1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

I put up 15 a day, buddy! MemeAmericaGIFAgain.com . Ads-free, on Insta, Twitter, and Facebook too. Here's today's imgur dump: https://imgur.com/gallery/VeL4j8a

1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

Is Parscale involved in content or just reach and engagement?

1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

What, with a cloth?

1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

"This would-be hegemon evidences its blatant disregard for human rights and freedom daily: its placement of Chinese Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps and slave prostitution to Apple labor; its brutal persecution, torture, re-education, imprisonment, organ seizure, and harassment of underground Roman Catholics as well as the Falun Gong (and its overall heavy-handed suppression of religious freedom and expression); its ‘great firewall’ preventing citizens access to content not approved by their censorious overlords; its tight control on its people’s mobility; its growing social credit program and surveillance initiatives; its history of forced abortions (an estimated 250 million since 1979); its ongoing aggression against Tibet; its suppression of democracy in Hong Kong; and so forth." source

2
joetravers [S] 2 points ago

Reagan had old battleships do a tour around the seas because they were enormous and looked terrifying even though they were anachronistic. Sometimes you just want to swing your big dick around the world, even if its old.

2
joetravers [S] 2 points ago

Right. Leftists use it as a shield; it's too bad that just like their postmodern kin, socialists should corrupt more language. If it weren't to late (i.e. ship has sailed), I wouldn't cede the linguistic territory, but it's not worth the fight, when even normal liberals are toothless and indifferent to reclaiming the title.

1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

I recognize the semantic problem we have. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Hayek, Mises, Chesterton, Drucker, and Menger: these were self-professed liberals, and yet you'd agree with most of what they would have or had to say, except for the good of mobility of labor internationally (that's where Bannonite nationalism and American exceptionalism set us apart). In common parlance, they'd be labelled libertarians of the Paul variety. But these liberals or libertarians if you must-- whose liberalism is incommensurate and distinct from the modern left and with what some on here think is 'liberal'--were heavily influential on and active within the Conservative right, Buckley among the impressed. They would find themselves on the right of the spectrum today, somewhere between Tucker Carlson and Limbaugh, and in the case of Leddihn, more associated with religious concern.

In political philosophy and historically speaking, liberalism is not at odds with conservative populism of the Trumpist variety; in fact, it informs it in many ways. The American conservative right was and is liberal in many respects. What kind of government do you want? That which promotes liberty and is limited. Kuehnelt-Leddihn's "Leftism Revisited" is probably the best history on this (FULL PDF)[https://cdn.mises.org/Leftism%20From%20de%20Sade%20and%20Marx%20to%20Hitler%20and%20Marcuse_5.pdf] The conflation I have seen a lot is of 'liberal' and leftist. Obviously it may be a better fit to call a real / classical or paleo liberal a conservative, not a conservative populist, though to your point, calling instead leftists, corporatists, and corporate leftists (Don Lemon, Antifa, George Soros, socialists, anarchocommunists, communists, etc.) 'liberals' is also a gross error.

Liberalism is not a political system. It is 'a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.' America is a republic with democratic elements grafted on, but no direct democracy (except in unique cases). The balance of republican virtue and democratic levelling has been a contention in this country since before its founding tempered by liberal assumptions based on Enlightenment English thought, discussed at length by Tocqueville in his 1834 masterpiece "Democracy in America" as well as in The Federalist Papers.

It was really after the French Revolution, where you had the political schism along rationalist and empiricist lines (an argument I found in Hayek's writing--if memory serves, "Constitution of Liberty"); where England embraced the latter as well as a liberal philosophy and continental Europe embraced the former with a leftist worldview. The Hume- Lockean mode that kicked off in England was fundamental to the original ideological formation of the United States. It was, if I am not mistaken, liberal.

Leftists today are, notwithstanding the ideological confusion postmodernism caused them (which argued against their grand narratives), still tethered to the European rationalist school. The problem with this is they have erroneous assumptions about human nature, and think that they can project and then realize a perfect society, not realizing that totalitarian measures will always be required in the attempt, and the attempt will always fail. (Road to Serfdom is an excellent book that goes in depth on this point.) Liberal governments, recognizing that they can only refine their systems in increments without jeopardizing spontaneous order and violating God-give rights, rely upon freedom and liberty for experimentation; not only is liberty just to preserve and protect, but it is a great way to allow people to make decisions that inform correction, but also to let people determine how the society and markets should function / behave. We rely upon these free actions and the resultant data, because it is only with facts that we can make a better government. Speculation and ideology informing leftist governments is a product of hubris; they don't realize their very limited understanding and all the unknown unknowns they care not to account for.

Anyway, this article by Leddihn is a great and short history of the term liberal as well as its use today in America.

I would say the enemy are neoliberals (because they don't care about nation or prioritizing the American people), leftists, and globalists. The Trump movement is conservative populist; ancestrally liberal, but devoted to the citizens of this land, to protecting their rights, and to guaranteeing their safe futures.

https://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-7-number-6/christianity-foundation-and-conservator-freedom

1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

/s

Reason behind writing this article: saw not one but several neoliberals on the news justifying going back to work (which I am in favor of) but using recent suicides as a reason. These are the same guys who made fortunes while sending American jobs overseas and gutting the working class; while deriding the faith that binds us and gives purpose; while destroying the nuclear family, etc.

1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

May have already had it. It's not suggesting that half the population will get it.

3
joetravers [S] 3 points ago

If Jimmy wasn't such a stubborn ideologue, he'd vote for Trump. It's clear that the President's America First approach has done and will continue to do more for the working class than any lefty initiative to date.

1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

A lot of his writing is evergreen. Eugenics & Other Evils is as relevant today as it was at the turn of the 20th Century. Heretics as well. To your point, there are hundreds of his essays that are caught up with ephemera. Well written but inaccessible.

1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

Absolutely. Manalive & Orthodoxy are two of the most powerful secular reads I've ever come across.

3
joetravers [S] 3 points ago (edited)

I'll get you the timestamp for where he swallowed the redpill. My buddy and I have a bet going that he'll spite vote for Trump. There was an episode this week where he realized that the Republican Party has become the party of the American worker -- that Trump was a real populist. You could see him race into the grieving stage. Soon...acceptance.

Edit: So I found the link, but since it was a live show it's dead. If you have behind-paywall access, perhaps this may be a key. He's on verge of tears, having realized Sanders is full of shit and that the GOP actually cares about working Americans.

12
joetravers [S] 12 points ago

Tommy's son pointed out a CCTV camera at the time -- the entire thing was on tape, which was reiterated by the copper who called Tommy to notify him the thugs were being charged. It'd be very difficult to fix this one. Difficult, but not impossible.

2
joetravers [S] 2 points ago

Yeah. It would be hypocrisy to level blame without him getting his day in court, but I find it hilarious to watch the party that sought to destroy Kavanaugh on total bullshit claims while screaming "Believe All..." and "Times Up" now proving themselves insincere, liars, and partisan hacks once again.

1
joetravers [S] 1 point ago

"Their own" could turn out to be great Americans. And it's largely Democrats killing others, chiefly those they don't want around. The Democrats incentivized single motherhood, and made it economically and culturally acceptable / easy to do Sanger's will: cull 19M blacks, Catholics, and so-called 'mental deficients'.

The GOP is the party of life; not just for our tribe, but for all AMERICANS. It is partly on account of this that more and more Latinos and blacks are joining our ranks; because they recognize we abhor euthanasia, celebrate life, and aren't trying to exterminate them like the lunatic left.

view more: Next ›