First Turning "purge"

[Eric the Green]

(03-12-2022, 12:37 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-17-2022, 05:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The white supremacists have mostly been so all along; just not as vocally until Obama was elected and then Donald Trump. The white vote and the black vote have been totally partisan in some southern states all along. Many of them hid their white supremacist views behind their attack on those whom they see as "a lot of people milking the system." There are few of such people, but those who think there are such people (like Classic Xer here) tend to see them as not being white.

Some studies indicate an inverse correlation with income and people who think lots of people "milk the system". ie, the people who actually live closer to areas with lots of welfare recipients are more likely to report higher incidents of welfare fraud and milking the system than more affluent areas who are more likely to give benefit of the doubt.

Quote:The "self-reliance" meme among conservatives has been prominent among farmers for many decades. They think they are self-sufficient because they don't need urban services and don't want to pay for them, which is somewhat understandable since they live on the margins and are under pressure from their declining position compared to corporate farming companies and declining weather conditions in the age of global warming. But being provincial and parochial, they cannot see the true causes of their declining fortunes, and so they blame urban people-- and again many of those people are not white, so the racist anti-welfare meme comes up again among them too.

Speaking from experience, the worst racism I've observed was always in the cities. I've met plenty of farmers from about 10 states, and none of them were racist at all. Granted, I don't think some of them really thought much about black people on account of not many being around, just like I generally don't think much about people from Bosnia, Cambodia or Sir Lanka, but others had several black friends and clients and their interactions seemed natural, unstrained, genuinely warm (a racist can fake politeness, but if they're really racist, there will be noticeable discomfort under the surface when getting close to black people). You can criticize their worldview if you like, but just about all the farmers I've come across were much happier than the average liberal intellectual or big city businessman.

Quote:As for businessmen, their focus on money is no excuse for their conservative ideology. They just can't see beyond their ambition

This, right here, is where most of the problem is. The left has been vilifying ambition since I was born, and likely before that. They're less interested in helping the poor move up, and more interested in putting people interested in ambition and power in their place. Men will always seek out power and ambition. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, male ambition is most of what drives societal progress. The main difference between different ideological and economic models is what kind of ambition is rewarded. Is it brute force control over people (barbarism), vacuous social climbing through the royal courts (monarchy), being a sycophant to the party line (fascism), giving the most compelling spiritual oratory (theocracy) or....building systems that produce better and cheaper goods and services (capitalism)? You'll have to forgive the over-simplification of the previous systems for the sake of brevity and illustration, but ambitious capitalists have, in one way or another, helped any great society reach its zenith. Sure, it doesn't have to be "neo-liberalism", as it is now called, but if you don't like that, Australia has a different capitalistic model, so does Sweden, so does France. To some extent, even Japan does. Yes, self-reliance has its limits. I have more stories than I would like to share about running into such limits in my 20s, but that doesn't mean it's not a good thing on balance.

Societal progress hinges on a culture that builds up powerful men and rewards beneficial feats of ambition. If you try to take this away from people, no man worth his salt is going to want any part of your system.

Quote:so they buy into the self-reliance meme and the tax revolt and the other traits of the neoliberal ideology, which appeals to them even though they haven't studied economics. But the ideology prevails anyway among them because it is the foundation for policies that boost the free market and idolize it, and so they believe that if they are untaxed and deregulated it will enable the "job creaters" (spelled in accordance with GW Bush's accent) to provide prosperity for everyone. It doesn't; it impoverishes most people and and creates great wealth for the few. But again, focused only on their own business and on their need to make money, businessmen can only see their bottom line and favor policies they think will allow them to make more money-- like deregulation and lower taxes. Many other pressured and low-paid suburban workers are also deceived by these tempting neoliberal tax-revolt free-market anti-welfare slogans-- increasingly so ever since the onset of the Sleepening in 1978-79.

Generally, businessmen come in three basic categories
1) status hungry, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses socialites obsessed with appearance and impressing others. functionally, they're more like politicians than businessmen
2) high IQ sociopaths who decide business is a better means of getting ahead than crime
3) (imo, the majority) people who use money as a means to....be left the hell alone, be their own boss, not have to deal with moral busy-bodies and power-tripping bosses

my thoughts on them are
1) I'm sure I hate these as much as you do
2) I don't love them, but if it's that or them being druglords, this is the least harmful option
3) these are basically the people who end up creating most of society, in spite of doing so out of self-interest and wanting little of the credit for it.

In either event though, even these three groups combined comprise maybe...15% of conservatives? most of them are more likely to be truckers, farmers, tradesmen and other more down-to-earth personalities without huge egos.

American conservatives seem overly impressed with businessmen and down to earth types who like to be left alone and be their own boss. That has been the pattern especially among rural folks for generations now. I have seen enough documentaries and voting records and such to know they (and you) are well disposed to the self-reliance philosophy that leads them in current times to support neoliberal slogans and vote Republican. Rural folks these days vote for Trump or Bush in margins of 4 or 5 to 1 or even higher. To me that indicates something is terribly wrong out there in the sticks. I don't believe that racism is not a big part of this, because the main reason to oppose such things as welfare and other social spending is because they think non-whites are milking the system. That's interesting symbolically, and maybe ironic, since milk is white. That is more true in the South, of course, where voting patterns are ultra partisan by race. Rural folks may be parochial, but that does not stop them from eating up the various conservative prejudices and ideologies, and btw that includes a lot of conservative Christians too who vote Republican because they want to "vote thair valyus".

And again, most people are not well-suited to be their own boss. That means they have to put up with and deal with bosses. Most of them just go along. They often think and vote according to their boss's wishes too. Self-reliance is a virtue, I admit, but it's not the only virtue. And ambitions to compete and make money are not what primarily build great civilizations (of which the USA is not one). Although it can help--- if guided by intelligence, the passion for justice and altruism, compassion for suffering, a society that has higher values, and reverence for intellectuals, great arts and enlightened religion (and again, the USA is NOT guided in this way).

I actually admire the family farmer. They do good work. But these days family farms are being eaten up by corporations, and those who work them are often immigrants. By resenting welfare and supporting politicians who think money should have the power instead of the people, they will not bring back the days of prosperous family farmers. It's the wrong cure. And the politicians who support money and corporations are called conservatives, and these days they are members of the Republican Party.

As for truckers, I'd like to see them go out of business. They eat up our highways and make it unsafe to drive them, guzzle gas and pollute, charge too much, and tend to be conservatives, to the point these days of damaging the very economy they depend on by buying into antivax conspiracy theory and commiting economic terrorism in the name of freedom. We used to have trains for the long haul and trucks for local trips, but the big fossil fuel, car and tire companies saw to it that trains went away. But trains are the way to go to help avert climate change and pollution as well as allow us to travel and see the country again and bring consumer prices down. Unless of course the railroad companies are allowed to become abusive monopolies again.

Quote:

Quote:Most college students are not fooled by the conservative attack on social justice warriors. These latter are no doubt irritating. I am irritating too probably, to conservatives who don't want to have their ideology debunked. But they fail to realize that there are more important and real concerns that need to be addressed than their personal irritation with those who get angry and throw anti-racist, feminist, pro-LGBTQ and/or politically correct slogans at them. Those who are driven by this understandable irritation, instead of by real concerns, have only themselves to blame if the economy continues to exploit them and global warming ruins everything in their world-- just because they voted for and helped elect the critics of SJWs instead of politicians interested in handling real problems and concerns to the extent that they can or are willing to in this backward, conservative country.

Most college students are idealistic fools only just beginning to wake up to problems which should have been obvious when they were 13. The minority which are actually capable of addressing these real concerns are welcome to do so, but the kinds of people who resort to screaming platitudinous slogans and histrionic antics at protests and parades should not complain when they are not treated as equals. If I accomplish anything as a "civic" millennial, it will be leading a household where emotional self-regulation is of paramount importance. A household in which expressing one's opinions is encouraged, but only so long as they can keep a level head and not resort to causing a ruckus every time they don't like something (some prime examples include Malcolm X, Charlton Heston, Jimmy Carter, Margaret Thatcher, Barack Obama...people of all races and ideologies can do this. I don't expect everyone to become conservative. Hell, you and I get heated all the time. Nothing wrong with passion if it's controlled). Boomers had some good ideas with greater self-exploration, rights for minorities, legalizing drugs, etc, but they also normalized "starting a movement" and speaking like you're at a protest as a default communication style. Respectfully...that trend needs to fucking die if we're going to return to anything resembling a state of civility or normalcy. For the last two decades or so, the college years have been the peak of "protest as everyday speech" and because of that, they need to go the extra mile for me to take them seriously.

I agree that speaking like one is at a protest should not be the default mode of communication, and I plead guilty to the fault on many occasions, although I feel I am basically cool and peaceful. It was a habit I have had to deal with, left over from the sixties. So your sentence there is well put.

That does not mean young people and older people like me should not go to protests. They should. It's one way to pressure society to do the right thing and oppose injustice. It's not enough of course, by a long shot, and the protesters know it; but people who go to protests should not be disdained. And most college folks are there in college because they are bright and want to be educated, and to disparage education is to advocate for a dumb society. Which we are, if we buy into neoliberalism instead of progress. Education I know is a major factor in the national divide now. It didn't used to be so, and conservatives blame education and colleges for this, and I blame the propaganda among conservatives that education leads people to be fools and victims of propaganda. Sorry, I don't buy it. Education is good. And the USA still has the best universities in the world. And the prosperity and innovative prowess of California was built on public colleges. Thank you Democrats.

You write as if you were more like my Dad, or the more conservative members of my Dad's civic generation that I met. I cringe when you laud and compliment male ambition as if it's what makes society possible. I say we need more women in charge, as Obama said, and more feminine qualities in society. But lots of guys these days are still masculine and have ambition, and there's nothing wrong with that; but just ambition to make money is not enough. What should we be ambitious about? I would say each one of us, or any gender or race, has a unique thoughtful or creative contribution to make. It is most fulfilling to discover what that (or several thats) are, and take up the challenge to develop what they love to do and to be. Money is only a means to an end, but Americans don't seem generally speaking to know what the end is for it. Just to be left alone does not fill the bill.

There are a number of guys in the USA whose sole ambition is to make money. Episode 266 ("the Unwelcome Well") out of 271 of the Perry Mason series created a memorable portrait of such a man in 1966. He was an oil baron, and he would use people any way he could to make money. Perry was his lawyer, and Perry persuaded a crusty and reluctant old landowner to let the oil boss, Jerome Klee, drill on his land, and told him how much money he'd make if he let him do it. Soon the landowner was so enthralled at his new wealth that he borrowed against his land before the money came in. But Klee decided to cap the well because he made a better deal with some Middle East potentate and putting the landowner's oil on the market could bring the price of his oil revenue down. "He's liable to lose his land. You can't do that" Perry said to Klee. "The last time someone told me what I could not do, it was my own father. I broke his jaw for him!" Klee replied. Perry says "I notice you have all your associates intimidated." "Oh, but not you, Perry!" Klee replies. "No, I am not intimidated, I'm appalled!" (now Perry Mason, there was a real man). "What kind of a man are you?" "A money man, Mr. Mason" Klee replied. "Some people collect boats, art, books... heaven knows why I don't. I collect money, it's as simple as that." "How much money do you want?" Klee replies, "if I can get it, all there is!" Sure enough, he ends up as the murder victim. The actor who played Jerome Klee was just getting into politics himself, including serving on the city council. He ran for congress in 1968 as a Republican (surprise, surprise), but lost the primary and then died. People said he was becoming much like the character he portrayed on Perry Mason.