Lot's of Democrats loved Trump back in the 80s and 90s. My liberal Democrat father had pictures of his second family posing with Trump hanging on the wall. In part this was because the Democrats were still a blue collar party to a significant degree, and Trump was a populist making presidential noises going way back.
Trump has a long history of being anti racist towards Blacks (in the original sense of the phrase). Against Native Americans, his record is more spotty.
However, the base that Trump is catering to does have a lot of racists within. 20 years ago I dreamed of creating a populist quadrant party: a party that was both in favor of narrowing the wealth gap and reducing the size of government. I had test marketed the ideas to normies and found that they were appealing. However, the main politically active populists were conspiracy theorists of the John Birch variety, Southern partisans, and a smattering of Georgists and true Classical liberals. Ron Paul funded his Congressional campaigns and recruited much of his staff from this base, and at times this causes scandals. Those Ron Paul newsletter ads that came out in the late 1980s were pretty over the top.
So I attempted to sway open minded libertarians and progressives to go populist, and when that got limited traction, took a break from politics. Now that every White man with a functioning endocrine system is an a priori racist, and Team D is carrying out the agenda described in "None Dare Call it Conspiracy", only gayer, I'm back in the game. Sunk cost, baby!
The word racist has become so diluted and polluted that it's almost impossible to have a conversation about it and understand without talking past one another. For example, I live in the middle of the country - and also grew up in the 1970s - and don't think Trump is catering to a "base" with "a lot of racists" in it. But of course that is all highly contingent upon one's definition of his "base", "racist", and "a lot."
As this post attests, I'm a stickler for language - and precision in its use. Clear writing is a result of clear thinking. And the opposite is also true, in my experience.
The Ron Paul newsletter ads were pretty over the top by the standards of the late 1980s. I wish I had kept my copy. I suspect that Murray Rothbard wrote them; the ads were in his style. (Rothbard was not strictly a racist, but he was an all around asshole. He'd side with anyone who was anti government at the time, be they Black Panther or Klansman.)
The populist quadrant has many activists who blame Jews for just about everything bad. I first encountered Nazi adjacent libertarians in person as an undergrad back in the early 1980s. (In text I had encountered "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" while in high school. While that book made a point of highlighting the non-Rothchild members of The Conspiracy, the number of Jewish villains was mighty high.)
I first saw Ron Paul speak at an American Liberty Association meeting in 1988. Imagine a gathering of white collar Dale Gribbles. The featured speaker was Eustace Mullins, who was pushing his book "Murder by Injection." Mullins was a disciple of Ezra Pound. (look him up)
When I was chair of a county Libertarian Party, I had both Jews and men who muttered "Joos. Heh heh heh." at the same table. This made for awkward circumstances.
The truth, that both Team Red and Team Blue are comprised by scumbag grifters of equal greed came upon me about the same time I realized the "war on terrorism" was being fueled by AIPAC money.
Money that came from our national treasury (my pocket and yours), was being filtered through the Israeli government as foreign aid and finding it's way right back into the pockets of Democrat and Republican congressman in roughly equal amounts.
It's as if the Black Sox were never identified, the fix just kept getting bigger and more obvious, and nobody gave a shit because, hey, baseball!
The only answer that makes sense to any sane person is to tear down the stadiums, disband the teams and create a new game from scratch. This one is FUBAR
Lot's of Democrats loved Trump back in the 80s and 90s. My liberal Democrat father had pictures of his second family posing with Trump hanging on the wall. In part this was because the Democrats were still a blue collar party to a significant degree, and Trump was a populist making presidential noises going way back.
Trump has a long history of being anti racist towards Blacks (in the original sense of the phrase). Against Native Americans, his record is more spotty.
However, the base that Trump is catering to does have a lot of racists within. 20 years ago I dreamed of creating a populist quadrant party: a party that was both in favor of narrowing the wealth gap and reducing the size of government. I had test marketed the ideas to normies and found that they were appealing. However, the main politically active populists were conspiracy theorists of the John Birch variety, Southern partisans, and a smattering of Georgists and true Classical liberals. Ron Paul funded his Congressional campaigns and recruited much of his staff from this base, and at times this causes scandals. Those Ron Paul newsletter ads that came out in the late 1980s were pretty over the top.
So I attempted to sway open minded libertarians and progressives to go populist, and when that got limited traction, took a break from politics. Now that every White man with a functioning endocrine system is an a priori racist, and Team D is carrying out the agenda described in "None Dare Call it Conspiracy", only gayer, I'm back in the game. Sunk cost, baby!
The word racist has become so diluted and polluted that it's almost impossible to have a conversation about it and understand without talking past one another. For example, I live in the middle of the country - and also grew up in the 1970s - and don't think Trump is catering to a "base" with "a lot of racists" in it. But of course that is all highly contingent upon one's definition of his "base", "racist", and "a lot."
As this post attests, I'm a stickler for language - and precision in its use. Clear writing is a result of clear thinking. And the opposite is also true, in my experience.
The Ron Paul newsletter ads were pretty over the top by the standards of the late 1980s. I wish I had kept my copy. I suspect that Murray Rothbard wrote them; the ads were in his style. (Rothbard was not strictly a racist, but he was an all around asshole. He'd side with anyone who was anti government at the time, be they Black Panther or Klansman.)
The populist quadrant has many activists who blame Jews for just about everything bad. I first encountered Nazi adjacent libertarians in person as an undergrad back in the early 1980s. (In text I had encountered "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" while in high school. While that book made a point of highlighting the non-Rothchild members of The Conspiracy, the number of Jewish villains was mighty high.)
I first saw Ron Paul speak at an American Liberty Association meeting in 1988. Imagine a gathering of white collar Dale Gribbles. The featured speaker was Eustace Mullins, who was pushing his book "Murder by Injection." Mullins was a disciple of Ezra Pound. (look him up)
When I was chair of a county Libertarian Party, I had both Jews and men who muttered "Joos. Heh heh heh." at the same table. This made for awkward circumstances.
The truth, that both Team Red and Team Blue are comprised by scumbag grifters of equal greed came upon me about the same time I realized the "war on terrorism" was being fueled by AIPAC money.
Money that came from our national treasury (my pocket and yours), was being filtered through the Israeli government as foreign aid and finding it's way right back into the pockets of Democrat and Republican congressman in roughly equal amounts.
It's as if the Black Sox were never identified, the fix just kept getting bigger and more obvious, and nobody gave a shit because, hey, baseball!
The only answer that makes sense to any sane person is to tear down the stadiums, disband the teams and create a new game from scratch. This one is FUBAR
A-yup.
This is so good.
Glad you liked it, T.