" was a "return to meritocracy". Hundreds of articles were written about this.
No? The racial identarians don't want a meritocracy, because it doesn't benefit whites 100%.
>Import turd world ideas, become the turd world, no?
Guarding against thirdworldism isn't importing thirdworld ideas.
Many of the failures of capitalism (like expensive housing) are actually just a consequence of government policy. Or don't event matter (like inequality).
@matrix "Opportunism". yeah, it's a reason I only voted for Trump once and was almost immediately disappointed and vowed "never again". The person interviewed in that Salon article hasn't changed their opinions since 2016. If anything, those opinions have been reinforced by what has happened since (https://marianamazzucato.com/books/mission-economy/).
I was writing a response to each individual point you made until I realised that your whole argument is that DEI is (anti-white) racist, but you're totally NOT racist, even though you say things like "empathy one should have for children misplaced towards "oppressed" people" and "There is no pragmatic reason for subsidizing an unproductive group while also opposing ways of filtering out the productive ones".
You're an implicit racist, essentially.
> "Guarding against third worldism". You just said "China and Bumfuckistan aren't right either, but they don't give a fuck that they aren't" as a defense of the "might makes right"/"right makes might" "unfortunate reality".
> "Many of the failures of C(r)apitalism are because of gubmint or don't even matter". Austrian schoolers gonna Austrian school...
Yeah, I know, I apologize for the Reddit comments, but I do think these apply here.
@Aldo2
>Definition of implicit bias admitting you can't prove it, just trust us bro
I expected nothing better from Reddit.
The quality of schools is largely selection. A school is good because good students attend it. It's why private schools are so good because they can be very selective who goes there.
Ironically, schools that could select out the problematic black kids would help individual black people more than things like Obama era restrictions on black kids.
The definition of systemic racism is just the equity fallacy, unequal results = racism.
Result we don't like is totally racism, but explicit policy that discriminates against a race of people is actually anti-racism.
>"China and Bumfuckistan aren't right either, but they don't give a fuck that they aren't"
The American empire is right more often than the thirdworld tyrants, partially because it does understand that might isn't right
>Austrian schoolers gonna Austrian school...
yes
@matrix your comment on empathy kinda proves it: "empathy one should have for children misplaced towards "oppressed" people". What about the children of the "oppressed"? You say you're not "racist", but you only care about anti-white racism, completely discounting all the other discrimination (some codified, others implied, some related to race, others to sexuality etc...) that has existed for decades prior as inconsequential.
When the British "ended slavery", they paid (or renumerated) the slave owners. They did not pay the slaves for being subjected to inhumane conditions. Many of the descendants of those slaves now still exist in poverty. The relatives of the slave owners still are wealthy. This is why talk of "reparations" still remains, and indeed is getting louder.
I want to make it clear that I am not denying that there exist racial differences. The argument I'm making is that the differences we can observe between groups today are not EXCLUSIVELY because of race. And, in the case that differences are because of man-made factors, why shouldn't we, as men, try to ameliorate those specific man-made issues?
There are plenty (perhaps even a majority) of private schools/universities that are only in the position they are in because of corruption and the "revolving door" nepotism that is so prevalent nowadays. The private boarding school (one of, if not the most expensive in the country) I went to is a great example of this. Celebrity parents would give "donations" to the school to keep their problem child from getting expelled for breaking school rules. We even had a rivalry with the neighborhood public school which turned violent on numerous occasions. Yet alumni from the school grace all high positions and continue the cycle of "excellence".(https://www.financialsamurai.com/why-public-schools-will-rank-higher-than-private-schools/)
How is only accepting the "good" ones into corrupt institutions helping the wider black community propel themselves out of the mire they find themselves in? Even if it did it would be an incredibly slow process that would most likely not keep up with socio-economic developments that would overtake them. I think this was one of the points made in that Reddit thread I drew from.
Are you denying that systemic racism existed for a long time? I mean, Jim Crow was only ("officially") ended in the mid-60's...(Slavery was only "officially abolished" in the 1860's etc...). Neither of these things stopped "implicit bias" (or even, in many cases, "explicit bias").
As that Redditor points out, in order to address systemic racism, you need to meet it on the same field. You can't try to address the problems of historic racism by just "blank slating" everything and letting it all sort itself out "naturally", especially when, as I just desribed, the people doing the discrimination have the wealth/standing whereas those who were discriminated against have nothing. That is just doing the British solution and then LARPing like you're "race-neutral".
If the American empire is good because it "understands" that might isn't right then why are you advocating for the concept? "If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
I mean, whatever, the Austrian school sucks. Kenyes was/is right.
@Aldo2@gameliberty.club @matrix@gameliberty.club
This faggot crap is irrelevant. The only good nigger man is a dead nigger.
TND TPD TKD
Wipe out and replace Africa with Europeans.
@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.