Whites are the only race that opposes communism in Western countries, by a slimmer margin every year, but still the globalist solution is to make whites a permanant minority in every country and then usher in a globalist giver ment because all the illegal immigrants in America won't care because they don't know Jack shit about our Founding and Constitution.
because all the illegal immigrants in America won't care because they don't know Jack shit about our Founding and Constitution.
Very generally: I would add legal immigrants too. I don't blame people who don't come from English, or even European stock, because it is not part of their heritage and legacy. Most will just want to live comfortably and not care for the stewardship of the nation. The Dems will get my relatives here too! The RepubliCANTs are horrible communicators. It just is what it is.
From what I heard/read, we are being outdone by Asians--particularly Indians, followed by Koreans, Japanese, & some other group I can't remember (Not Chinese, but maybe Taiwanese?)--in terms of education & wealth.
Our other strengths won't do much if we are too stupid & poor to utilize them properly, so it seems like we won't be strongest for long unless we kick our rears into gear before the end of the year.
Edit: Why am I being downvoted, tho?? I am just saying what the demographic stats say. Asian Americans & immigrants on average have more wealth & higher education than white Americans. Down-voting isn't going to make it any less true of a stat, unless someone can provide evidence showing why the numbers are faulty... So what is the problem in me stating that we should attempt to do better with our own education & financials so that we are not ground into dust by the white-hating commies?? I'm confused by this reaction, pedes. Am I missing something? Someone pointed out that whites are being targeted, which is fair, but even so, I'm pretty sure the point still stands...
I mean, I forgot to consider that & that's fair. But with some universities starting to require even higher SAT scores from Asian applicants, it seems like they are starting to be targeted, too (commies gonna commie against anybody with success, I guess). So you could argue that.
But whatever the case, I still wouldn't just sit back and dilly dally while white culture is struggling/being attacked. If anything, the fact that they are targeting us means we should push back harder against the propaganda & work on ourselves to be even more successful, right?? I mean, I don't see why not...
That's why a new party based on nationalism and traditionalism should be formed .it will be like the tea party but just focused on preserving American People, culture, heritage, demographics, Christian culture, economic libertarianism, family and divorce laws, etc. The party can then infiltrate the GOP and remove Neocons and the GOP establishment.
The downvotes.Sometimes the truth is too much. Ted Cruz recently said a socioeconomic shift in Texas is responsible for it trending blue. Fingers crossed, hopefully Texas defies the demographics and gives another red this November.
nah, our culture has been targeted for destruction. from every angle and we are all too busy trying to stay out of shit neighborhoods by working 60 hours a week.
100%....at this time (although the Han-Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews don't fuck around....that said, so many are either socialists/commies anyway, or under the CCP). The Jewish American and Chinese votes will sway Dem/Marxist.
Nope, they know Trump is going after the H1B program and they're going to hire as many as they can before he does. They only met to say "we all know we're gonna have to hire a bunch of H1Bs ASAP, let's not step on each other's feet while we do it or it will drive up their salaries." It's gonna be the exact same as when they were conspiring not to hire each other's US citizen employees. Apple and Google alone got sued for for stealing BILLIONS in their employee's salary that way.
Yes it is. Americans are fully capable of doing every single job in the country. Corporations just want to be able to hire foreigners who won't complain and will work for half of an American worker. I say end all immigration immediately until we have 100% employment.
You might know, but "postmodernism" or "critical theory" only sees power. That's where such illogical gems as "blacks can't be racist" or "if a black cop kills a white person because he's white, it's still white privilege" comes from.
The ideology views the world entirely through the lens of oppression. There are only oppressed classes and oppressors. There are no individuals. Just class. And class warfare.
That's why they call it "cultural Marxism". It's the culturally oppressed, rather than the economically oppressed worker in Marx's formulation, that need to rise up and throw off their cultural oppressors.
to be precise, it doesn't see power directly, it only views language in terms of its potential to be used to seize power. In the same way that Marxists see their economic and to some extent democratic political ideas as a means to gain power (and from there push for or create communism) - cultural marxists see the field of language (and in extension, culture) itself as merely an opportunity to acquire power over other people, which power they intend to use for a similar goal (communism) - thus the connexion between the "Marxisms".
The only way to combat this is to see power directly. Sometimes there are conspiracies, but more often there is just a system run amok that everyone with any power tries to exploit for their own gain.
I disagree. They do seek power in order to wield it against the "oppressors." Leftists don't love the poor. They hate the rich. Theirs is an ideology of resentment and envy.
They basically view power as a balance beam of sorts with "oppressor" class basically holding down the other side of the beam. It is a zero sum game to them. If one person has more power then they assume it means that person is oppressing someone else. So to balance it out, you need to take power from the oppressor and give it to the oppressed. This is why they're obsessed with redistribution of wealth, high income tax on rich people/high income, affirmative action and similar stuff like that.
They seek power for themselves, and they use their rhetoric to get it. They want to be the administrators of who gets the affirmative action job, handout, tax hike, ect. They could give a shit about whether anyone benefits. They want to take out those who have power now and seize it for themselves in the name of social justice.
Perhaps; yet they are also on the side of the rich and powerful and have always been; if they were not, they would have no power with which to attack other powerful people. It's not valid to apply their model, which is a trick of language, to try to understand what they are doing. Those who are powerful can make themselves more powerful by doing nothing other than concealing how or what they are doing, so it is trivial to reveal it as a way to step that back. They do not hate the rich, they hate the unfashionable... which has always included certain rich people (formerly the nobility of Europe) and definitely includes vast swaths of the poor whose plight cannot be leveraged for the power to create communism. Communism has always been the religion of the fashionable well-to-do and rich; social justice the fancy of the wealthy. This goes back centuries.
Are you saying that our cultural marxists/postmodernists/critical theorists don't view the world thru the lens of power and oppressor/oppressed, but rather popularizing those views are simply a means to an end to gain power to enforce communism?
All roads lead to a totalitarian government. Cultural warfare is an effective weapon to use to bring the Marxist dream to life.they don't like the poor/oppressed but they like the grievance or emotion of the poor that they can manipulate. they hate the rich but love the wealth of the rich because wealth can be spent to promote their ideas and projections.
They understand you can manipulate language to gain power over people. They do not however understand the natural limits of power, which has always been the downfall of Marxism. If they were truly as 'machiavellian' as people claim, they would show a great deal more practicality in their ideas of what you can do with power; they always seem surprised that, for example, rioting has no effect. (rioters are either tools of the powerful, or they are nothing; that is to say, they are nothing.) They seem surprised that telling people they are the same intelligence as other people fails to improve their performance, and so on. The fact of the matter is, they focus on a particular narrow aspect of soft power, which usually works because Americans in general have a 'schoolhouse rock' idea of politics, which says nothing at all about power. That is to say, most Americans don't know anything about power - political or otherwise - except as fairy tales about gangsters. So their methods tend to be effective because most Americans are marks.
So someone above said it's a smokescreen--saying "save the oppressed" while all the while it's a play to install themselves as dictators.
I believe you're saying all or many in the movement are sincere, but don't understand power. I don't see anything to contradict that. I can believe that most people don't understand power. The few that do...are in positions of real power.
I am surprised how the people behind the riots do not grasp that 100 million "soccer mom's" are scared of, and do not want, and will vote against, rioting. That has led me to believe it's a false flag perpetrated by Trump's team.
But maybe your interpretation fits better.
Of course, given their misunderstanding of power, that'll create a vacuum, and some tyrant will step in. So the smokescreen people might have the end result right.
The school house rock thing really gets me. "And that's how a bill becomes a law." It dosent even MENTION lobbyists, or bribes, or campaign contributions. We have something called "K street" -- unmentioned. We might be at the point that Washington is ALL about power, and zero schoolhouse rock.
Altho I think in the past it was a least partially the schoolhouse rock version. maybe i'm wrong.
The constitution seems to be all about power. Checks and balances...on power. Admitting every generation will have its would-be tyrants and they tried to create a sustainable system of government to mute that would-be tyrant's power.
the constitution's assumptions concerning power are slightly naive, in that it doesn't really expect that the supreme court and the senate will end up being pwned by wire-pulling - as happened under FDR where basically the same powerful people built a voting machine that would let them control all of the branches, and thus make the 'checks' meaningless. (note the loss of control by states on the Senate contributes to this.)
De Jouvenel's book On Power talks about this, where you (a single power) create multiple 'powers' that are supposed to check each other (he calls them makeweights). They don't, because their power really flows from the same source-- in the case of the modern USA, it's whoever has best control over the results of voting.
The way to understand why this is, is to look at say, a progressive judge, a progressive legislator, and a progressive president. In theory they should check and balance each other, but all three are rich liberals, ivy educated, go to the same parties, know the same people, share the same basic class, economic, even religious interests, and all are serving their posts for the same reason - the democrat party got them elected. It can't be expected that they will meaningfully oppose one another on abuses, but rather it should be expected they will all perpetuate the same kind of abuses.
Rioters think that there is something called people-power, where the people themselves rise up and do something. There are two problems with this. The first is that the people have no will as a mass and therefore cannot exercise power (they cannot take actions as a collective.) The only way they are a power is if they organize under leadership - it need not be one head, but if multiple, this group must be able to coordinate amongst itself (natural limitations apply.) The second is that whoever controls the military trumps whoever controls or commands the mass of people. Venezuela demonstrates this clearly, and of course this is true of the USA too, and anywhere else, unless the military decides not to act, or is divided (Erdogran's case is the latter, and he resisted the coup, probably perpetuated by our intelligence services.)
Most societies as they degrade end up in so-called autocratic forms, because civic virtue degrades over time (it requires tremendous amounts of civic virtue to maintain a Republic.) Since the congress will not or can not do anything, at some point, at some crisis, someone will have to. The likelihood over time increases that this must be a single person wielding command over the whole realm, because this is the simplest and most efficient form of taking action (single will over all.) And as competency slips, the ability of traditional power-wielding institutions to resist a single authoritative will drops... and while the single will is good at moving all the parts together, they generally do not have the power to restore the broad-based civic virtue necessary to restore the Republican form (it's better to think of the Republican form as an internal coalition of capable powers on many levels - if such powers do not exist, a Republic is neither necessary nor possible.)
Many of us did hope to see Trump be this autocratic figure, as a final transition of the anglo world back to its original governance - kings. (This pattern also held in Rome.)
However, given the need for virtue, the attack on the Christian church beginning in the 1960s you would see as the strategic strike to the foundation holding the USA government together. I would bet.
You can't "police the police." People in power have to act justly because it is right without any other reward. Meaning the majority of people. There's probably a threshold at like 90% or something. It's the only way to have a Republic as you say. As soon as society falls below that threshold, there are too many people seeking out reward and power for themselves, and then we're back to might makes right and the most powerful win.
The Christian church is one good way to ensure a virtuous population. Might not be the only way.
And if you're with me so far, was that strategic strike intentional or accidental or inevitable "good times create soft men". If intentional, by who?
1960's is the second generation of the process FDR started. FDR's work effectively transformed the second edition of the USG into the third - and even Lincoln's version wasn't the original (i.e. elimination of states' rights does a lot to turn states into makeweights.)
We're very far into a long process, and the division of the "Christian church" into multiple politically-powerless small institutions -- a process whose origin predates the USA -- makes it powerless as a source of civic virtue. The USA's capacity for civic virtue was probably related to her social structures + populations. In the early 20th century mass urbanization took hold, but the new urbanites were not like old city-dwellers, and were mass-educated after the fashion of the day to turn them into factory workers rather than 'citizens'.
Because these processes are all so old and well-advanced, I do not believe restoration of civic virtue among a large enough percentage of the population to restore a real republic is feasible at this time. It would be an intergenerational effort whose spearhead must be powerful enough to destroy or disable all four of these: the bureaucracies (permanent gov't), the media (inc. Hollywood, facebook, etc), the foundations, and the universities. Virtue must be restored in the absence of 1. government jobs programs, 2. access to television or social media, 3. support from foundations, and 4. access to university education.
It also must account for a shift in demographics from the original foundation, and how this impacts community formation, attitudes, etc.
It's too complex of a problem to even contemplate; yet, with a different sort of politics, many of these problems become solvable, even easy, though not necessarily quick.
Additionally: If they want to focus on power, the dynamics of power can change on a dime in real life. Example: A group of 20 African-Americans is walking up a street. A Chinese couple (or white) is walking towards them. The African-Americans begin hurling racially based insults at the Chinese couple (or white) and beat them to near death.
They only count for a diverse hire if the Asian is female. Just being Asian does not count because tech is made up of white, asian/indian so it's only diverse if not in that group
Dude I'm not chopping it off, I don't care how much they're offering. Throw in 2 month paid vacation and flexible hours ok then we're talking, but absolutely no chopping for less. A man has principles.
That sounds like an old joke I heard. A man asks a lady at a bar if she'd go home with him. She says she's not that kind of woman. He asks if she would go home with him for a Million Bucks. She thinks about it and says yes. He says that now that they had established what kind of woman she was, it was time to negotiate.
We actually had a guy do that. Claimed he was gender fluid or some bullshit like that. Suddenly his job wasn’t in danger and he got a promotion. I’m completely serious. Guy is a definite male with a wife.
And that’s all of them. Take out children, elderly, and those physically unable to work and how many are left?
Now out of that subset, how many actually have the training and skills relevant to the job? And if every company is prioritizing hiring them, you have to spend more to fill the position.
Good luck filling a quota that big with competent workers.
JP Morgan/Chase??? Did they learn nothing from Experian hiring a music major as their CISO because she was a woman? Why do they want Bonqueisha who can't even keep her EBT card balance above zero for two weeks running their investment department???
It is just virtue signaling to get idiots to buy their products/services. If they do hire minorities it will be educated ones that can actually do something worth a damn....aka trump supporter blacks or conservative blacks.
I wish they would promise to hire white men, some of us could use a good job. Or just give all our good jobs to Indian immigrants like cucks, whatever.
Just apply, and when they don't hire you, sue them for discrimination. What they are doing is against the law. They've already established their guilt with virtue signalling like this. Easy to prove.
White guys in tech jobs are looked at like cancer these days. Skills don't mean shit when people judge you by the color of your skin....I think there is a name for that bullshit.....starts with an R......
Replace White with Jew in anything racial that leftists say and they sound like loyal Nazis of the Third Reich. I serious expect concentration camps in the next decade.
On the bright side these hires mean these corporations will not be in power much longer. Hire based on skin color instead of ability and your company will collapse.
Dr. Martin King
“I have a Dream that my four Children will one day Live in a Nation they will not be Judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their Character”
This is a load of shit! I'm an American who happens to be Asian, and people hire me and work with me because I'm the best digital marketing expert in the world, not because I'm Asian. Things like this cast doubt on how good I am because leftists are racist.
This is a load of shit! I'm an American who happens to be Asian, and people hire me and work with me because I'm the best digital marketing expert in the world, not because I'm Asian. Things like this cast doubt on how good I am because leftists are racist.
They literally can't because there aren't enough black and Latinos in tech. Asians are over represented by a huge amount.
Although maybe that's all this is. An excuse to demand millions of H1Bs so they can hire more Indians to fill some diversity quota that isn't representative of the country.
If they hired that many white people, perhaps things would get accomplished on time and under budget. Hell, probably even ahead of schedule. Let’s face it, whites and a select few breeds of Asians have contributed almost everything to the world that we take for granted today. I’ve traveled the world, I’ve seen the living conditions in these shitholes - without white people, the world would probably still be significantly less advanced than it is today.
Hey pedes, this isn't an invitation to argue about which race is superior. It is bringing to light racism on the left. Content of character transcends race and unfortunately, so does a lack of character.
Let's not joke around, these companies won't be hiring minority Americans.
Discount H1-B labor.
Want to bet on which ethnicity represents a majority of the hiring?!
Whites are the strongest demographic, so the gameplan is to weaken and divide whites so they won't be able to resist globalism/communism.
Whites are the only race that opposes communism in Western countries, by a slimmer margin every year, but still the globalist solution is to make whites a permanant minority in every country and then usher in a globalist giver ment because all the illegal immigrants in America won't care because they don't know Jack shit about our Founding and Constitution.
Very generally: I would add legal immigrants too. I don't blame people who don't come from English, or even European stock, because it is not part of their heritage and legacy. Most will just want to live comfortably and not care for the stewardship of the nation. The Dems will get my relatives here too! The RepubliCANTs are horrible communicators. It just is what it is.
theyre too stupid to know their history
From what I heard/read, we are being outdone by Asians--particularly Indians, followed by Koreans, Japanese, & some other group I can't remember (Not Chinese, but maybe Taiwanese?)--in terms of education & wealth.
Our other strengths won't do much if we are too stupid & poor to utilize them properly, so it seems like we won't be strongest for long unless we kick our rears into gear before the end of the year.
Edit: Why am I being downvoted, tho?? I am just saying what the demographic stats say. Asian Americans & immigrants on average have more wealth & higher education than white Americans. Down-voting isn't going to make it any less true of a stat, unless someone can provide evidence showing why the numbers are faulty... So what is the problem in me stating that we should attempt to do better with our own education & financials so that we are not ground into dust by the white-hating commies?? I'm confused by this reaction, pedes. Am I missing something? Someone pointed out that whites are being targeted, which is fair, but even so, I'm pretty sure the point still stands...
They aren't being targetted for replacement migration and demoralization. Once we are conquered, everyone else will fall.
I mean, I forgot to consider that & that's fair. But with some universities starting to require even higher SAT scores from Asian applicants, it seems like they are starting to be targeted, too (commies gonna commie against anybody with success, I guess). So you could argue that.
But whatever the case, I still wouldn't just sit back and dilly dally while white culture is struggling/being attacked. If anything, the fact that they are targeting us means we should push back harder against the propaganda & work on ourselves to be even more successful, right?? I mean, I don't see why not...
That's why a new party based on nationalism and traditionalism should be formed .it will be like the tea party but just focused on preserving American People, culture, heritage, demographics, Christian culture, economic libertarianism, family and divorce laws, etc. The party can then infiltrate the GOP and remove Neocons and the GOP establishment.
The downvotes.Sometimes the truth is too much. Ted Cruz recently said a socioeconomic shift in Texas is responsible for it trending blue. Fingers crossed, hopefully Texas defies the demographics and gives another red this November.
nah, our culture has been targeted for destruction. from every angle and we are all too busy trying to stay out of shit neighborhoods by working 60 hours a week.
Whites are the only strong race. Unfortunately whits have too much empathy too.
"Whites are the only strong race. Unfortunately LIBERALS have too much empathy."
FTFY
You must not be talking about me.
100%....at this time (although the Han-Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews don't fuck around....that said, so many are either socialists/commies anyway, or under the CCP). The Jewish American and Chinese votes will sway Dem/Marxist.
I just about shit myself when I saw kamala harris justify the KKK and act like that dude was in the wrong for criticizing it
...and yet stupid people, continue to use FaceBook, Google, Amazon, etc.
It's difficult to keep the windows clean when everyone on the bus keeps licking the windows.
Yeah. One bank is bragging about hiring Africans.
But math is racist.
Nope, they know Trump is going after the H1B program and they're going to hire as many as they can before he does. They only met to say "we all know we're gonna have to hire a bunch of H1Bs ASAP, let's not step on each other's feet while we do it or it will drive up their salaries." It's gonna be the exact same as when they were conspiring not to hire each other's US citizen employees. Apple and Google alone got sued for for stealing BILLIONS in their employee's salary that way.
The H1b program is stealing the futures of people who spent years and 10's of thousands of dollars in school so they can get into the tech industry.
Yes it is. Americans are fully capable of doing every single job in the country. Corporations just want to be able to hire foreigners who won't complain and will work for half of an American worker. I say end all immigration immediately until we have 100% employment.
All virtue signaling....
You might know, but "postmodernism" or "critical theory" only sees power. That's where such illogical gems as "blacks can't be racist" or "if a black cop kills a white person because he's white, it's still white privilege" comes from.
The ideology views the world entirely through the lens of oppression. There are only oppressed classes and oppressors. There are no individuals. Just class. And class warfare.
That's why they call it "cultural Marxism". It's the culturally oppressed, rather than the economically oppressed worker in Marx's formulation, that need to rise up and throw off their cultural oppressors.
Which is scary as fuck and seems to be falling on deaf ears all over the western world.
to be precise, it doesn't see power directly, it only views language in terms of its potential to be used to seize power. In the same way that Marxists see their economic and to some extent democratic political ideas as a means to gain power (and from there push for or create communism) - cultural marxists see the field of language (and in extension, culture) itself as merely an opportunity to acquire power over other people, which power they intend to use for a similar goal (communism) - thus the connexion between the "Marxisms".
The only way to combat this is to see power directly. Sometimes there are conspiracies, but more often there is just a system run amok that everyone with any power tries to exploit for their own gain.
I disagree. They do seek power in order to wield it against the "oppressors." Leftists don't love the poor. They hate the rich. Theirs is an ideology of resentment and envy.
They basically view power as a balance beam of sorts with "oppressor" class basically holding down the other side of the beam. It is a zero sum game to them. If one person has more power then they assume it means that person is oppressing someone else. So to balance it out, you need to take power from the oppressor and give it to the oppressed. This is why they're obsessed with redistribution of wealth, high income tax on rich people/high income, affirmative action and similar stuff like that.
The problem is that they don't shift power to the oppressed, they merely become more vile oppressors themselves.
They seek power for themselves, and they use their rhetoric to get it. They want to be the administrators of who gets the affirmative action job, handout, tax hike, ect. They could give a shit about whether anyone benefits. They want to take out those who have power now and seize it for themselves in the name of social justice.
Exactly.....they want total control and total power over everyone in society.
Perhaps; yet they are also on the side of the rich and powerful and have always been; if they were not, they would have no power with which to attack other powerful people. It's not valid to apply their model, which is a trick of language, to try to understand what they are doing. Those who are powerful can make themselves more powerful by doing nothing other than concealing how or what they are doing, so it is trivial to reveal it as a way to step that back. They do not hate the rich, they hate the unfashionable... which has always included certain rich people (formerly the nobility of Europe) and definitely includes vast swaths of the poor whose plight cannot be leveraged for the power to create communism. Communism has always been the religion of the fashionable well-to-do and rich; social justice the fancy of the wealthy. This goes back centuries.
I don't think I understand.
Are you saying that our cultural marxists/postmodernists/critical theorists don't view the world thru the lens of power and oppressor/oppressed, but rather popularizing those views are simply a means to an end to gain power to enforce communism?
I may not be following. Sorry. Please help.
I think they believe it but don't realize that the end game for the politicians that gain power is communism.
All roads lead to a totalitarian government. Cultural warfare is an effective weapon to use to bring the Marxist dream to life.they don't like the poor/oppressed but they like the grievance or emotion of the poor that they can manipulate. they hate the rich but love the wealth of the rich because wealth can be spent to promote their ideas and projections.
They understand you can manipulate language to gain power over people. They do not however understand the natural limits of power, which has always been the downfall of Marxism. If they were truly as 'machiavellian' as people claim, they would show a great deal more practicality in their ideas of what you can do with power; they always seem surprised that, for example, rioting has no effect. (rioters are either tools of the powerful, or they are nothing; that is to say, they are nothing.) They seem surprised that telling people they are the same intelligence as other people fails to improve their performance, and so on. The fact of the matter is, they focus on a particular narrow aspect of soft power, which usually works because Americans in general have a 'schoolhouse rock' idea of politics, which says nothing at all about power. That is to say, most Americans don't know anything about power - political or otherwise - except as fairy tales about gangsters. So their methods tend to be effective because most Americans are marks.
Thanks, I feel like I'm learning something.
So someone above said it's a smokescreen--saying "save the oppressed" while all the while it's a play to install themselves as dictators.
I believe you're saying all or many in the movement are sincere, but don't understand power. I don't see anything to contradict that. I can believe that most people don't understand power. The few that do...are in positions of real power.
I am surprised how the people behind the riots do not grasp that 100 million "soccer mom's" are scared of, and do not want, and will vote against, rioting. That has led me to believe it's a false flag perpetrated by Trump's team.
But maybe your interpretation fits better.
Of course, given their misunderstanding of power, that'll create a vacuum, and some tyrant will step in. So the smokescreen people might have the end result right.
The school house rock thing really gets me. "And that's how a bill becomes a law." It dosent even MENTION lobbyists, or bribes, or campaign contributions. We have something called "K street" -- unmentioned. We might be at the point that Washington is ALL about power, and zero schoolhouse rock.
Altho I think in the past it was a least partially the schoolhouse rock version. maybe i'm wrong.
The constitution seems to be all about power. Checks and balances...on power. Admitting every generation will have its would-be tyrants and they tried to create a sustainable system of government to mute that would-be tyrant's power.
the constitution's assumptions concerning power are slightly naive, in that it doesn't really expect that the supreme court and the senate will end up being pwned by wire-pulling - as happened under FDR where basically the same powerful people built a voting machine that would let them control all of the branches, and thus make the 'checks' meaningless. (note the loss of control by states on the Senate contributes to this.)
De Jouvenel's book On Power talks about this, where you (a single power) create multiple 'powers' that are supposed to check each other (he calls them makeweights). They don't, because their power really flows from the same source-- in the case of the modern USA, it's whoever has best control over the results of voting.
The way to understand why this is, is to look at say, a progressive judge, a progressive legislator, and a progressive president. In theory they should check and balance each other, but all three are rich liberals, ivy educated, go to the same parties, know the same people, share the same basic class, economic, even religious interests, and all are serving their posts for the same reason - the democrat party got them elected. It can't be expected that they will meaningfully oppose one another on abuses, but rather it should be expected they will all perpetuate the same kind of abuses.
Rioters think that there is something called people-power, where the people themselves rise up and do something. There are two problems with this. The first is that the people have no will as a mass and therefore cannot exercise power (they cannot take actions as a collective.) The only way they are a power is if they organize under leadership - it need not be one head, but if multiple, this group must be able to coordinate amongst itself (natural limitations apply.) The second is that whoever controls the military trumps whoever controls or commands the mass of people. Venezuela demonstrates this clearly, and of course this is true of the USA too, and anywhere else, unless the military decides not to act, or is divided (Erdogran's case is the latter, and he resisted the coup, probably perpetuated by our intelligence services.)
Most societies as they degrade end up in so-called autocratic forms, because civic virtue degrades over time (it requires tremendous amounts of civic virtue to maintain a Republic.) Since the congress will not or can not do anything, at some point, at some crisis, someone will have to. The likelihood over time increases that this must be a single person wielding command over the whole realm, because this is the simplest and most efficient form of taking action (single will over all.) And as competency slips, the ability of traditional power-wielding institutions to resist a single authoritative will drops... and while the single will is good at moving all the parts together, they generally do not have the power to restore the broad-based civic virtue necessary to restore the Republican form (it's better to think of the Republican form as an internal coalition of capable powers on many levels - if such powers do not exist, a Republic is neither necessary nor possible.)
Many of us did hope to see Trump be this autocratic figure, as a final transition of the anglo world back to its original governance - kings. (This pattern also held in Rome.)
So much to digest....
However, given the need for virtue, the attack on the Christian church beginning in the 1960s you would see as the strategic strike to the foundation holding the USA government together. I would bet.
You can't "police the police." People in power have to act justly because it is right without any other reward. Meaning the majority of people. There's probably a threshold at like 90% or something. It's the only way to have a Republic as you say. As soon as society falls below that threshold, there are too many people seeking out reward and power for themselves, and then we're back to might makes right and the most powerful win.
The Christian church is one good way to ensure a virtuous population. Might not be the only way.
And if you're with me so far, was that strategic strike intentional or accidental or inevitable "good times create soft men". If intentional, by who?
1960's is the second generation of the process FDR started. FDR's work effectively transformed the second edition of the USG into the third - and even Lincoln's version wasn't the original (i.e. elimination of states' rights does a lot to turn states into makeweights.)
We're very far into a long process, and the division of the "Christian church" into multiple politically-powerless small institutions -- a process whose origin predates the USA -- makes it powerless as a source of civic virtue. The USA's capacity for civic virtue was probably related to her social structures + populations. In the early 20th century mass urbanization took hold, but the new urbanites were not like old city-dwellers, and were mass-educated after the fashion of the day to turn them into factory workers rather than 'citizens'.
Because these processes are all so old and well-advanced, I do not believe restoration of civic virtue among a large enough percentage of the population to restore a real republic is feasible at this time. It would be an intergenerational effort whose spearhead must be powerful enough to destroy or disable all four of these: the bureaucracies (permanent gov't), the media (inc. Hollywood, facebook, etc), the foundations, and the universities. Virtue must be restored in the absence of 1. government jobs programs, 2. access to television or social media, 3. support from foundations, and 4. access to university education.
It also must account for a shift in demographics from the original foundation, and how this impacts community formation, attitudes, etc.
It's too complex of a problem to even contemplate; yet, with a different sort of politics, many of these problems become solvable, even easy, though not necessarily quick.
Additionally: If they want to focus on power, the dynamics of power can change on a dime in real life. Example: A group of 20 African-Americans is walking up a street. A Chinese couple (or white) is walking towards them. The African-Americans begin hurling racially based insults at the Chinese couple (or white) and beat them to near death.
Who had the power here?
https://imgur.com/WHmaslL
That's why the Californians are proposing to scrap the civil rights employment protections.
And nowhere has giving people power done anything for their intersectional class
So much white privilege in one headline!!!
Their real goal is hiring more leftists.
👍👍👍. Trained by Obama
They only count for a diverse hire if the Asian is female. Just being Asian does not count because tech is made up of white, asian/indian so it's only diverse if not in that group
If you are male and white, asian or indian you are not diverse
If the woman is Russian, does it count as Asian?
I have been told to my face at an interview that I'm not diverse, and it will hurt my application.
I actually got laid off because I wanted to hire a non diverse and pushed the issue. My argument was I already hired 4/5 diverse hires so fuck off
I don't interrupt my enemy when they are winning a war for me.
Time to refresh my resume and include a headshot of my beautiful colored face, maybe I'll claim I'm trans for an extra salary bump.
Might just dress in drag and infiltrate these guys. Especially if the trans thing gets me better pay.
Dude I'm not chopping it off, I don't care how much they're offering. Throw in 2 month paid vacation and flexible hours ok then we're talking, but absolutely no chopping for less. A man has principles.
That sounds like an old joke I heard. A man asks a lady at a bar if she'd go home with him. She says she's not that kind of woman. He asks if she would go home with him for a Million Bucks. She thinks about it and says yes. He says that now that they had established what kind of woman she was, it was time to negotiate.
We actually had a guy do that. Claimed he was gender fluid or some bullshit like that. Suddenly his job wasn’t in danger and he got a promotion. I’m completely serious. Guy is a definite male with a wife.
I have lots of gender fluid.
haha you don't even have to dress in drag, just "identify" as a female
welcome to 2020, where it is racist to hire more whites than blacks (even though whites are just the majority of the population)
Aren’t black people only 15% of the population?
And that’s all of them. Take out children, elderly, and those physically unable to work and how many are left?
Now out of that subset, how many actually have the training and skills relevant to the job? And if every company is prioritizing hiring them, you have to spend more to fill the position.
Good luck filling a quota that big with competent workers.
Yes, that’s true. I just didn’t want to crunch the numbers for all the different demographics.
JP Morgan/Chase??? Did they learn nothing from Experian hiring a music major as their CISO because she was a woman? Why do they want Bonqueisha who can't even keep her EBT card balance above zero for two weeks running their investment department???
It is just virtue signaling to get idiots to buy their products/services. If they do hire minorities it will be educated ones that can actually do something worth a damn....aka trump supporter blacks or conservative blacks.
I'd ask "Coalition of major CEO's":
Do they pick your brain surgeon by their skill, or their skin color?
I'll tell you what. For the rest of my life I will never trust a doctor, mechanic, contractor, etc that isn't a white guy
Actually they do pick who can go to medical school by skin color. Blacks can basically fail the MCAT and still get in.
I have an 18 month old white son. I am challenged every day when I read a story that I will struggle to to explain to him.
What worries me is that ot started this way with jews. It wasnt suddently every body against them. It was little things like those first
Do it. My wife and I are both leaving tech for welding (she grew up welding, I do it as a hobby that I love). Fuck that IT cesspool.
In other news: 100,000 Asians were hired, seemingly overnight!
I wish they would promise to hire white men, some of us could use a good job. Or just give all our good jobs to Indian immigrants like cucks, whatever.
Just apply, and when they don't hire you, sue them for discrimination. What they are doing is against the law. They've already established their guilt with virtue signalling like this. Easy to prove.
If it is easy to prove please kindly elaborate..
Make sure you're competitive in the market place. Make sure you have valuable skills.
White guys in tech jobs are looked at like cancer these days. Skills don't mean shit when people judge you by the color of your skin....I think there is a name for that bullshit.....starts with an R......
Don't let that hold you down though. Don't make excuses for not working hard.
I work for myself but every dollar I make is hard earned. Hopefully some of my projects will start paying off soon and I won't need anyone's job.
Good man that is the way to go. Hope you get success in your projects!
"A coalition of major CEO's pledge to hire 100,000 black, Latino, and Asian workers in New York"
Serious question (for them): Why
Racist assholes
That has never happened and will never happen because liberals would rather burden others with their batshit ideas.
99,000 of them are going to be Asian
Not in California! Now that they’re rolling back that pesky equal protection law!
Hasn't passed the ballot yet
Discrimination against whites is totally acceptable, for some absolutely bizarre reason.
Apply, and then sue them for discrimination when they don't hire you.
Open and shut case. Fat payday. They've already established their discriminatory practices.
I'm applying today.
I have no idea who the fuck he is, but I had heard his name on family guy for many years.
As a Hispanic man this is just plain old shameful. Don’t pander to me, treat me as a human being
Just look at it this way if these monsters had their way they would be sticking white people in ovens
"We vow to hire only non-white people" Wow they're not trying to hide it anymore.
Replace White with Jew in anything racial that leftists say and they sound like loyal Nazis of the Third Reich. I serious expect concentration camps in the next decade.
They have stated that:
On the bright side these hires mean these corporations will not be in power much longer. Hire based on skin color instead of ability and your company will collapse.
Not when you are too big to fail.
Dr. Martin King “I have a Dream that my four Children will one day Live in a Nation they will not be Judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their Character”
I still have this Dream !
Coalition of CEOs? You mean an anti-trust oligopoly?
Da Jooz.
Based and redpilled
👍👍👍
Yes.
The end result will be guerrilla war by those with European Heritage or enslavement until extinction.
Yes James, it would. So why would it be okay to hire other races excluding whites. Because the left is RACIST.
This is a load of shit! I'm an American who happens to be Asian, and people hire me and work with me because I'm the best digital marketing expert in the world, not because I'm Asian. Things like this cast doubt on how good I am because leftists are racist.
Very true !!!
Username checks out !!
No, because racism against whites is just fine, because whites are the enemy.
Fuck these people are racists
This shit needs to stop in the USA before we all become racists...
Yes, yes it is. It's Violation of Title IX, Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Only in America
Hr nightmare
i bet most of them end up being from that Asian portion of their groups.
Yes
They literally can't because there aren't enough black and Latinos in tech. Asians are over represented by a huge amount.
Although maybe that's all this is. An excuse to demand millions of H1Bs so they can hire more Indians to fill some diversity quota that isn't representative of the country.
If they hired that many white people, perhaps things would get accomplished on time and under budget. Hell, probably even ahead of schedule. Let’s face it, whites and a select few breeds of Asians have contributed almost everything to the world that we take for granted today. I’ve traveled the world, I’ve seen the living conditions in these shitholes - without white people, the world would probably still be significantly less advanced than it is today.
Hey pedes, this isn't an invitation to argue about which race is superior. It is bringing to light racism on the left. Content of character transcends race and unfortunately, so does a lack of character.
Yes, that is accurate.
Asking for a friend.
If a CEO said he would only consider a black woman for a position, would that be a violation?