The Problem / What the right must do.

 

 

If you haven't watched the most recent Rogan episode with Brett Weinstein, I would HIGHLY recommend watching it.  He was a person who saw much of the mess we are currently in coming in a way that most people did not. 

I agree with most of the things he said in this podcast, but there are things Weinstein either isn't aware of or didnt bring up.  He is a left wing guy, and is unquestionably primarily speaking to left wingers and other academics, so I can understand if there are aspects of this he either doesn't see, doesn't feel is necessarily relevant, or is purposely avoiding because the audience he's trying to reach will react poorly to it. 

 

I'm going to use this thread to explain what I think he's leaving out, and specifically point out exactly what the right probably needs to do to stop all this nonsense prior to it getting to civil conflict. 

 

 

2 Likes

First on what Brett is leaving out, and I'm sort of spitballing this here so there might be things that come to mind later on.

 

 While this mob is essentially leaderless, and people are holding places of influence instead of actual leadership, that does not mean this chaos isn't at least in part planned and in part being used.  I think it's fair at this point with formation of autonomous zones either attempted or existing, that there are communists/communist parallel/radical social justice/antifa/etc elements within these various mobs trying to push things the direction they want, and either guide the destructive power of the mob, frame them. or use them for cover while they do explicitly fucked up shit. 

 

It's also fair to say that much of what Eric describes as the problem is heavily intwined into the fabric of the DNC on the activist end of the party.  I'd say part of this was out of shrewd strategy and convenience, part out of ignorance about how much value these unscientific broken religous views have, and a general inability for the left to police it's borders when it comes to identities they feel a need to protect.  Either way, what Eric is describing is the exact fracture that needs to occur on the left....and to be honest that's a fracture that I don't think can or will happen without severe hostility. 

 

Also Eric is failing to point out how many of the entrenched problems in communities he speaks of are in many ways the direct result of intervention that already occured. This isn't merely the echo's of long distant oppresion, this is the result of specifically poorly crafted policy that was both compassionate, and disasterous.   The most obvious of these are not issues that people haven't been pointing out for quite awhile. Mainly that the welfare state has created a permanent dependent of mostly single mothers and poorly fathered children.  Combine that with inner city school systems that are utterly entrenched and near-unmovable, and you have the perfect recipe for a permanently dependent under where frequently the only routes to success are far from typical...frequently illegal. 

 

 

 

 

2 Likes

Next as far as what the right should do, and some of this is going to sound explictly NOT right wing, not libertarian...and the reason for it is extremely simple, because there  is a difference between strategy and principle. 

 

The left has understood this for awhile now and is much better with it.  They have had control of the culture for quite a while, while the right merely occasionally tugged the steering wheel or tapped the breaks...that's about it.  The right for the past few decades has been the minority party, the loyal opposition, the controlled opposition...whatever the hell you wish to call it.

This needs to stop.  The right has to make cultural inroads, actually have a coherent strategy that isn't "get as many big business donors as we can get" and actually set up a playing field where it can win.  The right needs to stop dying on  some of the hills of principle and be willing to make some of their own drastic changes rather than just yanking back on the changes made by another party. 

 

1 Like

The first thing that needs to happen is the right needs to push for political speech protection in labor laws.  I'm starting with this because it specifically sounds "not right wing", but like I said this is a matter of strategy not principle.   If a company fires somebody for statements made outside of the place of business, and you are not a significant figure or offical spokesperson for the company itself, then the company should be able to be sued for damages. 

 

This needs to happen so corporate and social entities cannot yeild in every way to a group they fear (the left) for legal and PR reasons, along with champion for corporatist and regulatory capture reasons.   As I've tried to describe before, while I think a free market is the most preferrable situation, this does not mean entrenched businesses will favor free markets. Business is like electricity, and big business most of all...it's going to take the shortest path to ground it can.  If that means setting up an unequal market, carving out regulation to embed itself, buying votes, or violating US concepts here in the US to further dominate a market overseas, then that's what will happen. 

 

i know many will read this and immediately say, "but dave don't you favor freedom of association?"  and my answer to that is as follows: That has not existed, and will not exist in my lifetime as long as there is no playing field in this area by which to stage a fight. 

 

Not pushing for this is essentially playing a game by the rules that you wish existed, rather than the rules that actually are, and losing every time.  As I said, dying on the hill of principle. 

 

Other people might bring up how many legal issues and contradictions something like this may cause, and to that I'd say GOOD.  That's a big part of the point.  Make the court overturn protections for people, where countless examples will be able to be brought up that sound unjust.   Turn this into a negotiated process.  If there are specific objections from blue states, allow them to demand a more states rights approach, which is what would be most beneficial in many cases anyway.

 

Some will say this is a waste of time, but it's not.  This is what the left has used regarding business to build pressure...a wedge by which to enact change.   This is a useful wedge.  The left has shown us exactly how easy it is to blend identity with politics, and shoe unfair practice by corporations and schools...the right needs to be able to demonstrate these same things, and inspire some of it's own fear in bad actors. 

1 Like

CavemanDave -

The first thing that needs to happen is the right needs to push for political speech protection in labor laws.  I'm starting with this because it specifically sounds "not right wing", but like I said this is a matter of strategy not principle.   If a company fires somebody for statements made outside of the place of business, and you are not a significant figure or offical spokesperson for the company itself, then the company should be able to be sued for damages. 


 


This needs to happen so corporate and social entities cannot yeild in every way to a group they fear (the left) for legal and PR reasons, along with champion for corporatist and regulatory capture reasons.   As I've tried to describe before, while I think a free market is the most preferrable situation, this does not mean entrenched businesses will favor free markets. Business is like electricity, and big business most of all...it's going to take the shortest path to ground it can.  If that means setting up an unequal market, carving out regulation to embed itself, buying votes, or violating US concepts here in the US to further dominate a market overseas, then that's what will happen. 


 


i know many will read this and immediately say, "but dave don't you favor freedom of association?"  and my answer to that is as follows: That has not existed, and will not exist in my lifetime as long as there is no playing field in this area by which to stage a fight. 


 


Not pushing for this is essentially playing a game by the rules that you wish existed, rather than the rules that actually are, and losing every time.  As I said, dying on the hill of principle. 


 


Other people might bring up how many legal issues and contradictions something like this may cause, and to that I'd say GOOD.  That's a big part of the point.  Make the court overturn protections for people, where countless examples will be able to be brought up that sound unjust.   Turn this into a negotiated process.  If there are specific objections from blue states, allow them to demand a more states rights approach, which is what would be most beneficial in many cases anyway.


 


Some will say this is a waste of time, but it's not.  This is what the left has used regarding business to build pressure...a wedge by which to enact change.   This is a useful wedge.  The left has shown us exactly how easy it is to blend identity with politics, and shoe unfair practice by corporations and schools...the right needs to be able to demonstrate these same things, and inspire some of it's own fear in bad actors. 

I think money in our political process has fucked us all. Not knowledgeable on much, but we’ve ceded too much power to corporations and they control our politicial process and politicians. We were sold down the river years ago. As you stated, corps just bend to mob rule. We’re sold an either or porposition with both options as garbage.

OP - take a break

You sound like a tin foil hat wearing wingnut

No term limits for the seats = Lobbyists own the seat and it spirals into coporatism.

All seats should have term limits, yes the process would increase in complexity but, that's the part of the process that lets people like John McCain sell his seat to the highest bidders. Term limits at least interrupts the process to make the new candidate a non-automatic crony.

1 Like

Second, there needs to be an all out assault on the educational establishment in this country, and this is going to be extremely difficult.  

 

I will get into this more later, but what I think needs to be done is the right must remove funding for these critical theory courses, which are little more than psudeo-relgious activist farms.  The government cannot force schools to teach or not teach anything, but we sure as hell don't have to fund it.  This issue isn't a tangent issue, it's primary, and the right needs to realize this is not something you can leave in existence.  

For that matter, it would be fair that we might need a total overhaul of the hight education system so stuff like what Brett ( or more specifically eric) was bringing up about grant scams cannot and will not happen at all. 

We cut any and all funding to these programs.  If for some reason they persist, we cut ALL funding for schools that have this garbage. 

Let me be brutal so every fence sitting moderate, conservative, and libertarian understands... if you are one of these groups, the people running these programs?  They despise you.  They hate you with immense passion.  The professors. The administrators.  The endoctrinated student body.  They don't want to comprimise with you, they want you DEAD, but they will settle for your submission and silence for now.  They explicitly hate this country, and they hate everything that doesn't fall within thier relgious doctrines. 

They want you to abide or suffer.  They want your children to abide or suffer, and what they are basing this on is explicitly unscientific garbage that's essentiallly a new relgion without a deity. 

I have to ask you, why on earth would you NOT want to remove the funding for this crap, and why on earth would you find any value in it what so ever...you are quite literally paying for this shit to exist, and it needs to wither and die.

1 Like

Great episode, Bret was on fire the whole episode.

Joes interpretation of Rayshard Brooks being killed was retarded though.

1 Like

In addition to higher learning, for the sake of every US citizen in an inner city area, we need to destroy and rebuild the inner city school systems, and I would suggest primarily phasing out public schools until every single federal dollar is swapped to charter schools... and I would point out funding should be predicated at a federal level.  If we want to block grant wholesale after this is set up I've got no problem with that, but we need to ensure the current system is gone.

 

We have areas of inner cities where there isn't a significant number of kids who are proficient in math, or writing.  

 

This is part of the thing that's creating a permanent under I don't care if funding has to be increased for this.  I don't care if some kids due to bad behavior have to be placed in schools with 5 person sizes and an army of councilors ...we need a way to separate and teach the kids from the kids who cannot and will not ever be educated given their social and parental situation.  

 

Once again while the charter school idea may sound right wing, the increased funding likely does not.  Carrot and stick, either way the cost will be well worth it.  We need to break the inner city school systems and replace them with something that actually functions.  Mere reform is worthless, these things need to be fucking replaced. 

1 Like

It was a good listen. 

Third, the welfare state needs to be reformed and this is another very not-right idea... we probably need to not only radically change the incentives, we likely need to heavily increase the funding. 

 

Specifically, we need to add strong financial incentives for people engage in two parent households.  When people move in and live together, they should specifcally not be penalized for that.  When they begin earning money, we should have a several year disengagement period where they can build up work experience and capital while benefits phase out more slowly over time.  We should explicitly give a bonus to legally married couples...something significant.  

Also, and this will be something that a shitload of people don't like...scrap all the peacemeal help and give these people fucking CASH.  My guess is we could actually pay less, and if we give people cash instead of various forms of assistance, they will be able to better economize.  I know this can and will cause some abuse horror stories, but it's worth it.  I'm sure there are some safeguards that could be put in place regarding this, but this is something that needs to be done. 

More of a right wing concept, this should phase out over time explicitly quicker than it currently does.  This should absolutely be seen and structured as a way out, and not a system of neverending dependence.

 

There is a reason why Ron Paul said he was against the welfare state, but acknowledged that it couldn't be ended full-stop abruptly...because people ARE stuck, dependent on this system.  Oddly enough the only way to lessen the impact politically at this point may be to fix it and manage it properly. 

1 Like

more later.  

Subbed for later 

"Let me be brutal so every fence sitting moderate, conservative, and libertarian understands... if you are one of these groups, the people running these programs?  They despise you.  They hate you with immense passion.  The professors. The administrators.  The endoctrinated student body.  They don't want to comprimise with you, they want you DEAD, but they will settle for your submission and silence for now.  They explicitly hate this country, and they hate everything that doesn't fall within thier relgious doctrines." 

 

 

LOL No. I have never met a person in my life that thinks this way. I'm sorry that you have or have been tricked to believe it is true but I guarantee I know a lot more liberal professors than you and none of them think this way.

 

 

Why don't you test it out yourself by finding the most liberal college in your area and audit the most ridiculously named sociology or womens study and speak with the professor for a few months. I guarantee you will not find this person to be evil or plotting anyone's demise, you just simply disagree with their worldview. They will think you are closed minded and you will think they believe in fairytales but you will both acknowledge that you share much more in common.

Thelonious -

"Let me be brutal so every fence sitting moderate, conservative, and libertarian understands... if you are one of these groups, the people running these programs?  They despise you.  They hate you with immense passion.  The professors. The administrators.  The endoctrinated student body.  They don't want to comprimise with you, they want you DEAD, but they will settle for your submission and silence for now.  They explicitly hate this country, and they hate everything that doesn't fall within thier relgious doctrines." 

 

 

LOL No. I have never met a person in my life that thinks this way. I'm sorry that you have or have been tricked to believe it is true but I guarantee I know a lot more liberal professors than you and none of them think this way.

 

 

Why don't you test it out yourself by finding the most liberal college in your area and audit the most ridiculously named sociology or womens study and speak with the professor for a few months. I guarantee you will not find this person to be evil or plotting anyone's demise, you just simply disagree with their worldview. They will think you are closed minded and you will think they believe in fairytales but you will both acknowledge that you share much more in common.

Yea I'm not talking about liberal professors, the guy I just literally posted talking about this is a liberal professor.  I'm speaking specifically of exactly what Weinstein is speaking of, and I have my own experience with these people, inside school and out.

What I can say in my own experience is they are explicitly hostile to ideas that don't comport with their view of reality, and can say their view of reality is explicity not scientific and without merit...I'd point out their lack of merit is shared by Weinstein, who for saying "you cannot ban white students from campus" was ostracized by the faculty and chased off the campus with bats. 

If you don't agree with my assessment of what these folks are like despite my own experience with them, I really don't care.  If nobody does, I don't care.  What I can say is that many of these studies program are activist farms, with activism built into the curriculum.  I can say they use shoddy, or specifically unscientific methods to make determinations and push explicitly bad ideas...all the while actually influencing the college system itself on an adminstrative level in a very negative way. 

 

That is more than enough to warrant pulling the tax dollars of US citizens from these programs. 

 

Let me reiterate what I said.  the guy I posted is talking about the guys you are saying are harmless, and for saying "you cant kick white kids off campus" he was ostracized and chased off the campus... with bats. 

 

I'd also ask Thelonious the variety of activist groups that have done absolutely crazy things over the past 6 years or so.  Weinsteins school, Depaul, Missou, Toronto, Berkely, Madison, Yale, etc, etc...and I'd point out you saw bad statements by faculty and students both.  I'd point out how hostile most conservatives and libertarians find college in general.  I can point out the number of conservative speakers who have quite literally had their lives threatened or events shut down by these activist students.   How about the campus police threatening to arrest Shaprio on behalf of a college adminstration? 

 

And are we supposed to pretend we dont see similar radicalism now spilling over into regular life?  It clearly is.  I'd point out it's not strange that a ton of people rioting were college students from exceptionally far left cities, from far left campuses, most of which have absorbed the horrid near-religous values originating from these programs. 

 

 

 

fourth.

 

I'm not going to touch too much on this since there appears to be both political talk and actual potential action taken on this, but social media and silicon valley companies need to have their liability exemptions squeezed for regularly banning non-left content and points of view. 

 

I think most people have heard of this at this point. I think I already made a thread on this, and it's been a political topic of conversation.

1 Like

Fifth, and I don't think I need to touch much on this either other than the reasons why... the RNC needs to push for an end to the drug war and the federal decriminalization or legalization of weed, and as many generally non-addictive drugs as possible.  If this has to be in conjuction with increased police funding to keep lobbying agents off the political back of the party, then so be it. 

 

I know a bunch of people consider this an unimportant or frivolous issue.  It's not.  This is a cultural battle that's been waged for quite awhile now.  It's one that eventually will give way.  This is a matter of time, and cultural battles are way more important than most on the right realize.  

It's probably a good idea to be on a winning side of one for once, and this is one that will end up the way we all know it will end up one way or another.  

1 Like

I know I talk a great deal about politics here.  a portion of the time I'm using it as a sounding board, occasionally playing devils advocate, and seeing what bounces back from other folks.  

 

I really do appreciate the people who give me feedback, even if I agressively or even insultingly disagree with them by the way. 

 

I am pretty serious about all this.  My guess is for some of the stuff, people who often agree with me are surprised or dislike some of the stuff I suggested.  As I said, this is what should be done in the name of strategy, not principle...but at some point you have to realize you will lose all your principled battles you wage if you don't have a playing feild you are capable of winning on.

 

Either way if you read all this shit, thanks for reading.

 

  I apprecate it.