I Apologize to My Fellow Americans

[X_4AD_84]

Usually one thinks of cases where one proposed a plan that got laughed out of the room, when using the expression "eating crow."

So maybe "eating crow" is not the correct turn of phrase.

In any case, I want to formally apologize for some past sins.

Back when I was still in my 30s I was a serious, blood curdling, firebrand. To me, at the time, George W. Bush was a complete globalist, limp wristed, nothing. I cried out for a strong man. I wanted to see everyone fired from the State Department. I wanted to see us at least plan for a war of our choosing against, initially, all of the "states who harbor them" followed by the SCO. This last wrinkle is probably the sole area where certain contemporaries are no longer aligned. I digress.

Naturally some of this was a reaction against 9/11. But some of it was also the meme set of the virtual tribes I was hanging with. Many of the members of those tribes went on to become the Alt-Right. Now some of them have their hands on the levers of power.

Be careful what you wish for people. You might actually get it.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Back when I was still in my 30s I was a serious, blood curdling, firebrand.

I'm sorry, in what way are you claiming to have changed?

[Warren Dew]

(01-26-2017, 03:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Back when I was still in my 30s I was a serious, blood curdling, firebrand. To me, at the time, George W. Bush was a complete globalist, limp wristed, nothing.

Now you think  Bush was a great president?

Just trying to understand what you're saying here.

[Eric the Green]

(01-26-2017, 03:56 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:53 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Back when I was still in my 30s I was a serious, blood curdling, firebrand. To me, at the time, George W. Bush was a complete globalist, limp wristed, nothing.

Now you think  Bush was a great president?

Just trying to understand what you're saying here.

I'm really missing W. He will go down in history with a decent grade.

Ridiculous tax cuts for the rich that didn't boost the economy, and greatly increased inequality, all of which stagnated the economy throughout his term until it crashed. Started a war of choice based on deliberate lies that killed hundreds of thousands, and left thousands of our soldiers maimed and mistreated, and dropped the ball on the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Refused to negotiate with Iran, allowing that situation to fester and get worse. Refused to support climate change treaties and regulations to curb it. Allowed greater pollution all over the country. Did not enforce regulations on financial dealings, contributing to the recession in 2008, and did not hold the perpetrators of it to account. Allowed residents of New Orleans to flounder in death and starvation for days without action, probably because they were Democrats. Set up agencies to spy on and imprison Americans without cause or charge, and torture prisoners around the world in violation of all standards. Took advantage of religious right hysteria to get votes. No, with all this misconduct and more, I'd say he gets an F, and was the worst president up until his time in American history, although likely to be superceded by the current one.

No, I'll tell you whom I'm missing, being a bit older than you. I'm missing JFK, and have been for a while. And to some extent, I'm missing Obama already, and even Bill Clinton. Even Nixon, who was a crook, was far better than Bush or the current drumpy one.

[SomeGuy]

(01-26-2017, 03:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:13 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Back when I was still in my 30s I was a serious, blood curdling, firebrand.

I'm sorry, in what way are you claiming to have changed?

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Be careful what you wish for people. You might actually get it.

That's nice, I've heard that one before.  Did you catch any more bumper stickers today?

No, I am actually curious: Much of your posting in the nearly 4 years (on and off) I've been posting here has been warmongering for the impending battle with the SCO/Neo-Mongol Empire/<Insert political/historical reference here>.  You've mentioned that you've been thinking along similar lines since at least 1999/2000 (Y2K).  So, in what way would you say your thinking has changed?

[Warren Dew]

(01-27-2017, 12:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:13 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Back when I was still in my 30s I was a serious, blood curdling, firebrand.

I'm sorry, in what way are you claiming to have changed?

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Be careful what you wish for people. You might actually get it.

That's nice, I've heard that one before.  Did you catch any more bumper stickers today?

No, I am actually curious: Much of your posting in the nearly 4 years (on and off) I've been posting here has been warmongering for the impending battle with the SCO/Neo-Mongol Empire/<Insert political/historical reference here>.  You've mentioned that you've been thinking along similar lines since at least 1999/2000 (Y2K).  So, in what way would you say your thinking has changed?

I no longer think liberals are evil. I am now exceedingly tolerant vis a vis social concerns / minority rights / etc. I no longer think globalism is all bad (it just needed reform). I no longer associate with Birchers, League of the South, Skousenites, etc, etc. I don't think it would be wise to fire most of the State Department. So many other things.

As far as I can tell, now you think the alt right is evil.  That's not being tolerant; it's just redirecting your intolerances to a different group..

[SomeGuy]

And it doesn't sound like your foreign policy preoccupations have changed, either.


And what was your objection to globalism before, and how do you think it can be reformed now?

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2017, 08:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 12:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:13 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I'm sorry, in what way are you claiming to have changed?

You are missing the forest for the trees.

Be careful what you wish for people. You might actually get it.

That's nice, I've heard that one before.  Did you catch any more bumper stickers today?

No, I am actually curious: Much of your posting in the nearly 4 years (on and off) I've been posting here has been warmongering for the impending battle with the SCO/Neo-Mongol Empire/<Insert political/historical reference here>.  You've mentioned that you've been thinking along similar lines since at least 1999/2000 (Y2K).  So, in what way would you say your thinking has changed?

I no longer think liberals are evil. I am now exceedingly tolerant vis a vis social concerns / minority rights / etc. I no longer think globalism is all bad (it just needed reform). I no longer associate with Birchers, League of the South, Skousenites, etc, etc. I don't think it would be wise to fire most of the State Department. So many other things.

As far as I can tell, now you think the alt right is evil.  That's not being tolerant; it's just redirecting your intolerances to a different group..

No, he just recognizes the fact that the alt right is intolerant.

[SomeGuy]

Mass is actually a very white, blue collar place outside of Boston and a few other enclaves.  Worcester is definitely Rust Belt-y.

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2017, 12:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I truly am sorry for any role I had in fueling this shit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-g...-employee/

"Ey dare, we're gonna send all a ya moozlims packin'! Our boy Twump'll see tah it!"

==================================

'Prosecutors in New York said a traveler has been charged with hate crimes for attacking a Muslim airline employee at John F. Kennedy International Airport, telling her President Trump “will get rid of all of you.”'

I think we all have much to apologize for.

[SomeGuy]

(01-27-2017, 02:23 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 08:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 12:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: You are missing the forest for the trees.

Be careful what you wish for people. You might actually get it.

That's nice, I've heard that one before.  Did you catch any more bumper stickers today?

No, I am actually curious: Much of your posting in the nearly 4 years (on and off) I've been posting here has been warmongering for the impending battle with the SCO/Neo-Mongol Empire/<Insert political/historical reference here>.  You've mentioned that you've been thinking along similar lines since at least 1999/2000 (Y2K).  So, in what way would you say your thinking has changed?

I no longer think liberals are evil. I am now exceedingly tolerant vis a vis social concerns / minority rights / etc. I no longer think globalism is all bad (it just needed reform). I no longer associate with Birchers, League of the South, Skousenites, etc, etc. I don't think it would be wise to fire most of the State Department. So many other things.

As far as I can tell, now you think the alt right is evil.  That's not being tolerant; it's just redirecting your intolerances to a different group..

I am curious. In what way do you see the alt right not being evil? This would include the likes of the KKK, neo nazis, white supremacists keep in mind. I am very curious as to what you think about that.

The term "alt-right" was fairly nebulous and basically referred to a grab-bag of political ideologies of the right that were loosely organized on the Internet in the 2000s-2010s.  Not just various flavors of white supremacists, but monarchists, Paleocons, religious traditionalists, integralists, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of various stripes, random kids on 4chan, nationalists, a bunch of different Russian bloggers, etc.  Basically everyone who was neither a progressive nor a Republican.  When Breitbart was talking about making Breitbart a forum for the AltRight, this is what he was referring to.  

During and after the 2016 election, this name was rebranded (out of confusion/political purposes to tar populism with the Nazi brush) to mean specifically white supremacists, and nerdy media whore Richard Spencer welcomed the free publicity (in reality, his "rallies" attracted fewer attendees than the DC convention of grown men who like watching My Little Pony, and the KKK has maybe 3000 members in the entire country, small enough to fit in a single high school).  But, because of this, people are now convinced there is a massive white supremacist movement in the country, ensconced in the White House, and taking orders from the Fascist Internationale based out of the Kremlin, when in reality there is simply a surge of populism in Western countries due to dissatisfaction with the status quo (some of it tied to immigration, some to deindustrialization, etc.).

But labeling it a new Axis of Evil sounds cooler. 

[pbrower2a]

De-industrialization:

Simple explanation. We Americans are at a stage in which the only possible cause for fresh demand for manufactured goods is population growth. Our purchases of manufactured goods are for disposable objects like razor blades and aluminum foil... and replacement of durable goods. Example: I am now on my fourth TV set as an adult, and the last one that I bought I bought ten years ago as I decided to go with a flat screen TV. We are not trading cars every two years as was once the norm for parts of American middle-class life.

So how can Donald Trump bring back manufacturing jobs back to America? Only if Americans decide to replace all their stuff. That is unlikely. Few people buy a refrigerator, stove, or washing machine if the current one hasn't gone bad. Paradoxically the only way to stimulate consumer purchases is to unleash immigration upon us...

The number of people needed in mining, energy extraction, and manufacturing has been shrinking; even China is seeing the decline in need for manufacturing workers.

President Trump believes that we can get more productivity just by accelerating the depletion of resources, polluting more, and cutting taxes for the elites. But what would he know? He has never been a manufacturer except in some failed enterprises.

[Warren Dew]

(01-27-2017, 02:23 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 08:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 12:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: You are missing the forest for the trees.

Be careful what you wish for people. You might actually get it.

That's nice, I've heard that one before.  Did you catch any more bumper stickers today?

No, I am actually curious: Much of your posting in the nearly 4 years (on and off) I've been posting here has been warmongering for the impending battle with the SCO/Neo-Mongol Empire/<Insert political/historical reference here>.  You've mentioned that you've been thinking along similar lines since at least 1999/2000 (Y2K).  So, in what way would you say your thinking has changed?

I no longer think liberals are evil. I am now exceedingly tolerant vis a vis social concerns / minority rights / etc. I no longer think globalism is all bad (it just needed reform). I no longer associate with Birchers, League of the South, Skousenites, etc, etc. I don't think it would be wise to fire most of the State Department. So many other things.

As far as I can tell, now you think the alt right is evil.  That's not being tolerant; it's just redirecting your intolerances to a different group..

I am curious. In what way do you see the alt right not being evil? This would include the likes of the KKK, neo nazis, white supremacists keep in mind. I am very curious as to what you think about that.

The folks you mention make up less than 0.1% of the alt right.  Characterizing the entire alt right as evil on that basis is like calling the entire left in the US evil because they include a few thousand Communist Party members.

[SomeGuy]

(01-27-2017, 03:57 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 02:55 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 02:23 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 08:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 12:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I no longer think liberals are evil. I am now exceedingly tolerant vis a vis social concerns / minority rights / etc. I no longer think globalism is all bad (it just needed reform). I no longer associate with Birchers, League of the South, Skousenites, etc, etc. I don't think it would be wise to fire most of the State Department. So many other things.

As far as I can tell, now you think the alt right is evil.  That's not being tolerant; it's just redirecting your intolerances to a different group..

I am curious. In what way do you see the alt right not being evil? This would include the likes of the KKK, neo nazis, white supremacists keep in mind. I am very curious as to what you think about that.

The term "alt-right" was fairly nebulous and basically referred to a grab-bag of political ideologies of the right that were loosely organized on the Internet in the 2000s-2010s.  Not just various flavors of white supremacists, but monarchists, Paleocons, religious traditionalists, integralists, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of various stripes, random kids on 4chan, nationalists, a bunch of different Russian bloggers, etc.  Basically everyone who was neither a progressive nor a Republican.  When Breitbart was talking about making Breitbart a forum for the AltRight, this is what he was referring to.  

During and after the 2016 election, this name was rebranded (out of confusion/political purposes to tar populism with the Nazi brush) to mean specifically white supremacists, and nerdy media whore Richard Spencer welcomed the free publicity (in reality, his "rallies" attracted fewer attendees than the DC convention of grown men who like watching My Little Pony, and the KKK has maybe 3000 members in the entire country, small enough to fit in a single high school).  But, because of this, people are now convinced there is a massive white supremacist movement in the country, ensconced in the White House, and taking orders from the Fascist Internationale based out of the Kremlin, when in reality there is simply a surge of populism in Western countries due to dissatisfaction with the status quo (some of it tied to immigration, some to deindustrialization, etc.).

But labeling it a new Axis of Evil sounds cooler. 

I have no idea whether or not Duginism or its Western derivatives have had any uptake with you personally. In any case, the problem is not those few thousand complete whackos you alluded to. The problem is a much larger number of former (yes, I mean it, former) Conservatives who have embraced, either knowingly or unwittingly, elements of the Duginist program. That is crap. It is a wrong turn. It is a tiny step in the direction of a Pan movement. You seem to think it can't happen here or maybe you are a person who has to see something in retrospect to fully validate it. Imagine how different the past century might have been if people didn't take such a wait and see attitude about what Paul R. Johnson refers to as "The Monsters."

The Duginist program?  Foundations of Geopolitics?  I'm impressed, I didn't know you READ RUSSIAN, 'cause it ain't available in English.  I certainly don't.  Seriously, this is embarrassing.  I mean, this is like John Birch Society Global Communist Conspiracy stuff.  You have no evidence that Dugin is actually orchestrating anything anywhere, or that any of these different movements (Le Pen's FN, Fillon's desire for rapprochement with Russia, the Trump campaign, Brexit, etc.) have been in any way influenced by National Bolshevism, you've just taken a bunch of stuff you read on Wikipedia and cobbled together a narrative that reinforces your pre-existing fixation on the need for WWIII.  You haven't actually changed, you've merely shifted the justifications you're using towards the same end.

I'm not saying "It Can't Happen Here", I'm saying that going on about "TRUMP IZ HITLER" is stupid, sloppy thinking.  The NYT was against amnesty for illegal immigrants as late as 2000, Bill Clinton took plenty of harsh stances against violent crime and illegal immigration, Trump's whole campaign was just a less articulate reboot of the Buchanan one back in the 90s, that there is no evidence of his antisemitism, anti-LGBTQAIABCDEFG, or anything else.  More violence was used AGAINST Trump supporters (see Chicago, San Jose, etc.) than has been used by them against others.  There's no Nazi movement afoot, just a moral panic by people who are so used to pushing the Overton Window to the left that any movement in the opposite direction, however minor, is treated as an existential threat.

[Warren Dew]

(01-27-2017, 05:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 04:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 02:23 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 08:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 12:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I no longer think liberals are evil. I am now exceedingly tolerant vis a vis social concerns / minority rights / etc. I no longer think globalism is all bad (it just needed reform). I no longer associate with Birchers, League of the South, Skousenites, etc, etc. I don't think it would be wise to fire most of the State Department. So many other things.

As far as I can tell, now you think the alt right is evil.  That's not being tolerant; it's just redirecting your intolerances to a different group..

I am curious. In what way do you see the alt right not being evil? This would include the likes of the KKK, neo nazis, white supremacists keep in mind. I am very curious as to what you think about that.

The folks you mention make up less than 0.1% of the alt right.  Characterizing the entire alt right as evil on that basis is like calling the entire left in the US evil because they include a few thousand Communist Party members.

Ah actually when you look into what alt right supports at its core it is not a good image nor a good message. If you have any links that prove them wrong go for it. Alt right (going by its core message) is not mainstream right wing. it is far left ahem like communists are far left.

What the alt right supports at its core is the interests of American citizens over the interests of the rest of the world.  I can see how those from the rest of the world might feel it is "not a good image nor a good message" - no doubt you'd prefer the US promote the interests of the rest of the world over those of American citizens - but it's not evil.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-27-2017, 02:23 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 08:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 12:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: You are missing the forest for the trees.

Be careful what you wish for people. You might actually get it.

That's nice, I've heard that one before.  Did you catch any more bumper stickers today?

No, I am actually curious: Much of your posting in the nearly 4 years (on and off) I've been posting here has been warmongering for the impending battle with the SCO/Neo-Mongol Empire/<Insert political/historical reference here>.  You've mentioned that you've been thinking along similar lines since at least 1999/2000 (Y2K).  So, in what way would you say your thinking has changed?

I no longer think liberals are evil. I am now exceedingly tolerant vis a vis social concerns / minority rights / etc. I no longer think globalism is all bad (it just needed reform). I no longer associate with Birchers, League of the South, Skousenites, etc, etc. I don't think it would be wise to fire most of the State Department. So many other things.

As far as I can tell, now you think the alt right is evil.  That's not being tolerant; it's just redirecting your intolerances to a different group..

I am curious. In what way do you see the alt right not being evil? This would include the likes of the KKK, neo nazis, white supremacists keep in mind. I am very curious as to what you think about that.

I don't view the evil/ignorant ones (the KKK, neo Nazi's, white supremacists) as being much of a threat to us today. America defeated the Nazi's in World War II. America defeated White Supremacy in the American Civil War. Yes, they can be dangerous as we have seen recently and they can be a social menace as we have seen here but they aren't a major threat to America. BTW, America is a collective too. What the Trump election told me was that hard core America is big and powerful. Blue America should be concerned because it means the time of silly political games and self centered politics (identity politics/ greedy self serving politicians) is/should be over.

[SomeGuy]

Tara,

Out of curiosity, what people have you been reading when you talk about what the alt-right supports "at its core" or "its core message"?

And I don't mean give me an assertion of what you think it is, I'm curious what your source(s) are on its "core message".

[pbrower2a]

The John Birch Society, long considered extreme and ludicrous to conservatives, has stayed as far to the Right as possible without delving into calls for genocide (including enslavement or extermination) except perhaps against Communists. The Republican Party has gone so far to the Right that it and the Birch Society are now hard to distinguish.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-27-2017, 05:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I don't view the evil/ignorant ones (the KKK, neo Nazi's, white supremacists) as being much of a threat to us today. America defeated the Nazi's in World War II. America defeated White Supremacy in the American Civil War. Yes, they can be dangerous as we have seen recently and they can be a social menace as we have seen here but they aren't a major threat to America. BTW, America is a collective too. What the Trump election told me was that hard core America is big and powerful. Blue America should be concerned because it means the time of silly political games and self centered politics (identity politics/ greedy self serving politicians) is/should be over.

You are touching on one aspect of what I call the 'arrow of progress.'  Those favoring the superiority of the whites and maintaining their superior place are of questionable merit.  Those seeking equality for minorities by race, culture and gender are winning a very slow and intermittent victory.  In general, yes, equality has in the long run been making advances over supremacists.

I find myself amused that you can flip it over in your mind, calling the supremacists 'core America' while those working towards equality have been mislabeled as pursing 'identity politics'.  My thought is that those favoring equality went a little too far too fast with a black president, pressure to ban official use of Confederate symbols, efforts on behalf of latinos, muslims and other cultures currently the victims of the supremacists, and attempts to mainline non-traditional gender partnerships.  The supremacists have recently seen too much progress towards equality.  They are ticked off at the moment.  There is a supremacist backlash in progress.  This happens from time to time in America.  Work towards equality will be at a pause for a time.  While I find this offensive, I do not believe the current backlash will continue indefinitely.  After a time of ugliness, work towards equality will resume.

I tend to agree that the ever changing balance between the supremacists and those pursing equality is not a major threat to America.  The current conflicts will not match the intensity of the Civil War, Jim Crow or the mid 20th Century civil rights movement.  The ebb and flow of prejudice has been part of our history, be it an ugly unnecessary part.  It has not gone away, and will only go away with much time and much effort.

I can also second a disapproval of self serving politicians.  I just don't see either faction as having a monopoly on them.  I would as soon focus more on draining the swamp,  less less on equality / supremacy, at least for the moment.  Those favoring equality have had major victories recently, and will have to endure the backlash.  Alas, focusing on draining the swamp doesn't seem to be in the interests of those who prefer living in swamps.  I anticipate continued effort towards fanning the flames of prejudice.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-27-2017, 10:02 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 09:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The John Birch Society, long considered extreme and ludicrous to conservatives, has stayed as far to the Right as possible without delving into calls for genocide (including enslavement or extermination) except perhaps against Communists. The Republican Party has gone so far to the Right that it and the Birch Society are now hard to distinguish.

I have heard that both left and right wing have become more extreme over the years. Not sure if that is true or not.

There is certainly less willingness to compromise.  Yes, prejudice that was accepted as normal in FDR's time would generate outrage today.  The civil rights and women's movements since the Awakening reflect vastly different expectations among the modern blue population.  Aspects of red culture have been dragged in the direction of equality quite some distance.  Given how stubborn and irrational cultures can act, it shouldn't be surprising that they are digging in and refusing to budge for a time.  In this, I'm not speaking only of the red culture.  The blue belief in equality is stubborn too.