What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Konig15]

A lot of people on this site accuse me of ranting, rambling, vitriolic screeds. I think you've out-screeded me, @Konig15 - four times on the same thread.

You disapprove of what I said in the last post. I'm trying to have a discussion and disagree with you while saying you do have a point, but only up to a point. I want to engage, not talk you down. If you felt I did that, I apologize and would like to know how better to express myself.

 

[Lexicus]

That's pretty pitiful, @Lexicus, but then again how could any defense of using a term with that gravity and baggage so flippantly and casually be anything else.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like the right openly complaining that America is no longer comprised of "95% white Europeans" is in any way comparable to Nazism, how silly of me.

Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the Turner Diaries? Would you agree that that work and its fans are at least Nazi-adjacent?

You disapprove of what I said in the last post. I'm trying to have a discussion and disagree with you while saying you do have a point, but only up to a point. I want to engage, not talk you down. If you felt I did that, I apologize and would like to know how better to express myself.

The main problem with your post is that you've painted giant differences between the various flavors of Nazism than actually existed. For example, painting Strasserism as "strictly nonviolent antisemitism" is completely absurd given that Otto Strasser was involved in multiple attempts to violently overthrow the Weimar Republic's authorities and started his career in the Freikorps.

 

[Estebonrober]

Well, everytime I ask (and I have actually "asked" on occasion) posters to stop using slanderous, vitriolic, hyperbolic, grossly inaccurate, and destructive-to-any-dialogue inappropriately used terms like "Fascist," and "Nazi," I get ridiculed and derided, and I believe you're one of the ones that have done so. Why should your requests about terminology in dialogue be inherently and automatically held to higher standard and considered more "reasonable," and even mandatory and 'correct," by default, than mine?

because I asked nicely for you not to hash that out here.

 

[Patine]

this is what I’m talking about. Please start your own thread about label misuse if that’s what you want to talk about.

Until I see a "moderator," or "administrator," tag on your avatar, I'll take these posts as non-binding "suggestions," and ignore them like you ignore mine.

 

[Estebonrober]

Well, everytime I ask (and I have actually "asked" on occasion) posters to stop using slanderous, vitriolic, hyperbolic, grossly inaccurate, and destructive-to-any-dialogue inappropriately used terms like "Fascist," and "Nazi," I get ridiculed and derided, and I believe you're one of the ones that have done so. Why should your requests about terminology in dialogue be inherently and automatically held to higher standard and considered more "reasonable," and even mandatory and 'correct," by default, than mine?

just FYI I agree in principle with you take on labels I just don’t think it’s as big of deal as you do and I hate how you use it to derail all sort of threads where interesting conversations are going on

 

[Konig15]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like the right openly complaining that America is no longer comprised of "95% white Europeans" is in any way comparable to Nazism, how silly of me.

Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the Turner Diaries? Would you agree that that work and its fans are at least Nazi-adjacent?



The main problem with your post is that you've painted giant differences between the various flavors of Nazism than actually existed. For example, painting Strasserism as "strictly nonviolent antisemitism" is completely absurd given that Otto Strasser was involved in multiple attempts to violently overthrow the Weimar Republic's authorities and started his career in the Freikorps.

OK, let me explain by non-violent. Might need a better term. the antisemitism was non-violent. The Strasser wanted the Nuremberg Laws, they wanted what they considered evil Jews rendered inert. But after that, they were content to leave them alone, and vocally opposed going any further into pogroming. But opposing the Weimar Republic? Well, let's break that down:
1. Like it or not, my personal hero Ebert, used the Friekporps to kill the horsehocky out of Communists and keep Germany from going Red,. And because this guy was a SD, I'm triple impressed. I also have a deep love of Attalee, knowing that even though his policies were not good. NHS aside, he LOATHED Communists and actively worked worth British intelligence to ferret them out, and openly called out what a piece of horsehocky the Soviet Union was, and Stalin in particular, before World War II broke out. I firmly believe the greatest Tragedy for Germany, post World War I is that Ebert died in 1925. If he's lived 15 or even 10 years longer, the Nazis would never have come to power and the Communists would never have been a viable threat to the Republic in the early 30s.

2. As for trying to overthrow the government, what's you point? I'm an Amerian, I believe in overthrowing governments that don't serve the people or are grossly incompetent. I absolutely reject Webers monopoly on violence idea: the people must have the means to overthrow their own government at all times if liberty is to survive in the long term.I don't even fault Lenin for overthrowing the Provisional Government, just every single thing he did after.

 

[Patine]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like the right openly complaining that America is no longer comprised of "95% white Europeans" is in any way comparable to Nazism, how silly of me.

Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with the Turner Diaries? Would you agree that that work and its fans are at least Nazi-adjacent?



The main problem with your post is that you've painted giant differences between the various flavors of Nazism than actually existed. For example, painting Strasserism as "strictly nonviolent antisemitism" is completely absurd given that Otto Strasser was involved in multiple attempts to violently overthrow the Weimar Republic's authorities and started his career in the Freikorps.

Okay, let's get this straight here. "The Right," (unless you mean "Die Recht," a small, hard conservative political party in Germany started in 2012) is a casual and imprecise colloquial (but unofficial) term for anyone socio-politically on the entire Right-Wing of the Political Spectrum. "Fascism," and it's subset, "Nazism," are very specific, very narrowly-defined, very contextual ideologies on the farther fringe of the Right-Wing of the Political Spectrum. You just conflated the two concepts as though they were one - completely mutually inclusive - there, and that is the kind of disingenuous and blurred message that damage the socio-political dialogue I'm referring to.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The biggest welfare receipients are minorities. They also comit the more crime than whites. They're not sending their best!

At least you removed all doubt that you are a racist

 

[Lexicus]

OK, let me explain by non-violent. Might need a better term. the antisemitism was non-violent. The Strasser wanted the Nuremberg Laws, they wanted what they considered evil Jews rendered inert. But after that, they were content to leave them alone, and vocally opposed going any further into pogroming.

Yeah, but this is acting as though the Holocaust as it happened was a fixed and immutable part of Hitler's program from the very beginning, which is not really true. At least, most historians now take a position somewhere between the traditional "Intentionalist" and "Functionalist" schools, and see the Holocaust as it actually happened as a contingent event that arose at least as much from the "radical" situation in which the invasion of the Soviet Union placed Germany as from some sort of "master plan" that was fully-formed in Hitler's mind in 1919 or so.

1. Like it or not, my personal hero Ebert, used the Friekporps to kill the **** out of Communists and keep Germany from going Red,. And because this guy was a SD, I'm triple impressed. I also have a deep love of Attalee, knowing that even though his policies were not good. NHS aside, he LOATHED Communists and actively worked worth British intelligence to ferret them out, and openly called out what a piece of **** the Soviet Union was, and Stalin in particular, before World War II broke out. I firmly believe the greatest Tragedy for Germany, post World War I is that Ebert died in 1925. If he's lived 15 or even 10 years longer, the Nazis would never have come to power and the Communists would never have been a viable threat to the Republic in the early 30s.

Ebert wouldn't have prevented the Depression. The manifest collapse of capitalism is what gave the Communists the beginnings of mass electoral support after 1929.

2. As for trying to overthrow the government, what's you point? I'm an Amerian, I believe in overthrowing governments that don't serve the people or are grossly incompetent. I absolutely reject Webers monopoly on violence idea: the people must have the means to overthrow their own government at all times if liberty is to survive in the long term.I don't even fault Lenin for overthrowing the Provisional Government, just every single thing he did after.

The point is simply that calling him nonviolent in any sense is absurd. Anyway, it's funny that you can actually argue without any evident sense of irony that the people must have the means to overthrow the government for liberty to survive while simultaneously arguing that the government "kill[ing] the **** out of the Communists" is a Good Thing.

Another point here of course is that for the German far-right of the time, violence against Communists and violence against Jews were seen as two sides of the same coin or simply identical (see the entire concept of "Judeo-Bolshevism"). The "war of annihilation" the Nazis launched against the Soviet Union was obviously logistically and ideologically intertwined with the Holocaust. In short: you cannot neatly separate the Nazis' anti-communism from their antisemitism.

 

[Lexicus]

At least you removed all doubt that you are a racist

It was obvious from his first post in this thread where he was going. The references to "third world immigrants" were enough.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The racists clearly aren't sending their best

 

[Traitorfish]

If the Stasser Brothers had prevailed against Hitler, the world would be entirely different and Nazism would be a respectable political position. Because this form of Nazism while still racist and unpleasant, you can deal with Stasserites, you can reason with a Strasserite, mostly. They alone have scruples.

The Strasserties were ejected, in part, because they represented the disreputable wing of the Nazi party: scruffy working class veterans who spent their weekends in beer halls, brawling with Communists. They certainly represent a different trajectory for Nazism, but one in which it remains a fringe populist movement, not one in which it somehow acquires mainstream credibility.

 

[Hygro]

The racists clearly aren't sending their best

What if they are

 

[El_Machinae]

Minorities might be disproportionately represented when it comes to receiving government aid, that's true.

Not so sure they're the 'biggest' welfare recipients. The current President received over $100 million that he didn't work for, merely as an inheritance. So, when it comes to 'unearned wealth', I'd think that 'trust fund recipients' are the 'biggest' welfare recipients.

 

[BCheek]

Actually, you didn't. but you made up for it below. Immigration seems to be you answer.

I did. You didn't read it.

The losses to the white middle class America over the past 40 years have brought about by global trade and the American companies seeking profits by moving operations overseas; the ongoing vigor of M&A activities among corporations that use debt to finance downsizing and destroy viable companies for shareholder wealth; technology outpacing boomer and Gen X skills and training; and the displacement of updating infrastructure with military spending.

In other words, boomers like yourself

outsourced the jobs for 3rd world slave labor
brought in massive 3rd world immigration to suppress the wages of the jobs that remained
which inflated the cost of living for the sake of your precious 401(k) and overpriced housing market because despite being handed everything by the silent generation and living in the period of the largest economic growth in the history of the world boomers are so greedy, they're not only in consumer debt up to their eye balls and unable to retire, they also refuse to pay a living wage for the same jobs they once preformed for more pay.

With declining population growth and an aging US population, immigration is the best way to sustain GDP growth after productivity.

Ah yes, screw the future generations boomers need to keep funding their lavish impractical lifestyles. Bring in more immigrants and as GDP goes up the quality of life declines for future generations and now you want your kids to pay for your Medicaid too.

It is also interesting how many Republican run enterprises hire undocumented folks to work for them. I live a part of the country with many undocumented folks and they are among the most hard working and enterprising people around. They do the work that the local anglo folks refuse to do.

This is a dumb boomer trope. There's only one party advocating for open borders and its the democrats and when all you have to do is pick oranges seasonally for less than a living US wage and send US dollars back to your home country where that money goes a hell of a lot further anyone would pick oranges. The reason why white people don't is because we can't make a living picking oranges. It has nothing to do with work ethic, it has to do with economics and any argument otherwise is completely disingenuous.

And what no mention of all the H1b visa workers at liberal Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Twitter? or immigrants working at liberal places like Target, Macy's, TJ Maxx? Starbucks? Amazon? Disney? Kellogs? Typical.

I don't care about fruit pickers. Americans can't make a living doing that, but they can make a living working for one of these liberal companies, which is a good job that leftys love to suppress the wages for or outsource the jobs to pay pennies for wages. You can't even work in a call center anymore.

At the macro level, yes, pretty much. Ignore those trends at your peril. One of the first things that happen as a nation urbanizes and educates it female population is women stop having as many children. The baby boom of the 1950s is an exception, but the trends is world wide and ongoing.

Ok boomer.

You certainly don't know corporate America.

Ok boomer.

I've been part of it for 40 years, and it is not liberal.

Says the liberal.

As as expected, as the immigrant population lives here and gets education, their fertility rates drop and they have fewer children. If you want a surge in white babies, you better get the word out to white women that more children are needed.

Instead of stopping immigration we should breed like cancer cells and what jobs are going to pay for all these kids exactly? Oh right, you liberal bommers got rid of all those and brought in immigrant workers for less than a living wage because they can send their money back overseas where it's worth more.

The conservative response though has been voter suppression rather than more babies. Suppression has been on the increase since the 1970s and picked up as a Republican party plan in early 2000s.

Sure boomer.

If only white american voted the conservative party would be elected with a super majority in every election. You can look at the voting records what you just said is a bold faced liberal lie. The vote of the white working class has been supressed by criminal immigration policy.

1970:
White 87.7%
Black 12.6%
Hispanic 4.4%

2010:
White 72.4%
Black 11.1%
Hispanic 16.3%
Non Hispanic White 63.7%

87.7% to 63.7% liberal economic and immigration policy is literally decimating white families.

 

[Patine]

I did. You didn't read it.


In other words, boomers like yourself

outsourced the jobs for 3rd world slave labor
brought in massive 3rd world immigration to suppress the wages of the jobs that remained
which inflated the cost of living for the sake of your precious 401(k) and overpriced housing market because despite being handed everything by the silent generation and living in the period of the largest economic growth in the history of the world boomers are so greedy, they're not only in consumer debt up to their eye balls and unable to retire, they also refuse to pay a living wage for the same jobs they once preformed for more pay.


Ah yes, screw the future generations boomers need to keep funding their lavish impractical lifestyles. Bring in more immigrants and as GDP goes up the quality of life declines for future generations and now you want your kids to pay for your Medicaid too.


This is a dumb boomer trope. There's only one party advocating for open borders and its the democrats and when all you have to do is pick oranges seasonally for less than a living US wage and send US dollars back to your home country where that money goes a hell of a lot further anyone would pick oranges. The reason why white people don't is because we can't make a living picking oranges. It has nothing to do with work ethic, it has to do with economics and any argument otherwise is completely disingenuous.

And what no mention of all the H1b visa workers at liberal Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Twitter? or immigrants working at liberal places like Target, Macy's, TJ Maxx? Starbucks? Amazon? Disney? Kellogs? Typical.

I don't care about fruit pickers. Americans can't make a living doing that, but they can make a living working for one of these liberal companies, which is a good job that leftys love to suppress the wages for or outsource the jobs to pay pennies for wages. You can't even work in a call center anymore.


Ok boomer.



Ok boomer.


Says the liberal.


Instead of stopping immigration we should breed like cancer cells and what jobs are going to pay for all these kids exactly? Oh right, you liberal bommers got rid of all those and brought in immigrant workers for less than a living wage because they can send their money back overseas where it's worth more.


Sure boomer.

If only white american voted the conservative party would be elected with a super majority in every election. You can look at the voting records what you just said is a bold faced liberal lie. The vote of the white working class has been supressed by criminal immigration policy.



87.7% to 63.7% liberal economic and immigration policy is literally decimating white families.

Okay, you need to join the other Evil Goblins in Never Never Land, too, even though you, unlike them, haven't addressed me directly. This mind swill and oral defacation is just too much to read and tolerate.

 

[BCheek]

wrong!

Medicaid had more than 70 million beneficiaries in 2016, of whom 43 percent were white, 18 percent black, and 30 percent Hispanic. Of 43 million food stamp recipients that year, 36.2 percent were white, 25.6 percent black, 17.2 percent Hispanic and 15.5 percent unknown. (Food stamps are formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.)

Lol, someone doesn't know what per capita means! You literally just proved that minorities are the biggest welfare recipients.

18% of Medicaid recipients are black and they're only 11% of the total US population.
30% of Medicaid recipients are hispanic and they're only 16% of the total US population.

25.6% of food stamp recipients are black and they're only 11% of the total US population.
17.2% of food stamp recipients are hispanic and they're only 16% of the total US population.

The crime statistics are even more pathetic.

On the other hand, whites are 63.7% of the population and only receive 43% of Medicaid and 25.6% of food stamps. So who's paying for it all and who's benefiting?

 

[El_Machinae]

The idea that 'temporary foreign workers take our money' is an interesting one. Money isn't really a thing, it's more a unit of transaction. If money leaves your country, it doesn't mean much. All it means is that you traded paper for something you wanted. Of course, the potential bankruptcy a lost dollar causes IS a problem. But that problem exists whether it leaves the country or lands in someone's savings account where it will only be used to purchase other paper assets or worse, rent-seeking property.

Outside of the US, the USD has to be converted into a local currency (it will shuttle around a bit, but eventually it trickles upwards). At that point, it can only be spent to acquire property outside the US (which neither harms nor hurts the US citizen and the cycle repeats) or it's used to buy an American export or property. Exports are jobs obviously.

But the effect of a dollar 'leaving' are remarkably similar to the effect of a dollar drifting upwards, especially with regards to jobs. The risk is mostly that it will be spent to acquire property that allows rent-seeking.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I really appreciate @BCheek. I expected this thread to be a bunch of liberals opining that what American conservatives stand for is racism, but I didn't expect someone who apparently identifies as a conservative to join them.

 

[BCheek]

I really appreciate @BCheek. I expected this thread to be a bunch of liberals opining that what American conservatives stand for is racism, but I didn't expect someone who apparently identifies as a conservative to join them.

Who said I was a conservative? I'm a socialist.