I can't agree with that, given that Matt has repeatedly pointed out the difference between actual police states and the freedoms of an open society that we still have available in the US.
Matt's warning about a perilous trend. That's different than actually having arrived in the pit.
Yeah, but the fact remains that our rights, services and peace of mind are all being eroded at a shocking pace, by both parties, making elections increasingly pointless even as the language around them become incredibly histrionic.
Perhaps other nations are more "police state", but we definitely are moving in that direction, quickly, with no ability to influence our path.
I never thought that, and the old Indian and cowboys told you so. It was their land, but we came over and took it , but they were bad for fighting for what was theirs. As a kid it told me we are not who we say we are.
In the “meta” sense it shows the true dangers of “tribalism”(a synonym for diversity). If the Indians (early on) could have set their differences aside and recognized the existential threat Europeans posed to them they could have easily eliminated their small nascent communities. At least for awhile. King Phillip made a valiant effort but failed.
Tribalism is not a synonym for diversity. Not in any thesaurus or dictionary. Most people have a suspicious idea of "tribalism," that it might not be good. And you seem to want to somehow drag diversity into it?
If anything, diversity is an antonym of tribalism.
Diversity IS an antonym of tribalism, but we are practicing tribalism and calling it diversity. Kind of like how "freedom" meant mass surveillance in past moral panics.
I always remembered reading that a pope in the 15 century gave all those headed off to claim new land a thumbs up, and a sense of entitlement to the land of the infidels, and killing them off was indeed an option, and I'm sure what you're saying is true.
Kill yes, all of them, and then rape and enslave their women. I've actually read the bible, all of it. Some really seriously nasty and weird stuff in there.
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.
Wow. Little gem of a story like that should be tip off that most cults are started by complete psychopaths with violent delusions of revenge and power.
When I was a kid and I would hear things on a par with this I use to think maybe these people were deaf and couldn't hear right, and God got it all wrong.
Sounds like you were a very interesting kid! I also remember looking around with skepticism about the human approach to life, social, political and religious assertions that were obviously contradicted by what I saw. But because everyone else seemed okay with the status quo, by my 20's I'd pivoted to doubting myself.
"Good mental health was not a prerequisite for European settlers emigrating to the New World. We are fond of reminding ourselves that Australia was (and mostly still is) populated primarily with murderers, thieves and sexual perverts, but the immigrants to America were not noticeably better. Indeed, the inscription on the Statue of Liberty got the words more or less correct in referring to “the wretched refuse of your teeming shore”. While the Australians had their serial killers and muggers, the Europeans went one better with their Christian extremists who spent their weekdays burning witches and killing Indians, and their Sundays in church thanking God for the opportunity. The Australians have marginally improved their habits over the centuries while the Americans have not.
America is widely accepted, and indeed even prides itself, on being a deeply Christian country, with 65% or more of the population declaring religion important in their lives. This would be supported by history, since the major migrations to the New World consisted of a long list of flaky religious sects whose primary goal in emigration was the opportunity to build a society entirely based on those isolationist and extremist heresies. It is probably safe to say that Salem witchcraft was the seedbed in which the peculiarly American version of Christian theology sprouted and flourished, and which also served as a practical introduction to mass hysteria which would later be so usefully applied to the concepts of patriotism and democracy. The enduring echoes of this religious ancestry have been highly influential in all of subsequent American history.
The Preamble to the American Declaration of Independence (“The most famous words in the English language”, if you’re American; just another Hello Kitty greeting card, if you’re not), states: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all White Men were created superior and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, the most important of which is slavery”. In the recent history of the modern world, only two nations of people have so thoroughly embraced slavery as to have practiced it on an immense scale for hundreds of years: the Christians in America and the Dalai Lamas in Tibet. And only these two groups so cherished slavery in their hearts they fought a civil war over the right to maintain it. It is hardly a moral selling point that both sets of racist bigots lost the war and, while Mao cleaned up Tibet, the racism and bigotry persisted in America, often violently, for another 200 years and is still widely in evidence today. Christian virtue does not die easily."
The cited article *is* good--at least as propaganda.
"In the recent history of the modern world, only two nations of people have so thoroughly embraced slavery as to have practiced it on an immense scale for hundreds of years: the Christians in America and the Dalai Lamas in Tibet [stopped by Mao]."
But definitely no slavery under Mao (no genocide, no forced labor, or any other stuff like that), definitely not!
And America (as the USA nation, anyway, since "nations" is the category used) definitely had slavery, at least in some states, from 1776 to 1860--1.04 centuries, to be precise, so definitely "centuries." (Although it is hard to say whether the nation as a whole "embraced" slavery.)
And if pre-independence time is being counted here, there are certainly more than "only two nations" with a "long history of slavery" into "modern times." Just in the Americas, for instance, there is Brazil, with slavery of Africans there starting as early as 1540 and extending into the 1860's.
My great great grandfather, whose name and memory I carry as my middle names, was kicked off his croft in Rogart Scotland in the highlands during the clearances. So he made his way to Pictou Nova Scotia where he did rather well.
When my Palestinian friends complain about losing their land I reply, "Tell me about it!"
If you ever get a chance to visit NS I highly recommend it. Cape Breton is one of the great places in the world.
True enough. My husband and I just returned from Netherlands and Belgium because we were tracing the roots of his paternal grandfather whose family came to America because their horse trading business owed money.
I guess the TL/DR version is that personal bankruptcy laws favor the creditors whereas corporate bankruptcy laws and courts favor the well heeled debtors with the money and connections to sway the system.
Thanks for the article, I'll read it. Looks good. As a kid I always had difficulty with my religious upbringing. Lots to question and interestingly the same applied to what they told me about history, like men with property could vote, but others couldn't didn't seem democratic to me, etc. I liked reading this. Thank you.
15th century? "...headed off to claim a *new land*, and a sense of entitlement to the land of infidels and killing them"? You got a little more reading to do. Better go read up on a "crusade" that happened from the middle of the 7th century to the 14th. Look up the geographical location of Al-Andalus and the Umayyad Caliphate and how it came to be. Read past the historical re-writes of how living in dhimmitude was cool beans(someone forgot to give some Frenchman named Chuck Martel the news that it was great). "New lands" only when they decided to embark on kicking the invaders asses all the way back to where they came from and plundered on the way back home(went Viking) because that shit cost$$$ and they were broke. You see when pushing back on and evening things up with your centuries long oppressors and you do this in silly outfits, swing cords to chop and crush up close and personal........well you tend to be brutal hard SOB's. Not putting a smiley face on it but look at it from the proper perspective not through the prism of today. This wasn't just some random "hey lets go kill these a-holes and take their shit cuz we're greedy and have nothing else better to do because Christianity".
The latter crusades we're questionable but the early ones had a purpose. Unfortunately chasing these oppressors back to where they came from the, Christian Crusaders discovered new resources of worth and good ol' human nature(conquest) took over.
The Papal Bull "Inter Caetera," issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, played a central role in the Spanish conquest of the New World. The document supported Spain’s strategy to ensure its exclusive right to the lands discovered by Columbus the previous year. It established a demarcation line one hundred leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands and assigned Spain the exclusive right to acquire territorial possessions and to trade in all lands west of that line. All others were forbidden to approach the lands west of the line without special license from the rulers of Spain. This effectively gave Spain a monopoly on the lands in the New World.
The Bull stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be "discovered," claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers and declared that "the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself." This "Doctrine of Discovery" became the basis of all European claims in the Americas as well as the foundation for the United States’ western expansion. In the US Supreme Court in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the unanimous decision held "that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands." In essence, American Indians had only a right of occupancy, which could be abolished.
The Bull Inter Caetera made headlines again throughout the 1990s and in 2000, when many Catholics petitioned Pope John Paul II to formally revoke it and recognize the human rights of indigenous "non-Christian peoples."
An English translation is available.
EXCERPT
Wherefore, as becomes Catholic kings and princes, after earnest consideration of all matters, especially of the rise and spread of the Catholic faith, as was the fashion of your ancestors, kings of renowned memory, you have purposed with the favor of divine clemency to bring under your sway the said mainlands and islands with their residents and inhabitants and to bring them to the Catholic faith. Hence, heartily commending in the Lord this your holy and praiseworthy purpose, and desirous that it be duly accomplished, and that the name of our Savior be carried into those regions, we exhort you very earnestly in the Lord and by your reception of holy baptism, whereby you are bound to our apostolic commands, and by the bowels of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, enjoy strictly, that inasmuch as with eager zeal for the true faith you design to equip and despatch this expedition, you purpose also, as is your duty, to lead the peoples dwelling in those islands and countries to embrace the Christian religion; nor at any time let dangers or hardships deter you therefrom, with the stout hope and trust in your hearts that Almighty God will further your undertakings. And, in order that you may enter upon so great an undertaking with greater readiness and heartiness endowed with benefit of our apostolic favor, we, of our own accord, not at your instance nor the request of anyone else in your regard, but out of our own sole largess and certain knowledge and out of the fullness of our apostolic power, by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents, should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole, namely the north, to the Antarctic pole, namely the south, no matter whether the said mainlands and islands are found and to be found in the direction of India or towards any other quarter, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde. With this proviso however that none of the islands and mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, beyond that said line towards the west and south, be in the actual possession of any Christian king or prince up to the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ just past from which the present year one thousand four hundred ninety-three begins. And we make, appoint, and depute you and your said heirs and successors lords of them with full and free power, authority, and jurisdiction of every kind; with this proviso however, that by this our gift, grant, and assignment no right acquired by any Christian prince, who may be in actual possesssion of said islands and mainlands prior to the said birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ, is hereby to be understood to be withdrawn or taking away. Moreover we command you in virtue of holy obedience that, employing all due diligence in the premises, as you also promise—nor do we doubt your compliance therein in accordance with your loyalty and royal greatness of spirit—you should appoint to the aforesaid mainlands and islands worthy, God-fearing, learned, skilled, and expeienced men, in order to instruct the aforesaid inhabitants and residents in the Catholic faith and train them in good morals. Furthermore, under penalty of excommunication "late sententie" to be incurred "ipso facto," should anyone thus contravene, we strictly forbid all persons of whatsoever rank, even imperial and royal, or of whatsoever estate, degree, order, or condition, to dare without your special permit or that of your aforesaid heirs and successors, to go for the purpose of trade or any other reason to the islands or mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole to the Antarctic pole, no matter whether the mainlands and islands, found and to be found, lie in the direction of India or toward any other quarter whatsoever, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south, as is aforesaid, from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde; apostolic constitutions and ordinances and other decrees whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. We trust in Him from whom empires and governments and all good things proceed, that, should you, with the Lord’s guidance, pursue this holy and praiseworthy undertaking, in a short while your hardships and endeavors will attain the most felicitious result, to the happiness and glory of all Christendom.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
Read the introduction and the document transcript in order to answer these questions.
By what authority did Pope Alexander VI claim the power to give Spain nearly exclusive possession of the New World?
Why do you think Spain wanted exclusive rights to the New World?
Along with the right to possess the land, the Papal Bull also indicated that Spain had specific responsibilities. List and explain these duties.
Why was it impossible for Spain, or indeed any other European nation, to realize the extent of the territory Spain controlled after May 1493?
Holy shit!(facepalm) I literally gave you a very condensed version of exactly this as it applied to the Christian Crusades. Spain was called Al-Andalus for a reason before the date at the top of this decree. Nothing like brainwashed agenda driven narrative to omit pertinent parts of history. Your ilk always shit the bed with the crybaby BS of the Christian Crusades blessed by the pope to drive out the poor poor muslims and kick their asses back to where they came from. WTF do you think the muslims were doing there IN SPAIN? Painting pictures and gardening? Why do you think the Pope whipped out the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and blessed this decree? I explained it above.
I think I see Madjack's point. So-called diversity ISN'T diversity of ideas/thinking reasonably. It's the opposite, fractionating people into superficial tribal categories, i.e. white=oppressors, blacks=victims, questioning trans ideology's enforced demands=transphobia, etc. And so it goes.
I think you could argue there's two completely different word senses of 'tribalism' now. One is political tribalism (diversity being ONLY ONE of the many totem poles of a particular tribe, say, "protect the borders" would a the right-wing totem pole) and the other is actual tribal behaviors in real human contexts (like, tribes in Africa, etc.).
You make a good point about indigenous American tribes though.
Would that have worked out better for them? Both Persia and China were centralized empires and they didn’t fare any better against the guns and cannons of industrialized Europe. The Chinese empire had some outdated respect for the land due to their old Shamanistic beliefs and didn’t want to mine coal for industrialization. Same thing happened to the native Americans. Only when China had arms production on par with the Western countries did they start winning wars.
And who did 'The Natives' take the land from? Other natives...
American Pioneers in the 19th century who actually lived life without servants respected American Indians and their ways, our 'beloved' government decided to remove them much like their efforts on the middle class these days.
"And who did 'The Natives' take the land from? Other natives"
That's not what happened.
The continent was literally unoccupied when the ancestors of Native Americans came to the continent from Asia over the Bering Land Bridge during the last Ice Age, around 12,000 to 30,000 years ago. Did they then compete for territory, here and there, sure. But nothing like happened when the colonisers came.
You're agreeing that they arrived across an 18,000 year time span. So either they were the slowest walkers in history, or there were multiple waves of people coming across.
Well, not familiar with who was here first. I guess you didn't watch those cowboy and Indian movies I watched on TV where the message was this is our land not your's even though you were here first. You cannot excuse what we did to the indigenous people of the America's. Sorry, nor the permission given by the church, which was not restricted to the Americas. Trail of tears, lets see you justify that.
Conquest has been a human condition since the first caveman stepped outside his cave, looked across a valley seen another clan and said I want their stuff. Asian descendants that built grass rafts set out from their mainland and went island hopping would occasionally bump into others that did the same and wanted each others stuff. Humans did it as a matter of survival and advancement for living conditions. Not excusing what we did to each other as humans but as another commenter pointed out(Danimal28) the Indians weren't exactly living together in peace and harmony either. Some tribes had their own versions of conquest, genocide, slavery, robbing each others food stores, warring over hunting grounds, kidnapping females to breed. I'm not impugning Native Americans just pointing out an uncomfortable truth of human nature that even Indians were prone too.
You seem to be very focused on the church/ christianity. If that what floats your boat, fine, but don't let it skew the truth of history.
Trail of Tears? Justify what? Allowing the Indians that were paid to relocate force their 800 black slaves (some of the Cherokee/Creek elites among them owned) to have to go with them or the misfortune that befell the actual members of the tribe on the way?
I don't want to continue this conversation about how bad the Indians were, and let me just say that your understanding of the Trial of Tears is really off. I am not focused on the church, and it's a thing of the past. Why don't you focus on our Muslim wars, and the millions we displaced and killed then you can focus on using Ukrainian lives so we can keep the number one slot in the world. More timely.
I hate acolytes of violence who claim 'violence, conquest, genocide' are part of 'the human condition'. Yes, humanity has a violent history, but if you actually look closely you can also see that different tribes and ethnicities have co-existed peacefully adjacent to each other in many cases for very, very long periods of time, and there were many more peaceful cultures that would never have had it in their conception to launch genocidal wars of settler colonial conquest. By saying conquest is part of the 'human condition', you are both lying and making yourself an apologist for the grossest acts of inhumanity that have been committed by our species, usually acts spurred on and driven by a small minority of sociopathic leaders. Inhabitants of the United States, which has committed some of the grossest violence imaginable during its history, might be especially vulnerable or even dependent on this idea that conquest is 'natural' or inevitable, because it ameliorates and lifts any potential stain or responsibility or duty to correct or change our path. Just keep turning the crank on the violence.
Acolyte of violence? F U. Can you guys actually f'ing read? I know I suck at English Comp but FFS. Good job Captain Obvious at pointing out SOME tribes of people were capable of living next to each other in peace......of course this usually always came after violent conflict. All part of being a lefty idiot right? Can't tell the fucking difference between accepting the fact that every civilization/society on the planet at one time or another has done atrocious shit. I'm not apologizing for any violence you dumb fck, I believe it should be avoided at all costs until you are forced into it as a matter of self-preservation. Of course you lefty idiots always come back around to America bad as if it's the only place inhabited by the only people that have of course owned slaves or done f'd up shit to people.
The only acts of violence right now being committed in this country, spurned on and driven by a small minority of sociopathic leaders is within the left and the Transhumanist movement. The only crank being turned on violence is within the blue city cesspools that turn felons loose on the law abiding innocent public and politicians on the left that cheer on antifa, Janes Revenge and BLM. I guarantee the violence lays firmly in your camp, not mine.
I watched them; I will never excuse what we did to indigenous people, but that is the way of the world - and governments(not the People) are responsible for all of it. Just like when they locked you down through the use of force a mere three years ago.
Didn't mean to say they were, it's not just us, look at how Europe used Africa as it's backyard. We used South America as ours. However people, do look the other way or too easily go along with their government's policies. Look at how Americans went along with our Middle Eastern wars, and I bet if those were Christian or Jewish countries I don't think they could have pushed those wars.
I think I have a far better handle on this. Government is force, nothing more. It is supposed to protect our rights and negotiate in good faith and that hasn't happened since prior to 1860 for the most part. Government signed treaties with the Native's, reneged, and then used force to conquer them. Not that the Native's were always honest and forthright.... There have been many periods of peace, of course. Today is not a period of peace as the government is using force again to silence and censor Americans.
It depended on the tribe. The Comanche were horrifying. They ran a robbery, kidnapping, murder protection racket on horseback, and they maintained their power with a fearsome level of intimidation, including torture. https://scgwynne.com/product/empire-of-the-summer-moon
When Hernando de Soto arrived in the Southeast US, he found captive slavery and torture were as widespread among the tribes of southeastern North America, including the dominant civilization- the Coosa- as it was among the Spaniard conquistadors. The author does not whitewash the atrocities of the conquistadors, either. They were unimaginably cruel in those days. https://www.amazon.com/Hernando-Soto-Savage-Quest-Americas/dp/0806129778
Not to excuse the taking of most Native American lands by Euro settlers, but yes indeed the same thing was happening broadly between Native American communities. The West, at the time of European agression, was largely inhabited by Native nations that brutally pried lands from Native predecessors. And slavery was commonplace and widespread. The Southwest was largely inhabited by Athabascan and southcentral (Comance) peoples that slaughtered their way to their final homelands at the time of Euro conquest. Plains tribes had been eradicated by midwestt newcomers like the Lakota, who suppressed and eliminated their predecessors in Canada, the Dakotas, the middle west. It simply is history, and the final victors were simply the last in line of imperialist aggressors.
The United States is neither a democracy nor is it a democratic republic, but an oligarchy featuring unlimited political bribery for those who can afford pricey lawyers.
P.S. I think he might have misspelled the name. It's possible he was talking about a right-wing talk radio personality named John WilKow. Seems to be a common mistake after doing some light research on the matter.
For fun sometime do a "controversial" search in Google and then run the same on Duck Duck or Brave just to name a couple.
Things that I used to find easily on Google are now hard to impossible.
Sergey Brin has a long public history of collaborating with intelligence agencies going back to at least 2001 when he volunteered to help find the perps.
I had a lot of respect for Reich from his doc on income inequality until someone pointed out that he was the Sec Labor under Clinton during the NAFTA negotiations. That man is a quisling in that he bears a signifcant responsibility for the hollowing out of the USA's industrial base.
The situation described in Hillbilly Elegy rests (in a large part) on his shoulders. Both Reich and Arnand Ammawhazizname are such posers. Empty suits crying out empty platitudes, thinking their 'La Resistance'. Ugh
And the plethora of removed comments? WTF?
NOW I understand why SS contribs are moving to Locals.
I thought J. D. Vance's point in Hillbilly Elegy is that the crucial responsibility for the situation he described was on the people who lived there and just refused to change the self-destructive component of their life ways. Including his homefolks.
And Robert Reich did not negotiate NAFTA as Secretary of Labor under Clinton. The agreement was negotiated in the Bush I administration, and signed by President George H. W. Bush as an international agreement. The only thing that Bush ally (on the down-low, of course, although it's become much more obvious over the years) Bill Clinton did was to forcefully endorse its ratification by the Congress, the final authority on certifying treaties, and sign it into law after Congress had passed it.
Clinton was able to successfully articulate to his fellow democratic faithful, in coded speech and phony backwoods bluster refined by Yale Law, what the republicans had discovered a few decades previous. Money got you elected, and even more money kept you in office.
Anyone with a real interest in what's really going on in politics in the year 2023 needs to read the 1996 book Partners In Power, by Roger Morris. Especially the chapters entitled "Washington I/II/III"- and the one entitled "Mena" too, of course. And after that, the chapters in between. And to really go for the extreme sport trophy, read the entire book. https://www.abebooks.com/9780805028041/Partners-Power-Clintons-America-Morris-0805028048/plp
But the three chapters entitled "Washington" alone will tell any perceptive reader more about the way National Politics is currently practiced inside the Beltway than ten years of reading Twitter.
Reich is a partisan propagandist who supports everything they do. He is even trying to sell 'biden' as a functioning entity who is doing things. Unbelievable. I will be banned here for truth speaking. It's inevitable.
Reich is loyal to Team Blue, despite having most of his personal suggestions ignored and disrespected in the Clinton years. He was only appointed Labor Secretary as window dressing. No one who counted paid attention to his recommendations.
That's what the fake narrative framing of Team Blue and Team Red encourages. Ironclad team loyalty and partisanship. There's no third position, in the absence of ranked choice voting. Team Blue is terrified that they would be doomed if ranked choice voting got out of hand. And orthodox CNN/MSNBC American liberals are okay with that, because they buy into the neoliberal narrative that continues to insinuate that a 3rd Position could only be Fascist. The GOP establishment doesn't want ranked choice voting, either, because their leaders suspect that Team Red would be doomed.
If the voting system weren't rigged to limit "viable candidates" to the two established parties, at this point they're both about ready to fold up like cardboard suitcases in a typhoon.
Ranked choice voting would be a bit of a battle royal, at first. And I'd anticipate that one of the major party candidates would still win- at first. But the victorious candidate, his handlers, and his campaign would have to have actually listened to the points of the outlier candidates and parties. Politics, being the art of the possible, is about triangulation. Ranked choice voting provides another, crucial dimension to it.
Right now, the only triangulation either established party candidate requires is to beheld as slightly less bad, by slightly more voters. And after that, they can do whatever- grandstanding, punting, kicking cans down the road, private agendas getting into petty power plays with the private agenda of the other side....
"Getting the money out of politics" alone is not going to make any difference to improving politics under the current voting system. Because it isn't ever going to happen, unless we get a ranked choice voting system where outlier candidates can make their case for it, as political rivals. And ultimately, a ranked-choice result is always a majoritarian system. There would never be a party administration that didn't have at least some conditional assent by the majority of voters. Compare that to what we have now- cornered into the sham appearance of unconditional assent for one of two choices...and look at how that's worked out for us.
I think that even a two option ranking system would be an infinite improvement over what we have now.
If Substack wanted to shoot its value proposition in the ass, introducing mass censorship so as not to offend the delicate sensitivities of The People Who Matter is the way to do it, right there.
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”
Remember, kids, authoritarianism is something that ever always only happens in other countries!
We're going full shithole!
we are full shithole.
I can't agree with that, given that Matt has repeatedly pointed out the difference between actual police states and the freedoms of an open society that we still have available in the US.
Matt's warning about a perilous trend. That's different than actually having arrived in the pit.
I just got done reading the Wired article about the deployment of Hikvision facial surveillance technology in the PRC. https://www.wired.com/story/surveillance-china-security-camera-giant-ipvm/
Now THAT is what actual totalitarian control is.
The American company that exposed Hikvision: https://ipvm.com/
Yeah, but the fact remains that our rights, services and peace of mind are all being eroded at a shocking pace, by both parties, making elections increasingly pointless even as the language around them become incredibly histrionic.
Perhaps other nations are more "police state", but we definitely are moving in that direction, quickly, with no ability to influence our path.
“Matt's warning about a perilous trend. That's different than actually having arrived in the pit. “
Time is what keeps everything from happening at once
See: how to boil a live frog
Going, going, gone...?
Osiris was right. You never go Full Retard.
I never thought that, and the old Indian and cowboys told you so. It was their land, but we came over and took it , but they were bad for fighting for what was theirs. As a kid it told me we are not who we say we are.
In the “meta” sense it shows the true dangers of “tribalism”(a synonym for diversity). If the Indians (early on) could have set their differences aside and recognized the existential threat Europeans posed to them they could have easily eliminated their small nascent communities. At least for awhile. King Phillip made a valiant effort but failed.
Tribalism is not a synonym for diversity. Not in any thesaurus or dictionary. Most people have a suspicious idea of "tribalism," that it might not be good. And you seem to want to somehow drag diversity into it?
If anything, diversity is an antonym of tribalism.
Diversity IS an antonym of tribalism, but we are practicing tribalism and calling it diversity. Kind of like how "freedom" meant mass surveillance in past moral panics.
Tribalism is a synonym for diversity.
I'm sure you'll provide us with the link to that source. The famous synonym guy, Roget, says you are incorrect.
I am the source, the only one of importance here on this thread. Resorting to a thesaurus is past folly, it veers into stupidity.
Wrongo.
it's quite correct actually.
I always remembered reading that a pope in the 15 century gave all those headed off to claim new land a thumbs up, and a sense of entitlement to the land of the infidels, and killing them off was indeed an option, and I'm sure what you're saying is true.
Might have something to do with the old Testament where God literally tells the Isaelites to kill tribe after tribe after tribe.
Kill yes, all of them, and then rape and enslave their women. I've actually read the bible, all of it. Some really seriously nasty and weird stuff in there.
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.
2 Kings 2:23
Wow. Little gem of a story like that should be tip off that most cults are started by complete psychopaths with violent delusions of revenge and power.
As a baldy, this has always been one of my favorite bible stories.
When I was a kid and I would hear things on a par with this I use to think maybe these people were deaf and couldn't hear right, and God got it all wrong.
Sounds like you were a very interesting kid! I also remember looking around with skepticism about the human approach to life, social, political and religious assertions that were obviously contradicted by what I saw. But because everyone else seemed okay with the status quo, by my 20's I'd pivoted to doubting myself.
Reminded me of this article full of cold, hard and uncomfortable truths.
https://thesaker.is/nations-built-on-lies-how-the-us-became-rich/
"Good mental health was not a prerequisite for European settlers emigrating to the New World. We are fond of reminding ourselves that Australia was (and mostly still is) populated primarily with murderers, thieves and sexual perverts, but the immigrants to America were not noticeably better. Indeed, the inscription on the Statue of Liberty got the words more or less correct in referring to “the wretched refuse of your teeming shore”. While the Australians had their serial killers and muggers, the Europeans went one better with their Christian extremists who spent their weekdays burning witches and killing Indians, and their Sundays in church thanking God for the opportunity. The Australians have marginally improved their habits over the centuries while the Americans have not.
America is widely accepted, and indeed even prides itself, on being a deeply Christian country, with 65% or more of the population declaring religion important in their lives. This would be supported by history, since the major migrations to the New World consisted of a long list of flaky religious sects whose primary goal in emigration was the opportunity to build a society entirely based on those isolationist and extremist heresies. It is probably safe to say that Salem witchcraft was the seedbed in which the peculiarly American version of Christian theology sprouted and flourished, and which also served as a practical introduction to mass hysteria which would later be so usefully applied to the concepts of patriotism and democracy. The enduring echoes of this religious ancestry have been highly influential in all of subsequent American history.
The Preamble to the American Declaration of Independence (“The most famous words in the English language”, if you’re American; just another Hello Kitty greeting card, if you’re not), states: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all White Men were created superior and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, the most important of which is slavery”. In the recent history of the modern world, only two nations of people have so thoroughly embraced slavery as to have practiced it on an immense scale for hundreds of years: the Christians in America and the Dalai Lamas in Tibet. And only these two groups so cherished slavery in their hearts they fought a civil war over the right to maintain it. It is hardly a moral selling point that both sets of racist bigots lost the war and, while Mao cleaned up Tibet, the racism and bigotry persisted in America, often violently, for another 200 years and is still widely in evidence today. Christian virtue does not die easily."
It goes on...at great length.
The cited article *is* good--at least as propaganda.
"In the recent history of the modern world, only two nations of people have so thoroughly embraced slavery as to have practiced it on an immense scale for hundreds of years: the Christians in America and the Dalai Lamas in Tibet [stopped by Mao]."
But definitely no slavery under Mao (no genocide, no forced labor, or any other stuff like that), definitely not!
And America (as the USA nation, anyway, since "nations" is the category used) definitely had slavery, at least in some states, from 1776 to 1860--1.04 centuries, to be precise, so definitely "centuries." (Although it is hard to say whether the nation as a whole "embraced" slavery.)
And if pre-independence time is being counted here, there are certainly more than "only two nations" with a "long history of slavery" into "modern times." Just in the Americas, for instance, there is Brazil, with slavery of Africans there starting as early as 1540 and extending into the 1860's.
HAHAHA slavery of Africans in Brazil since the 1540s. LMAO at whose hands? Name names.
Another HOWLER - *only* since 1776 in "America"? Really? ! LOL show your sources bot.
LOL you're what's known as a comprador. If Joachim is really your name. You're fucking more than worthless - you're a useful idiot for the CIA.
A lot of the original immigrants to what is now the United States were on the run from their creditors.
This is one reason why US bankruptcy law is particularly debtor-friendly, and certain state-law considerations in Texas and Florida especially so.
My great great grandfather, whose name and memory I carry as my middle names, was kicked off his croft in Rogart Scotland in the highlands during the clearances. So he made his way to Pictou Nova Scotia where he did rather well.
When my Palestinian friends complain about losing their land I reply, "Tell me about it!"
If you ever get a chance to visit NS I highly recommend it. Cape Breton is one of the great places in the world.
True enough. My husband and I just returned from Netherlands and Belgium because we were tracing the roots of his paternal grandfather whose family came to America because their horse trading business owed money.
Bankruptcy law is friendly to well heeled debtors inclusive of those who can afford a good bankruptcy lawyer. But while it may have started as a means to protect many debtors, it has morphed into something quite different. https://www.amazon.com/Courting-Failure-Competition-Corrupting-Bankruptcy/dp/0472031708
And new(ish) legislation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/27/biden-bankruptcy-reform/
Hint to those not in the know: The "reforms" they're implementing are making bankruptcy law more friendly to creditors, not debtors.
I guess the TL/DR version is that personal bankruptcy laws favor the creditors whereas corporate bankruptcy laws and courts favor the well heeled debtors with the money and connections to sway the system.
Thanks for the article, I'll read it. Looks good. As a kid I always had difficulty with my religious upbringing. Lots to question and interestingly the same applied to what they told me about history, like men with property could vote, but others couldn't didn't seem democratic to me, etc. I liked reading this. Thank you.
15th century? "...headed off to claim a *new land*, and a sense of entitlement to the land of infidels and killing them"? You got a little more reading to do. Better go read up on a "crusade" that happened from the middle of the 7th century to the 14th. Look up the geographical location of Al-Andalus and the Umayyad Caliphate and how it came to be. Read past the historical re-writes of how living in dhimmitude was cool beans(someone forgot to give some Frenchman named Chuck Martel the news that it was great). "New lands" only when they decided to embark on kicking the invaders asses all the way back to where they came from and plundered on the way back home(went Viking) because that shit cost$$$ and they were broke. You see when pushing back on and evening things up with your centuries long oppressors and you do this in silly outfits, swing cords to chop and crush up close and personal........well you tend to be brutal hard SOB's. Not putting a smiley face on it but look at it from the proper perspective not through the prism of today. This wasn't just some random "hey lets go kill these a-holes and take their shit cuz we're greedy and have nothing else better to do because Christianity".
The latter crusades we're questionable but the early ones had a purpose. Unfortunately chasing these oppressors back to where they came from the, Christian Crusaders discovered new resources of worth and good ol' human nature(conquest) took over.
The Papal Bull "Inter Caetera," issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, played a central role in the Spanish conquest of the New World. The document supported Spain’s strategy to ensure its exclusive right to the lands discovered by Columbus the previous year. It established a demarcation line one hundred leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands and assigned Spain the exclusive right to acquire territorial possessions and to trade in all lands west of that line. All others were forbidden to approach the lands west of the line without special license from the rulers of Spain. This effectively gave Spain a monopoly on the lands in the New World.
The Bull stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be "discovered," claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers and declared that "the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself." This "Doctrine of Discovery" became the basis of all European claims in the Americas as well as the foundation for the United States’ western expansion. In the US Supreme Court in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the unanimous decision held "that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands." In essence, American Indians had only a right of occupancy, which could be abolished.
The Bull Inter Caetera made headlines again throughout the 1990s and in 2000, when many Catholics petitioned Pope John Paul II to formally revoke it and recognize the human rights of indigenous "non-Christian peoples."
An English translation is available.
EXCERPT
Wherefore, as becomes Catholic kings and princes, after earnest consideration of all matters, especially of the rise and spread of the Catholic faith, as was the fashion of your ancestors, kings of renowned memory, you have purposed with the favor of divine clemency to bring under your sway the said mainlands and islands with their residents and inhabitants and to bring them to the Catholic faith. Hence, heartily commending in the Lord this your holy and praiseworthy purpose, and desirous that it be duly accomplished, and that the name of our Savior be carried into those regions, we exhort you very earnestly in the Lord and by your reception of holy baptism, whereby you are bound to our apostolic commands, and by the bowels of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, enjoy strictly, that inasmuch as with eager zeal for the true faith you design to equip and despatch this expedition, you purpose also, as is your duty, to lead the peoples dwelling in those islands and countries to embrace the Christian religion; nor at any time let dangers or hardships deter you therefrom, with the stout hope and trust in your hearts that Almighty God will further your undertakings. And, in order that you may enter upon so great an undertaking with greater readiness and heartiness endowed with benefit of our apostolic favor, we, of our own accord, not at your instance nor the request of anyone else in your regard, but out of our own sole largess and certain knowledge and out of the fullness of our apostolic power, by the authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents, should any of said islands have been found by your envoys and captains, give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, and all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole, namely the north, to the Antarctic pole, namely the south, no matter whether the said mainlands and islands are found and to be found in the direction of India or towards any other quarter, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde. With this proviso however that none of the islands and mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, beyond that said line towards the west and south, be in the actual possession of any Christian king or prince up to the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ just past from which the present year one thousand four hundred ninety-three begins. And we make, appoint, and depute you and your said heirs and successors lords of them with full and free power, authority, and jurisdiction of every kind; with this proviso however, that by this our gift, grant, and assignment no right acquired by any Christian prince, who may be in actual possesssion of said islands and mainlands prior to the said birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ, is hereby to be understood to be withdrawn or taking away. Moreover we command you in virtue of holy obedience that, employing all due diligence in the premises, as you also promise—nor do we doubt your compliance therein in accordance with your loyalty and royal greatness of spirit—you should appoint to the aforesaid mainlands and islands worthy, God-fearing, learned, skilled, and expeienced men, in order to instruct the aforesaid inhabitants and residents in the Catholic faith and train them in good morals. Furthermore, under penalty of excommunication "late sententie" to be incurred "ipso facto," should anyone thus contravene, we strictly forbid all persons of whatsoever rank, even imperial and royal, or of whatsoever estate, degree, order, or condition, to dare without your special permit or that of your aforesaid heirs and successors, to go for the purpose of trade or any other reason to the islands or mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from the Arctic pole to the Antarctic pole, no matter whether the mainlands and islands, found and to be found, lie in the direction of India or toward any other quarter whatsoever, the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south, as is aforesaid, from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde; apostolic constitutions and ordinances and other decrees whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. We trust in Him from whom empires and governments and all good things proceed, that, should you, with the Lord’s guidance, pursue this holy and praiseworthy undertaking, in a short while your hardships and endeavors will attain the most felicitious result, to the happiness and glory of all Christendom.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
Read the introduction and the document transcript in order to answer these questions.
By what authority did Pope Alexander VI claim the power to give Spain nearly exclusive possession of the New World?
Why do you think Spain wanted exclusive rights to the New World?
Along with the right to possess the land, the Papal Bull also indicated that Spain had specific responsibilities. List and explain these duties.
Why was it impossible for Spain, or indeed any other European nation, to realize the extent of the territory Spain controlled after May 1493?
A printer-friendly version is available here.
Holy shit!(facepalm) I literally gave you a very condensed version of exactly this as it applied to the Christian Crusades. Spain was called Al-Andalus for a reason before the date at the top of this decree. Nothing like brainwashed agenda driven narrative to omit pertinent parts of history. Your ilk always shit the bed with the crybaby BS of the Christian Crusades blessed by the pope to drive out the poor poor muslims and kick their asses back to where they came from. WTF do you think the muslims were doing there IN SPAIN? Painting pictures and gardening? Why do you think the Pope whipped out the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and blessed this decree? I explained it above.
The "Inter Caetera" was the first official document by Western ruling elite to promote and promulgate "Disaster Capitalism."
I think I see Madjack's point. So-called diversity ISN'T diversity of ideas/thinking reasonably. It's the opposite, fractionating people into superficial tribal categories, i.e. white=oppressors, blacks=victims, questioning trans ideology's enforced demands=transphobia, etc. And so it goes.
I think you could argue there's two completely different word senses of 'tribalism' now. One is political tribalism (diversity being ONLY ONE of the many totem poles of a particular tribe, say, "protect the borders" would a the right-wing totem pole) and the other is actual tribal behaviors in real human contexts (like, tribes in Africa, etc.).
You make a good point about indigenous American tribes though.
I believe "antonym" is the word you're searching for, rather than "synonym."
Would that have worked out better for them? Both Persia and China were centralized empires and they didn’t fare any better against the guns and cannons of industrialized Europe. The Chinese empire had some outdated respect for the land due to their old Shamanistic beliefs and didn’t want to mine coal for industrialization. Same thing happened to the native Americans. Only when China had arms production on par with the Western countries did they start winning wars.
I always thought they should have hired themselves a good New York law firm.
Thanks for a chuckle -- reminded me of some of the, um... pragmatists in Chayefsky's "Network"!
And who did 'The Natives' take the land from? Other natives...
American Pioneers in the 19th century who actually lived life without servants respected American Indians and their ways, our 'beloved' government decided to remove them much like their efforts on the middle class these days.
"And who did 'The Natives' take the land from? Other natives"
That's not what happened.
The continent was literally unoccupied when the ancestors of Native Americans came to the continent from Asia over the Bering Land Bridge during the last Ice Age, around 12,000 to 30,000 years ago. Did they then compete for territory, here and there, sure. But nothing like happened when the colonisers came.
You're agreeing that they arrived across an 18,000 year time span. So either they were the slowest walkers in history, or there were multiple waves of people coming across.
We are not sure of the exact date hence the wide range.
It's all a matter of history. Feel free to read up. No need to speculate. Thanks.
Oh I have read up on it. Have you?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18770963
That's a bad rewrite of history.
Well, not familiar with who was here first. I guess you didn't watch those cowboy and Indian movies I watched on TV where the message was this is our land not your's even though you were here first. You cannot excuse what we did to the indigenous people of the America's. Sorry, nor the permission given by the church, which was not restricted to the Americas. Trail of tears, lets see you justify that.
Conquest has been a human condition since the first caveman stepped outside his cave, looked across a valley seen another clan and said I want their stuff. Asian descendants that built grass rafts set out from their mainland and went island hopping would occasionally bump into others that did the same and wanted each others stuff. Humans did it as a matter of survival and advancement for living conditions. Not excusing what we did to each other as humans but as another commenter pointed out(Danimal28) the Indians weren't exactly living together in peace and harmony either. Some tribes had their own versions of conquest, genocide, slavery, robbing each others food stores, warring over hunting grounds, kidnapping females to breed. I'm not impugning Native Americans just pointing out an uncomfortable truth of human nature that even Indians were prone too.
You seem to be very focused on the church/ christianity. If that what floats your boat, fine, but don't let it skew the truth of history.
Trail of Tears? Justify what? Allowing the Indians that were paid to relocate force their 800 black slaves (some of the Cherokee/Creek elites among them owned) to have to go with them or the misfortune that befell the actual members of the tribe on the way?
I don't want to continue this conversation about how bad the Indians were, and let me just say that your understanding of the Trial of Tears is really off. I am not focused on the church, and it's a thing of the past. Why don't you focus on our Muslim wars, and the millions we displaced and killed then you can focus on using Ukrainian lives so we can keep the number one slot in the world. More timely.
What 'we' did to the native peoples was one of the greatest crimes against humanity in history.
There are no excuses.
Good thing you're good lookin.'
I hate acolytes of violence who claim 'violence, conquest, genocide' are part of 'the human condition'. Yes, humanity has a violent history, but if you actually look closely you can also see that different tribes and ethnicities have co-existed peacefully adjacent to each other in many cases for very, very long periods of time, and there were many more peaceful cultures that would never have had it in their conception to launch genocidal wars of settler colonial conquest. By saying conquest is part of the 'human condition', you are both lying and making yourself an apologist for the grossest acts of inhumanity that have been committed by our species, usually acts spurred on and driven by a small minority of sociopathic leaders. Inhabitants of the United States, which has committed some of the grossest violence imaginable during its history, might be especially vulnerable or even dependent on this idea that conquest is 'natural' or inevitable, because it ameliorates and lifts any potential stain or responsibility or duty to correct or change our path. Just keep turning the crank on the violence.
Acolyte of violence? F U. Can you guys actually f'ing read? I know I suck at English Comp but FFS. Good job Captain Obvious at pointing out SOME tribes of people were capable of living next to each other in peace......of course this usually always came after violent conflict. All part of being a lefty idiot right? Can't tell the fucking difference between accepting the fact that every civilization/society on the planet at one time or another has done atrocious shit. I'm not apologizing for any violence you dumb fck, I believe it should be avoided at all costs until you are forced into it as a matter of self-preservation. Of course you lefty idiots always come back around to America bad as if it's the only place inhabited by the only people that have of course owned slaves or done f'd up shit to people.
The only acts of violence right now being committed in this country, spurned on and driven by a small minority of sociopathic leaders is within the left and the Transhumanist movement. The only crank being turned on violence is within the blue city cesspools that turn felons loose on the law abiding innocent public and politicians on the left that cheer on antifa, Janes Revenge and BLM. I guarantee the violence lays firmly in your camp, not mine.
I watched them; I will never excuse what we did to indigenous people, but that is the way of the world - and governments(not the People) are responsible for all of it. Just like when they locked you down through the use of force a mere three years ago.
Didn't mean to say they were, it's not just us, look at how Europe used Africa as it's backyard. We used South America as ours. However people, do look the other way or too easily go along with their government's policies. Look at how Americans went along with our Middle Eastern wars, and I bet if those were Christian or Jewish countries I don't think they could have pushed those wars.
Governments ARE the people, pal. Uncomfortable to contemplate, but there you have it...
I think I have a far better handle on this. Government is force, nothing more. It is supposed to protect our rights and negotiate in good faith and that hasn't happened since prior to 1860 for the most part. Government signed treaties with the Native's, reneged, and then used force to conquer them. Not that the Native's were always honest and forthright.... There have been many periods of peace, of course. Today is not a period of peace as the government is using force again to silence and censor Americans.
Well here is yet another example of what the government has done to natives
https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p/the-left-immiserates-the-north-american
Not true Jerry, absolutely not true.
It depended on the tribe. The Comanche were horrifying. They ran a robbery, kidnapping, murder protection racket on horseback, and they maintained their power with a fearsome level of intimidation, including torture. https://scgwynne.com/product/empire-of-the-summer-moon
The Iroquois vs. the Huron, terrifying. Ghastly. https://historyweblog.com/2017/06/tortures-of-the-algonquin-prisoners/
When Hernando de Soto arrived in the Southeast US, he found captive slavery and torture were as widespread among the tribes of southeastern North America, including the dominant civilization- the Coosa- as it was among the Spaniard conquistadors. The author does not whitewash the atrocities of the conquistadors, either. They were unimaginably cruel in those days. https://www.amazon.com/Hernando-Soto-Savage-Quest-Americas/dp/0806129778
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captives_in_American_Indian_Wars
Nobody's clean. It's a sobering thing to realize.
So John Wayne was right to shoot them down like pop bottles?
Good to know.
Not to excuse the taking of most Native American lands by Euro settlers, but yes indeed the same thing was happening broadly between Native American communities. The West, at the time of European agression, was largely inhabited by Native nations that brutally pried lands from Native predecessors. And slavery was commonplace and widespread. The Southwest was largely inhabited by Athabascan and southcentral (Comance) peoples that slaughtered their way to their final homelands at the time of Euro conquest. Plains tribes had been eradicated by midwestt newcomers like the Lakota, who suppressed and eliminated their predecessors in Canada, the Dakotas, the middle west. It simply is history, and the final victors were simply the last in line of imperialist aggressors.
As long as our leader doesn’t wear goofy hats or Captain Crunch uniforms at official events it can’t happen here!
never confuse the country and the government. 2 very different things.
Well we’re a democracy. Just kidding.
The United States is neither a democracy nor is it a democratic republic, but an oligarchy featuring unlimited political bribery for those who can afford pricey lawyers.
Preach.
Notice that the establishment's phrase is "our democracy," not "a" or "the." Tells you all you need to know.
duh- mocker- see!
I’m agreeing more and more with Andrew Willow’s take on democracy.
Educate me, please. The Google wasn't helpful.
Whenever you read "our democracy," understand that it refers to democracy for them and not you.
I've switched to Yandex for any "controversial" or "dissenting" searches.
https://twitter.com/orangeferreter
P.S. I think he might have misspelled the name. It's possible he was talking about a right-wing talk radio personality named John WilKow. Seems to be a common mistake after doing some light research on the matter.
For fun sometime do a "controversial" search in Google and then run the same on Duck Duck or Brave just to name a couple.
Things that I used to find easily on Google are now hard to impossible.
Sergey Brin has a long public history of collaborating with intelligence agencies going back to at least 2001 when he volunteered to help find the perps.
ChatGPT is totally rigged too. It's so obvious.
For example, try this one on for size. See Comments Section.
https://open.substack.com/pub/read/p/the-active-voice-robert-reich?r=p3vha&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I had a lot of respect for Reich from his doc on income inequality until someone pointed out that he was the Sec Labor under Clinton during the NAFTA negotiations. That man is a quisling in that he bears a signifcant responsibility for the hollowing out of the USA's industrial base.
The situation described in Hillbilly Elegy rests (in a large part) on his shoulders. Both Reich and Arnand Ammawhazizname are such posers. Empty suits crying out empty platitudes, thinking their 'La Resistance'. Ugh
And the plethora of removed comments? WTF?
NOW I understand why SS contribs are moving to Locals.
If I could electronically zap everybody who quotes Robert Reich, I could say that I lived a life of true happiness.
I like Robert Reich's ideas, some of the time. He's really wrong on Internet free speech, though.
He was a small socialist bent thinker posing as an intellectual
Standing up to bullies is the hallmark of a civilized society. - Robert Reich
Censors are bullies. heh
I thought J. D. Vance's point in Hillbilly Elegy is that the crucial responsibility for the situation he described was on the people who lived there and just refused to change the self-destructive component of their life ways. Including his homefolks.
And Robert Reich did not negotiate NAFTA as Secretary of Labor under Clinton. The agreement was negotiated in the Bush I administration, and signed by President George H. W. Bush as an international agreement. The only thing that Bush ally (on the down-low, of course, although it's become much more obvious over the years) Bill Clinton did was to forcefully endorse its ratification by the Congress, the final authority on certifying treaties, and sign it into law after Congress had passed it.
Clinton was able to successfully articulate to his fellow democratic faithful, in coded speech and phony backwoods bluster refined by Yale Law, what the republicans had discovered a few decades previous. Money got you elected, and even more money kept you in office.
Anyone with a real interest in what's really going on in politics in the year 2023 needs to read the 1996 book Partners In Power, by Roger Morris. Especially the chapters entitled "Washington I/II/III"- and the one entitled "Mena" too, of course. And after that, the chapters in between. And to really go for the extreme sport trophy, read the entire book. https://www.abebooks.com/9780805028041/Partners-Power-Clintons-America-Morris-0805028048/plp
But the three chapters entitled "Washington" alone will tell any perceptive reader more about the way National Politics is currently practiced inside the Beltway than ten years of reading Twitter.
Read free on Archive.org https://archive.org/details/partnersinpowerc0000morr_c3r1
Reich is a partisan propagandist who supports everything they do. He is even trying to sell 'biden' as a functioning entity who is doing things. Unbelievable. I will be banned here for truth speaking. It's inevitable.
Reich is loyal to Team Blue, despite having most of his personal suggestions ignored and disrespected in the Clinton years. He was only appointed Labor Secretary as window dressing. No one who counted paid attention to his recommendations.
That's what the fake narrative framing of Team Blue and Team Red encourages. Ironclad team loyalty and partisanship. There's no third position, in the absence of ranked choice voting. Team Blue is terrified that they would be doomed if ranked choice voting got out of hand. And orthodox CNN/MSNBC American liberals are okay with that, because they buy into the neoliberal narrative that continues to insinuate that a 3rd Position could only be Fascist. The GOP establishment doesn't want ranked choice voting, either, because their leaders suspect that Team Red would be doomed.
Hence, America's got BOTH kindsa politics...
In other words, both parties are well aware that their grasp of the electorate is tenuous at best, and evanescent in reality.
If the voting system weren't rigged to limit "viable candidates" to the two established parties, at this point they're both about ready to fold up like cardboard suitcases in a typhoon.
Ranked choice voting would be a bit of a battle royal, at first. And I'd anticipate that one of the major party candidates would still win- at first. But the victorious candidate, his handlers, and his campaign would have to have actually listened to the points of the outlier candidates and parties. Politics, being the art of the possible, is about triangulation. Ranked choice voting provides another, crucial dimension to it.
Right now, the only triangulation either established party candidate requires is to beheld as slightly less bad, by slightly more voters. And after that, they can do whatever- grandstanding, punting, kicking cans down the road, private agendas getting into petty power plays with the private agenda of the other side....
"Getting the money out of politics" alone is not going to make any difference to improving politics under the current voting system. Because it isn't ever going to happen, unless we get a ranked choice voting system where outlier candidates can make their case for it, as political rivals. And ultimately, a ranked-choice result is always a majoritarian system. There would never be a party administration that didn't have at least some conditional assent by the majority of voters. Compare that to what we have now- cornered into the sham appearance of unconditional assent for one of two choices...and look at how that's worked out for us.
I think that even a two option ranking system would be an infinite improvement over what we have now.
Much censorship is coming to substack where Reich, (spits) is held out as a big catch and some kind of soothsayer.
Next up? "Obama is coming! Wow! So happy!"
If Substack wanted to shoot its value proposition in the ass, introducing mass censorship so as not to offend the delicate sensitivities of The People Who Matter is the way to do it, right there.
“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”
― Noam Chomsky