Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2073169 > unrolled thread

Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

Contents

  Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> - 2016-03-12 10:05 -0500
    Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> - 2016-03-12 17:06 +0000
      Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> - 2016-03-12 19:28 +0000
        Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> - 2016-03-12 20:24 +0000
          Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-14 13:11 +0100
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> - 2016-03-14 15:07 +0000
              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-14 17:55 +0100
                Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-16 09:37 +0000
                  Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-16 12:25 +0100
                    Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-16 14:53 +0000
                      Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-16 18:02 +0100
                        Re: IT workeers (Was Trump) Bill Steele <ws21@cornel.edu> - 2016-03-16 14:38 -0400
                        Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-16 22:07 +0000
                          Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-16 23:25 +0100
                            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 00:33 -0400
                              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-17 11:37 +0100
                                Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-17 11:58 +0000
                                  Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-17 13:54 +0100
                                    Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-17 12:56 +0000
                                      Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-17 14:07 +0100
                            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-17 10:04 +0000
                              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-17 11:39 +0100
                                Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-03-17 06:19 -0700
                                  Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-17 13:30 +0000
                              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-17 05:03 -0700
                                Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-17 12:40 +0000
                                  Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-17 15:54 -0700
                      Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:11 -0700
      Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> - 2016-03-13 11:34 -0400
        Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-13 18:06 -0700
          Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:11 -0400
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> - 2016-03-14 07:14 -0400
              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> - 2016-03-14 15:17 +0000
                Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> - 2016-03-15 14:58 -0400
                  Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> - 2016-03-15 21:26 +0000
                    Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:45 -0700
                      Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Bill Steele <ws21@cornel.edu> - 2016-03-16 14:50 -0400
                  Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:44 -0700
                    Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 21:20 -0700
                  Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 21:18 -0700
                    Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:49 -0700
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-14 13:15 +0100
              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 21:21 -0700
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com - 2016-03-15 15:24 -0700
          Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-03-14 13:16 +0100
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-14 15:09 -0700
              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> - 2016-03-15 15:02 -0400
                Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:41 -0700
                  Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Bill Steele <ws21@cornel.edu> - 2016-03-16 14:55 -0400
        Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> - 2016-03-14 15:09 +0000
          Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> - 2016-03-15 15:02 -0400
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:42 -0700
              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 00:35 -0400
        Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Bill Steele <ws21@cornel.edu> - 2016-03-16 14:46 -0400
      Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com - 2016-03-15 15:10 -0700
        Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 21:24 -0700
        Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:14 -0700
          Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com - 2016-03-19 14:58 -0700
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-20 10:38 +0000
              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-03-23 09:38 -0700
                Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 19:15 +0000
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-03-23 01:46 -0700
              Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 12:12 +0000
          Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com - 2016-03-19 17:00 -0700
            Re: Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 09:18 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#2073169 — Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man

I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't everybody 
be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.


 Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire bozo 
rules the GOP
Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and their 
fear of a female president


1. The Siegfriedian super-provider

The Donald instinctively appeals to them in their moment of prolonged personal 
crisis that has deep cultural and economic roots.

With his near-Neanderthal looks, albeit one with hair that is beyond the range 
of human evolution, Trump provides a perfect shield to protect men against 
their current existential fears.

Many American men have fears of failing their wives and families as 
“providers.” Enter Trump, the instinctive, but – despite occasional missteps – 
at the core amazingly sure-footed psycho-political strategist.

With his constant references to how many people he employs and pays, he casts 
himself, at least subliminally, as a super-provider.

Talking of archaic forces in play, it is no exaggeration to say that today’s 
American men feel downright emasculated, especially considering how they were 
raised with, or socialized to, rigid gender norms and expectations.
2. The anti-Hillary shield

Not only do they have to contend with a world where women are more successful 
at university level.

Coordinating careers and family lives, American women have also proven vastly 
superior to men when it comes to multitasking – a pivotal attribute in our 
ever more complex lives and workplaces.

U.S. women have also managed to shrink the income gap. The “glass ceiling” – a 
longstanding construct to protect less productive men from better-qualified 
women – is seriously cracking in the United States.

Among young professionals, women are ever more widely recognized as the real 
performers. And, according to photo-rich essay features even in such noble 
places as The New York Times Magazine, in colleges it is now increasingly the 
women who go on the hunt.

In addition to reversing the old hunter-gatherer model, it is also no longer 
men who necessarily bring home the larger share of “the bacon.”

As a result, American men – by tradition presumed to be the “strong” ones – 
now increasingly feel as if they are the weak gender.

It is not an overstatement to say that the constant references to male 
“strength” may have been human history’s most successful PR campaign.

The fact that they cannot really admit to weakness in a society that still 
emphasizes male strength so much – just witness the still existing contrast 
between hunky American football players and cheerleaders – only makes the 
problem worse for them.
3. The American dreamer

As the contrast between that expectation and men’s self-perception as meek and 
beat becomes ever more undeniable, Donald Trump enters the stage. Whoever 
feels the blues that way must be smitten by the performance of Donald, the 
Primordial.

While Arnold Schwarzenegger’s entire image is rooted in being muscle-packed, 
Trump’s is that he gets his way with good-looking women, whether on reality TV 
or in real life (and all of it while doing high-powered business deals).

His admiring audience is sure of one thing: The Donald never backs down when 
challenged by women, including by the steeliest of them.

The implicit message and his direct appeal is clear: How many other men do you 
know who are as folksy and down to earth as Trump, while also being 
spectacularly rich?

To be sure, Trump’s is the vulgar version of the American Dream. But, unlike 
so many of his admirers, at least he still gets to live it – and in a truly 
full-throated version.

His may be an admittedly garish version of that dream. Nevertheless, a vast 
pool of people who no longer harbor any delusions about themselves longs to 
partake in his dream life.
4. The lancer

In many ways, Trump acts like the rough-hewn courtier of a bygone era. He 
operates on the basis of some very straightforward principles.

These may be repugnant to some, but prove remarkably effective in an American 
operating environment: Never apologize. Never back off. Always be on the 
offensive – and count on the other side retreating.

Based on this stance, despite all his relative ignorance and rudeness, Trump 
simply oozes confidence. Under his wing, men feel paradoxically protected.

He acts a bit like the medieval knight who, full of unshakable belief in 
himself, rides straight ahead at the opposing knight, certain that he will 
knock him off his horse.

Most amazing of all, Trump doesn’t seem to care even to put his visor down as 
he accelerates on horseback to lance his opposing number.
5. The underdog

At a popular level, Trump manages to capture the emotional elixir of many 
Hollywood movies devoted to the subject of being elected President of the 
United States. Kevin Kline’s “Dave” (1993), Chris Rock’s “Head of State” 
(2003) and Robin Williams’ “Man of the Year” (2006) — all in their own ways — 
are thus scripts for the Trump campaign.

What these Hollywood dreams all have in common is that they feature a 
completely unlikely candidate as being on the road to take the White House.

Virtually every of these movies has a moment at which the prospect of getting 
elected president has become wholly unlikely. Only a truly bizarre turn of 
events unfolding could still deliver what is otherwise a certain failure of 
the campaign.

As with Trump, these movies’ particular narrative arc is that the candidate’s 
ultimate success becomes all the more certain as serious, basically 
insurmountable obstacles are thrown his or her way.

6. The mirror image

Trump is a true nightmare for the Republican Party. In the past, it excelled 
in driving forward policies that benefitted the country’s rich, while putting 
up candidates for President who were not all that rich — and certainly not 
ostentatious about it.

Trump makes mincemeat of that finely calculated “modesty.” He personifies the 
exploitation of nearly every business loophole game ever served up by the U.S. 
Congress. For Democrats, he is the personification of the “greed is good” 
message which Michael Douglas first made famous, playing Gordon Gekko (what a 
perfect moniker for Trump) in his 1987 movie “Wall Street.”

Trump embodies exactly what the current Republican Party and their highly 
elitist and utterly materialist philosophy stand for — however much they 
refuse to see that. His rhetoric and style are perfect displays of what the 
Republican Party has wrought with its turns over the past two to three 
decades.
7. The devil

Trump plays a doubly devilish game — not just regarding the Republican Party, 
but especially so regarding Hillary Clinton.

Archetypal leitmotifs aid him in that effort. The late 17th century Salem 
witch trials, which occurred in what was then known as the Province of 
Massachusetts Bay, are the main reference point of mass hysteria directed at 
women on the territory of today’s United States.

Recall that Hillary Clinton is regularly perceived among significant swaths of 
the Republican Party electorate as a “witch” – if not a label even less 
charitable – and is constantly made the scapegoat for all of America’s 
problems (e.g., Benghazi), at least as far as they cannot be laid at the feet 
of its first Black president.

Inserting crass and admittedly archaic approaches into political races is part 
of the American political tradition, even though they have so far primarily 
taken the shape of race-baiting and religion-baiting – not gender-baiting.

The rules of the campaign game in this regard are simple: You can do it, if 
you can get away with it. That, in turn, requires one not to leave any 
fingerprints during the act of transgression, so that one cannot be judged as 
being out of line.

This goes beyond attacks on Hillary. As if to salvage himself from charges of 
gender baiting, Trump is also acting as a “devil” vis-à-vis other Republicans 
as he plays games with them on women’s issues.

The party has subliminally used its anti-abortion stance as a “wedge” issue, 
to create a sharp contrast to Democrats. More fundamentally, it has used this 
issue as its very own way to hold women in check to this very day.

Enter Trump. He upsets the Republican apple cart with a simple two-step 
maneuver: First he deliberately highlights his rivals’ anti-women policies and 
he then creates a strong contrast to his own positions – by vowing to stand up 
for “the whole issue of women’s health.”

This move is designed to go right at the party establishment’s current 
standard-bearer Jeb Bush.

During the recent flap about Planned Parenthood, the third Bush who finds 
himself in the race for the White House has argued in favor of excising any 
funds for the organization from the federal budget.

Hard though it may be to believe, on women’s issues – of all possible issues! 
— Trump is really a master class in effective political communications.

While bedeviling the Republican Party, he manages at the same time at least to 
neutralize some of those charges from the liberal camp about him being a 
misogynist.

Achieving all this while knowing that his own political appeal very much rests 
on capitalizing on nourishing deep-seated fears among men about being 
dominated by women begs disbelief – if it weren’t so real.

Consider what may well happen next: If and when Trump gets to the main event, 
being selected as the Republican candidate presumably against Hillary Clinton 
as an opponent, he can then perform another masterstroke.

In the general election campaign, he could argue to Democratic voters that he, 
Trump – with his views on women’s issues – has done more to alter traditional 
Republican Party position than anybody else.

Trump’s goal is self-evident. He wants to further confuse the party faithful 
and toss up the race.

8. The killer executive

Ever the one to up the ante, Trump has already cleverly staged his 
self-inoculation against further charges of misogynistic tendencies.

Talking about women in business in particular, he has stated that “They are 
amazing executives. They are killers.”

Ever the dialectician(!), what is ostensibly intended as a compliment to women 
also creates further fear in men. In his own imagery and experience, Trump 
isn’t just referring to them as competent executives, but – via the killer 
analogy – as veritable business Amazons.

While using that phrase as an anti-misogyny shield for himself (toward women 
and liberals) among his core constituency of meek men, that killer image also 
conjures up the mortal fear of Hillary, the Democratic Party woman who is 
marching ever closer toward being the country’s top executive.

To all those living in fear of that, the subliminal message is clear enough: 
Who else but Trump, the “killer” executive, can stop her?
9. The gambler

We don’t know whether Trump has read his Dostoyevsky. Most likely, he hasn’t. 
And yet, he surely acts like a character out of the 19th century Russian 
novelist’s dark work.

Call it genius, dumb luck, unbelievable or whatever, but where it’s game over 
for everybody else, Trump always manages to find a new trap door — for himself 
as much as for other people’s emotions.

What is truly unbelievable, as shown above, is how he is often able, in one 
fell swoop, to find an answer for the very different calculations and emotions 
of both sides of the political equation.

Trump’s campaign manager may be none other than a famous imaginary character — 
Alexei Ivanovich, the central character in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s 1867 novel, 
The Gambler.

Like a figure right out of Dostoyevsky, Trump himself – through often bizarre 
turns – plumbs ever greater depths of the American national character.

To the frustration of both Republican and Democratic Party political 
operatives, at least so far he has managed to get away with his big gambles.
10. The greatest reality TV producer

The missing link in transporting Dostoyevsky right into the America of today 
is “reality” TV. It thrives upon keeping audiences hooked on wanting to know – 
from one commercial break to the next, week to week and year after year — what 
new, crazy low its main characters will reach.

The success or failure of each of those shows is directly related to the 
ability of the producers of those shows to select the right characters.

Ideally, they have a totemic appeal (like Trump), which allows the show to 
reach – and stay connected to – the largest possible audience.

Trump is a master of that art from his shows on NBC. His biggest campaign 
weapon thus is the subconscious connection that is embedded in so many 
Americans’ psyche today.

For the viewers, these shows are a pressure valve. For Trump, it is the 
ultimate thing money cannot buy – a tool to entertain himself, while casting a 
true spell over the entire nation.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2073227

No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> wrote:
>I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't everybody 
>be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>
>
> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire bozo 
>rules the GOP
>Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and their 
>fear of a female president
>

There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American 
public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do with the 
battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one simple, 
devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West has 
enjoyed for most of the  20th century has stalled, basically since the new 
millenium termed.

This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little politicians of 
any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that have 
substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of wealth 
between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.

Like most profound social change this is not the result of politics, but of 
technological change. I would say it's largely down to two inventions. The 
Internet, and perhaps more importantly, the container ship.

Now the gut reaction to this by those suffering from frustrated expectations is 
to build a wall arround their nation. It wouldn't _work_, of course, but its 
the first thing people think about it and, for those not reflective enough for 
second thoughts, that's as far as they get.

What's happening in America at the moment seems to me frighteningly similar to 
what went on in Germany in the '30s. There was the same rage. The same search 
for scapegoats. Trump is riding this rage not intuitively, but consciously, by 
calculation just as Hitler did.

It's in situations like this that the threat of fascism rears its ugly head. 
The real thing, not just the generic buz word against anyone that wants to tell 
us we're misbehaving.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2073276

On 12/03/2016 17:06, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> wrote:
>> I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't everybody
>> be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>>
>>
>> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire bozo
>> rules the GOP
>> Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and their
>> fear of a female president
>>
>
> There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
> public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do with the
> battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one simple,
> devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West has
> enjoyed for most of the  20th century has stalled, basically since the new
> millenium termed.
>
> This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little politicians of
> any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that have
> substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of wealth
> between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.

Why do you believe globalisation is/was inevitable?

>
> Like most profound social change this is not the result of politics, but of
> technological change. I would say it's largely down to two inventions. The
> Internet, and perhaps more importantly, the container ship.
>
> Now the gut reaction to this by those suffering from frustrated expectations is
> to build a wall arround their nation. It wouldn't _work_, of course, but its
> the first thing people think about it and, for those not reflective enough for
> second thoughts, that's as far as they get.
>
> What's happening in America at the moment seems to me frighteningly similar to
> what went on in Germany in the '30s. There was the same rage. The same search
> for scapegoats. Trump is riding this rage not intuitively, but consciously, by
> calculation just as Hitler did.
>
> It's in situations like this that the threat of fascism rears its ugly head.
> The real thing, not just the generic buz word against anyone that wants to tell
> us we're misbehaving.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2073303

DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>On 12/03/2016 17:06, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> wrote:
>>> I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't everybody
>>> be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire bozo
>>> rules the GOP
>>> Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and 
>>>their
>>> fear of a female president
>>>
>>
>> There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
>> public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do with 
>>the
>> battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one simple,
>> devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West 
>>has
>> enjoyed for most of the  20th century has stalled, basically since the new
>> millenium termed.
>>
>> This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little politicians 
>>of
>> any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that 
>>have
>> substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of 
>>wealth
>> between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.
>
>Why do you believe globalisation is/was inevitable?
>

Because of the increasing ease of international trade. Protectionism is 
manufactured scarcity. It's an attempt to buck market forces. As soon as its 
cheaper to have something manufactured in, say, China, and have it shipped over 
than it is to manufacture it locally, any attempt to prevent that from 
happening is like trying to prevent water flowing down hill. It may please your 
local artisans, until they want to buy something which is artificially 
expensive.

In the end, technological change always wins over politics.

Politics has _far_ less power to improve things than politicians would like to 
believe, and would like _you_ to believe. In the end, the engineer trumps the 
politician.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2073946

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:24:41 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
<malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:

>DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>On 12/03/2016 17:06, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>> No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> wrote:
>>>> I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't everybody
>>>> be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire bozo
>>>> rules the GOP
>>>> Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and 
>>>>their
>>>> fear of a female president
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
>>> public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do with 
>>>the
>>> battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one simple,
>>> devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West 
>>>has
>>> enjoyed for most of the  20th century has stalled, basically since the new
>>> millenium termed.
>>>
>>> This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little politicians 
>>>of
>>> any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that 
>>>have
>>> substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of 
>>>wealth
>>> between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.
>>
>>Why do you believe globalisation is/was inevitable?
>>
>
>Because of the increasing ease of international trade. Protectionism is 
>manufactured scarcity. It's an attempt to buck market forces. As soon as its 
>cheaper to have something manufactured in, say, China, and have it shipped over 
>than it is to manufacture it locally, any attempt to prevent that from 
>happening is like trying to prevent water flowing down hill. It may please your 
>local artisans, until they want to buy something which is artificially 
>expensive.
>
>In the end, technological change always wins over politics.
>
>Politics has _far_ less power to improve things than politicians would like to 
>believe, and would like _you_ to believe. In the end, the engineer trumps the 
>politician.
>

all true...but that doesn't look to me like you quite answered the
     question



-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2073967

abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:24:41 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
><malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>On 12/03/2016 17:06, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>> No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> wrote:
>>>>> I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't 
>>>>>everybody
>>>>> be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire 
>>>>>bozo
>>>>> rules the GOP
>>>>> Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and 
>>>>>their
>>>>> fear of a female president
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
>>>> public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do 
>>>>with 
>>>>the
>>>> battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one 
>>>>simple,
>>>> devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West 
>>>>has
>>>> enjoyed for most of the  20th century has stalled, basically since the new
>>>> millenium termed.
>>>>
>>>> This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little 
>>>>politicians 
>>>>of
>>>> any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that 
>>>>have
>>>> substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of 
>>>>wealth
>>>> between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.
>>>
>>>Why do you believe globalisation is/was inevitable?
>>>
>>
>>Because of the increasing ease of international trade. Protectionism is 
>>manufactured scarcity. It's an attempt to buck market forces. As soon as its 
>>cheaper to have something manufactured in, say, China, and have it shipped 
>>over 
>>than it is to manufacture it locally, any attempt to prevent that from 
>>happening is like trying to prevent water flowing down hill. It may please 
>>your 
>>local artisans, until they want to buy something which is artificially 
>>expensive.
>>
>>In the end, technological change always wins over politics.
>>
>>Politics has _far_ less power to improve things than politicians would like 
>>to 
>>believe, and would like _you_ to believe. In the end, the engineer trumps the 
>>politician.
>>
>
>all true...but that doesn't look to me like you quite answered the
>     question
>
>

Was it inevitable? No, we could have had another world war instead. Given 
relative peace and the advances in transport techology, probably.

In any case its a move in the direction of justice. The international cake is 
still getting bigger, but the slice of that cake taken by the emergent 
ecconomies such as India, China, South Korea is getting larger _faster_. 

I never really believed that we would go on taking many times our fair share 
forever. We've been running of historical capital, not any present superiority. 
(By "fair" is mean a share of the proceeds roughtly comensurate with our 
contribution).

Through the 19th century we were rich because we have better guns, through the 
first half of the 20th we were rich because we had better factories, a better 
educational system. Why are we still rich?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2074008

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:07:09 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
<malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:

>abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>>On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:24:41 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>><malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>On 12/03/2016 17:06, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>> No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> wrote:
>>>>>> I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't 
>>>>>>everybody
>>>>>> be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire 
>>>>>>bozo
>>>>>> rules the GOP
>>>>>> Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and 
>>>>>>their
>>>>>> fear of a female president
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
>>>>> public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do 
>>>>>with 
>>>>>the
>>>>> battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one 
>>>>>simple,
>>>>> devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West 
>>>>>has
>>>>> enjoyed for most of the  20th century has stalled, basically since the new
>>>>> millenium termed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little 
>>>>>politicians 
>>>>>of
>>>>> any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that 
>>>>>have
>>>>> substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of 
>>>>>wealth
>>>>> between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you believe globalisation is/was inevitable?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because of the increasing ease of international trade. Protectionism is 
>>>manufactured scarcity. It's an attempt to buck market forces. As soon as its 
>>>cheaper to have something manufactured in, say, China, and have it shipped 
>>>over 
>>>than it is to manufacture it locally, any attempt to prevent that from 
>>>happening is like trying to prevent water flowing down hill. It may please 
>>>your 
>>>local artisans, until they want to buy something which is artificially 
>>>expensive.
>>>
>>>In the end, technological change always wins over politics.
>>>
>>>Politics has _far_ less power to improve things than politicians would like 
>>>to 
>>>believe, and would like _you_ to believe. In the end, the engineer trumps the 
>>>politician.

>>all true...but that doesn't look to me like you quite answered the
>>     question

>Was it inevitable? No, we could have had another world war instead. Given 
>relative peace and the advances in transport techology, probably.
>
>In any case its a move in the direction of justice. The international cake is 
>still getting bigger, but the slice of that cake taken by the emergent 
>ecconomies such as India, China, South Korea is getting larger _faster_. 

ok thus far

>I never really believed that we would go on taking many times our fair share 
>forever. We've been running of historical capital, not any present superiority. 
>(By "fair" is mean a share of the proceeds roughtly comensurate with our 
>contribution).

britain did not have to live off the capital...it could have invested
    on a much greater scale...

it is eating the seed corn as every socialist regime does, that puts
  the fat happy countries of the west into difficulties

>Through the 19th century we were rich because we have better guns, through the 
>first half of the 20th we were rich because we had better factories, a better 
>educational system. Why are we still rich?

because we still have some capital


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075012

On 14/03/2016 16:55, abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:07:09 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:24:41 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>>> <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2016 17:06, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>>> No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't
>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>> be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire
>>>>>>> bozo
>>>>>>> rules the GOP
>>>>>>> Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> fear of a female president
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
>>>>>> public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one
>>>>>> simple,
>>>>>> devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> enjoyed for most of the  20th century has stalled, basically since the new
>>>>>> millenium termed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little
>>>>>> politicians
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of
>>>>>> wealth
>>>>>> between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you believe globalisation is/was inevitable?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because of the increasing ease of international trade. Protectionism is
>>>> manufactured scarcity. It's an attempt to buck market forces. As soon as its
>>>> cheaper to have something manufactured in, say, China, and have it shipped
>>>> over
>>>> than it is to manufacture it locally, any attempt to prevent that from
>>>> happening is like trying to prevent water flowing down hill. It may please
>>>> your
>>>> local artisans, until they want to buy something which is artificially
>>>> expensive.
>>>>
>>>> In the end, technological change always wins over politics.
>>>>
>>>> Politics has _far_ less power to improve things than politicians would like
>>>> to
>>>> believe, and would like _you_ to believe. In the end, the engineer trumps the
>>>> politician.
>
>>> all true...but that doesn't look to me like you quite answered the
>>>      question
>
>> Was it inevitable? No, we could have had another world war instead. Given
>> relative peace and the advances in transport techology, probably.
>>
>> In any case its a move in the direction of justice. The international cake is
>> still getting bigger, but the slice of that cake taken by the emergent
>> ecconomies such as India, China, South Korea is getting larger _faster_.
>
> ok thus far

I would add that it is probably going to get harder for any one nation 
or region to achieve comparably dominant positions as Europe enjoyed in 
the 19th, and the US for much of the 20th century.  The reason: 
low-hanging fruit.  The "easy stuff" has already been done.  British 
mills turned wool and cotton from colonial possessions into global 
industries and reaped vast fortunes back in the 19th century -- but 
today, fabric has been commodified and turning a profit is that much 
harder.  Driving economic growth by tapping previously unused "virgin" 
resources such as fallow land or mineral resources was what created 
enormous wealth, but it can happen only once.  The same applies across 
the industries and sectors of our economies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075095

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:37:08 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 14/03/2016 16:55, abelard wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:07:09 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>> <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:24:41 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>>>> <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/03/2016 17:06, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>>>> No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't
>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>> be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire
>>>>>>>> bozo
>>>>>>>> rules the GOP
>>>>>>>> Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> fear of a female president
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
>>>>>>> public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one
>>>>>>> simple,
>>>>>>> devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> enjoyed for most of the  20th century has stalled, basically since the new
>>>>>>> millenium termed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little
>>>>>>> politicians
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of
>>>>>>> wealth
>>>>>>> between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you believe globalisation is/was inevitable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because of the increasing ease of international trade. Protectionism is
>>>>> manufactured scarcity. It's an attempt to buck market forces. As soon as its
>>>>> cheaper to have something manufactured in, say, China, and have it shipped
>>>>> over
>>>>> than it is to manufacture it locally, any attempt to prevent that from
>>>>> happening is like trying to prevent water flowing down hill. It may please
>>>>> your
>>>>> local artisans, until they want to buy something which is artificially
>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the end, technological change always wins over politics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Politics has _far_ less power to improve things than politicians would like
>>>>> to
>>>>> believe, and would like _you_ to believe. In the end, the engineer trumps the
>>>>> politician.
>>
>>>> all true...but that doesn't look to me like you quite answered the
>>>>      question
>>
>>> Was it inevitable? No, we could have had another world war instead. Given
>>> relative peace and the advances in transport techology, probably.
>>>
>>> In any case its a move in the direction of justice. The international cake is
>>> still getting bigger, but the slice of that cake taken by the emergent
>>> ecconomies such as India, China, South Korea is getting larger _faster_.
>>
>> ok thus far
>
>I would add that it is probably going to get harder for any one nation 
>or region to achieve comparably dominant positions as Europe enjoyed in 
>the 19th, and the US for much of the 20th century.  The reason: 
>low-hanging fruit.  The "easy stuff" has already been done.  British 
>mills turned wool and cotton from colonial possessions into global 
>industries and reaped vast fortunes back in the 19th century -- but 
>today, fabric has been commodified and turning a profit is that much 
>harder.  Driving economic growth by tapping previously unused "virgin" 
>resources such as fallow land or mineral resources was what created 
>enormous wealth, but it can happen only once.  The same applies across 
>the industries and sectors of our economies.

no argument...

but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...

the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
    pre-eminence in that capital



-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075163

On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:37:08 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 14/03/2016 16:55, abelard wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:07:09 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>>> <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 20:24:41 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
>>>>> <malcolm@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> DVH <dvh@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/03/2016 17:06, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>>>>>>> No Country for Old White Men <nocoutry@white.man> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't
>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>> be like me?   Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire
>>>>>>>>> bozo
>>>>>>>>> rules the GOP
>>>>>>>>> Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> fear of a female president
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
>>>>>>>> public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one
>>>>>>>> simple,
>>>>>>>> devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> enjoyed for most of the  20th century has stalled, basically since the new
>>>>>>>> millenium termed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little
>>>>>>>> politicians
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of
>>>>>>>> wealth
>>>>>>>> between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you believe globalisation is/was inevitable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of the increasing ease of international trade. Protectionism is
>>>>>> manufactured scarcity. It's an attempt to buck market forces. As soon as its
>>>>>> cheaper to have something manufactured in, say, China, and have it shipped
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> than it is to manufacture it locally, any attempt to prevent that from
>>>>>> happening is like trying to prevent water flowing down hill. It may please
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> local artisans, until they want to buy something which is artificially
>>>>>> expensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the end, technological change always wins over politics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Politics has _far_ less power to improve things than politicians would like
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> believe, and would like _you_ to believe. In the end, the engineer trumps the
>>>>>> politician.
>>>
>>>>> all true...but that doesn't look to me like you quite answered the
>>>>>       question
>>>
>>>> Was it inevitable? No, we could have had another world war instead. Given
>>>> relative peace and the advances in transport techology, probably.
>>>>
>>>> In any case its a move in the direction of justice. The international cake is
>>>> still getting bigger, but the slice of that cake taken by the emergent
>>>> ecconomies such as India, China, South Korea is getting larger _faster_.
>>>
>>> ok thus far
>>
>> I would add that it is probably going to get harder for any one nation
>> or region to achieve comparably dominant positions as Europe enjoyed in
>> the 19th, and the US for much of the 20th century.  The reason:
>> low-hanging fruit.  The "easy stuff" has already been done.  British
>> mills turned wool and cotton from colonial possessions into global
>> industries and reaped vast fortunes back in the 19th century -- but
>> today, fabric has been commodified and turning a profit is that much
>> harder.  Driving economic growth by tapping previously unused "virgin"
>> resources such as fallow land or mineral resources was what created
>> enormous wealth, but it can happen only once.  The same applies across
>> the industries and sectors of our economies.
>
> no argument...
>
> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>
> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>      pre-eminence in that capital
>

Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge, 
and the creative application thereof.

And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.

We have been coasting for a while now, content to bask in apparent 
growth and gains from new industries such as IT, and happy to indulge in 
collective navel-gazing.  Societies such as ours whose education systems 
put a premium on inclusiveness and on turning out happy well-adjusted 
kids who feel good about themselves rather than young citizens who know 
how to read and write properly and who have a good grounding in the 
sciences .... well, societies like that will not last very long.  We 
have masked the effects of such disastrous educational policies by using 
our inherited capital wealth to lure the actually well-educated talent 
from the developing and emerging nations into working for us -- but that 
cannot last.  Indian IT workers without whom Silicon Valley would not 
exist may be happy to take US dollars for now, but they are building up 
the experience, the wealth and the contacts to build world-beating 
knowledge companies back home one day.  The same goes for just about any 
other industry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075239

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:53:02 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:

>> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>>
>> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>>      pre-eminence in that capital
>>
>
>Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge, 
>and the creative application thereof.

i'm very content with that translation

>And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.

certainly...however, we do still have that advantage as of today...

the more the west votes in socialist governments, the quicker
    it will erode

>We have been coasting for a while now, content to bask in apparent 
>growth and gains from new industries such as IT, and happy to indulge in 
>collective navel-gazing.  Societies such as ours whose education systems 
>put a premium on inclusiveness and on turning out happy well-adjusted 
>kids who feel good about themselves rather than young citizens who know 
>how to read and write properly and who have a good grounding in the 
>sciences .... well, societies like that will not last very long.  We 
>have masked the effects of such disastrous educational policies by using 
>our inherited capital wealth to lure the actually well-educated talent 
>from the developing and emerging nations into working for us -- but that 
>cannot last.  Indian IT workers without whom Silicon Valley would not 
>exist may be happy to take US dollars for now, but they are building up 
>the experience, the wealth and the contacts to build world-beating 
>knowledge companies back home one day.  The same goes for just about any 
>other industry.

i'm arguing with none of that


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075312 — Re: IT workeers (Was Trump)

On 3/16/16 1:02 PM, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:53:02 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:
>
>>> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>>>
>>> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>>>       pre-eminence in that capital
>>>
>>
>> Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge,
>> and the creative application thereof.
>
> i'm very content with that translation
>
>> And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.
>
> certainly...however, we do still have that advantage as of today...
>
> the more the west votes in socialist governments, the quicker
>      it will erode
>
>> We have been coasting for a while now, content to bask in apparent
>> growth and gains from new industries such as IT, and happy to indulge in
>> collective navel-gazing.  Societies such as ours whose education systems
>> put a premium on inclusiveness and on turning out happy well-adjusted
>> kids who feel good about themselves rather than young citizens who know
>> how to read and write properly and who have a good grounding in the
>> sciences .... well, societies like that will not last very long.  We
>> have masked the effects of such disastrous educational policies by using
>> our inherited capital wealth to lure the actually well-educated talent
>>from the developing and emerging nations into working for us -- but that
>> cannot last.  Indian IT workers without whom Silicon Valley would not
>> exist may be happy to take US dollars for now, but they are building up
>> the experience, the wealth and the contacts to build world-beating
>> knowledge companies back home one day.  The same goes for just about any
>> other industry.
>
> i'm arguing with none of that
>
>
Building wealth in the rest ofmthe world won't be bad for us. If 
Evrybody out there is comfortable they won't casuse trouble.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075473

On 16/03/2016 17:02, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:53:02 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:
>
>>> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>>>
>>> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>>>       pre-eminence in that capital
>>>
>>
>> Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge,
>> and the creative application thereof.
>
> i'm very content with that translation
>
>> And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.
>
> certainly...however, we do still have that advantage as of today...
>
> the more the west votes in socialist governments, the quicker
>      it will erode

Firstly, I have noted that you do appear to be somewhat hazy on the 
proper definition and usage of the term "socialist".

Secondly, I would like to point out that a major reason for the relative 
underperformance of Americans in tertiary education is the sheer cost of 
studying.  US colleges being free to charge "what the market will bear" 
is a massive deterrent and a huge barrier to young Americans who want to 
study and who would help the country maintain its lead in the knowledge 
race ... but who simply cannot afford it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075487

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:07:48 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 16/03/2016 17:02, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:53:02 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:
>>
>>>> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>>>>
>>>> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>>>>       pre-eminence in that capital
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge,
>>> and the creative application thereof.
>>
>> i'm very content with that translation
>>
>>> And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.
>>
>> certainly...however, we do still have that advantage as of today...
>>
>> the more the west votes in socialist governments, the quicker
>>      it will erode
>
>Firstly, I have noted that you do appear to be somewhat hazy on the 
>proper definition and usage of the term "socialist".

try getting socialists to define socialism adequately

yitz tries a cheap dictionary...

i use years of speaking to them, years of reading about what
    they actually do

as none of them tend to talk sense i decided to form a
    definition myself and put that online
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm

if they(or you) don't like it...you can always try your own
   alternate

virtually every time you(i) ask a socialist about a particular
    socialist...they tell me that person is not a real(tm) socialist

without a sane working definition one can discuss nothing
    coherently

>Secondly, I would like to point out that a major reason for the relative 
>underperformance of Americans in tertiary education is the sheer cost of 
>studying.  US colleges being free to charge "what the market will bear" 
>is a massive deterrent and a huge barrier to young Americans who want to 
>study and who would help the country maintain its lead in the knowledge 
>race ... but who simply cannot afford it.

the usa produces most of the advanced work around the world

every society has far more sheep than high level producers...
most people don't want to do the necessary work...

society is entirely dependent on very few people for real
    advance

american books where it matters are often decades ahead of
    british books



-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075628

Le 2016-03-16 18:25, abelard a écrit :
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:07:48 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2016 17:02, abelard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:53:02 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>>>> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>>>>>
>>>>> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>>>>>        pre-eminence in that capital
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge,
>>>> and the creative application thereof.
>>>
>>> i'm very content with that translation
>>>
>>>> And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.
>>>
>>> certainly...however, we do still have that advantage as of today...
>>>
>>> the more the west votes in socialist governments, the quicker
>>>       it will erode
>>
>> Firstly, I have noted that you do appear to be somewhat hazy on the
>> proper definition and usage of the term "socialist".
>
> try getting socialists to define socialism adequately
>
> yitz tries a cheap dictionary...
>
> i use years of speaking to them, years of reading about what
>      they actually do
>
> as none of them tend to talk sense i decided to form a
>      definition myself and put that online
> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
>
> if they(or you) don't like it...you can always try your own
>     alternate
>
> virtually every time you(i) ask a socialist about a particular
>      socialist...they tell me that person is not a real(tm) socialist
>
> without a sane working definition one can discuss nothing
>      coherently
>
>> Secondly, I would like to point out that a major reason for the relative
>> underperformance of Americans in tertiary education is the sheer cost of
>> studying.  US colleges being free to charge "what the market will bear"
>> is a massive deterrent and a huge barrier to young Americans who want to
>> study and who would help the country maintain its lead in the knowledge
>> race ... but who simply cannot afford it.
>
> the usa produces most of the advanced work around the world
>
> every society has far more sheep than high level producers...
> most people don't want to do the necessary work...
>
> society is entirely dependent on very few people for real
>      advance
>
> american books where it matters are often decades ahead of
>      british books

You must feel like shit not being an "american".

-- 
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075709

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:33:57 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:

>Le 2016-03-16 18:25, abelard a écrit :
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:07:48 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/03/2016 17:02, abelard wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:53:02 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>>>>>>        pre-eminence in that capital
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge,
>>>>> and the creative application thereof.
>>>>
>>>> i'm very content with that translation
>>>>
>>>>> And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.
>>>>
>>>> certainly...however, we do still have that advantage as of today...
>>>>
>>>> the more the west votes in socialist governments, the quicker
>>>>       it will erode
>>>
>>> Firstly, I have noted that you do appear to be somewhat hazy on the
>>> proper definition and usage of the term "socialist".
>>
>> try getting socialists to define socialism adequately
>>
>> yitz tries a cheap dictionary...
>>
>> i use years of speaking to them, years of reading about what
>>      they actually do
>>
>> as none of them tend to talk sense i decided to form a
>>      definition myself and put that online
>> http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm
>>
>> if they(or you) don't like it...you can always try your own
>>     alternate
>>
>> virtually every time you(i) ask a socialist about a particular
>>      socialist...they tell me that person is not a real(tm) socialist
>>
>> without a sane working definition one can discuss nothing
>>      coherently
>>
>>> Secondly, I would like to point out that a major reason for the relative
>>> underperformance of Americans in tertiary education is the sheer cost of
>>> studying.  US colleges being free to charge "what the market will bear"
>>> is a massive deterrent and a huge barrier to young Americans who want to
>>> study and who would help the country maintain its lead in the knowledge
>>> race ... but who simply cannot afford it.
>>
>> the usa produces most of the advanced work around the world
>>
>> every society has far more sheep than high level producers...
>> most people don't want to do the necessary work...
>>
>> society is entirely dependent on very few people for real
>>      advance
>>
>> american books where it matters are often decades ahead of
>>      british books
>
>You must feel like shit not being an "american".

why on earth should i 'feel' that....

i live in a world where geographic barriers are melting away...
    i an access necessary data from across the planet...

that you are not allowed out of your village for want of the
    bus far does not discommode me


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075745

On 17/03/2016 10:37, abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:33:57 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 2016-03-16 18:25, abelard a écrit :
>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:07:48 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:


>> You must feel like shit not being an "american".
>
> why on earth should i 'feel' that....
>
> i live in a world where geographic barriers are melting away...
>      i an access necessary data from across the planet...
>
> that you are not allowed out of your village for want of the
>      bus far does not discommode me
>

As a point of order: the only geographic (sic) barriers melting away are 
the ice caps and Siberia.

Presumably, what you mean are geopolitical barriers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075762

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:46 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 17/03/2016 10:37, abelard wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:33:57 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 2016-03-16 18:25, abelard a écrit :
>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:07:48 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>
>
>>> You must feel like shit not being an "american".
>>
>> why on earth should i 'feel' that....
>>
>> i live in a world where geographic barriers are melting away...
>>      i an access necessary data from across the planet...
>>
>> that you are not allowed out of your village for want of the
>>      bus far does not discommode me
>>
>
>As a point of order: the only geographic (sic) barriers melting away are 
>the ice caps and Siberia.
>
>Presumably, what you mean are geopolitical barriers.

and the pyrenees...and the atlantic...


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075763

On 17/03/2016 12:54, abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:46 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 17/03/2016 10:37, abelard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:33:57 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 2016-03-16 18:25, abelard a écrit :
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:07:48 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> You must feel like shit not being an "american".
>>>
>>> why on earth should i 'feel' that....
>>>
>>> i live in a world where geographic barriers are melting away...
>>>       i an access necessary data from across the planet...
>>>
>>> that you are not allowed out of your village for want of the
>>>       bus far does not discommode me
>>>
>>
>> As a point of order: the only geographic (sic) barriers melting away are
>> the ice caps and Siberia.
>>
>> Presumably, what you mean are geopolitical barriers.
>
> and the pyrenees...and the atlantic...
>

The Pyrenees and the Atlantic are melting away?

What are you smoking, and can I have some?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2075767

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:56:57 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 17/03/2016 12:54, abelard wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:58:46 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/03/2016 10:37, abelard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:33:57 -0400, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Le 2016-03-16 18:25, abelard a écrit :
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:07:48 +0000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You must feel like shit not being an "american".
>>>>
>>>> why on earth should i 'feel' that....
>>>>
>>>> i live in a world where geographic barriers are melting away...
>>>>       i an access necessary data from across the planet...
>>>>
>>>> that you are not allowed out of your village for want of the
>>>>       bus far does not discommode me
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a point of order: the only geographic (sic) barriers melting away are
>>> the ice caps and Siberia.
>>>
>>> Presumably, what you mean are geopolitical barriers.
>>
>> and the pyrenees...and the atlantic...

>The Pyrenees and the Atlantic are melting away?

the pseud's terms are 'eroding' and 'evaporating'

>What are you smoking, and can I have some?

diesel fumes


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web