thanks i'll look into it, that wasn't too hard
Ironicwarcriminal posted:Tsargon posted:EmanuelaOrlandi posted:catpee posted:tsargon literally said slaves were obviously worse off here:
Tsargon posted:
i am not saying, as is sometimes said by other far-rightists, that white people were the TRUE victims under slavery; clearly it is better to be a dirt poor hillman than a plantation slave. but i am saying that the political economy of a plantation society is destructive to every class other than the aristocrats who run it.
you are clearly being intellectually dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting his argumentsim not misrepresenting shit im saying that his argument that white 'hillmen' are not better off because of slavery is patently ridiculous
if you can offer a reason for why poor whites were better off because of slavery other than 'they themselves werent slaves' then id be happy to consider it, so far you havent.
Because even disregarding material circumstances, being able to look down on a class of people and having your innate superiority reinforced is psychologically and spiritually rewarding
yes, im sure this compensated them heartily for the brutal poverty and lack of schools / hospitals / roads which proceeded from the fact of slave power.
Tsargon posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:Tsargon posted:EmanuelaOrlandi posted:catpee posted:tsargon literally said slaves were obviously worse off here:
Tsargon posted:
i am not saying, as is sometimes said by other far-rightists, that white people were the TRUE victims under slavery; clearly it is better to be a dirt poor hillman than a plantation slave. but i am saying that the political economy of a plantation society is destructive to every class other than the aristocrats who run it.
you are clearly being intellectually dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting his argumentsim not misrepresenting shit im saying that his argument that white 'hillmen' are not better off because of slavery is patently ridiculous
if you can offer a reason for why poor whites were better off because of slavery other than 'they themselves werent slaves' then id be happy to consider it, so far you havent.
Because even disregarding material circumstances, being able to look down on a class of people and having your innate superiority reinforced is psychologically and spiritually rewarding
yes, im sure this compensated them heartily for the brutal poverty and lack of schools / hospitals / roads which proceeded from the fact of slave power.
I'm sure it did too. I think you're seriously underestimating the psychological boost that having a socially mandated inferior caste can give you.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:Tsargon posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:Tsargon posted:EmanuelaOrlandi posted:catpee posted:tsargon literally said slaves were obviously worse off here:
Tsargon posted:
i am not saying, as is sometimes said by other far-rightists, that white people were the TRUE victims under slavery; clearly it is better to be a dirt poor hillman than a plantation slave. but i am saying that the political economy of a plantation society is destructive to every class other than the aristocrats who run it.
you are clearly being intellectually dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting his argumentsim not misrepresenting shit im saying that his argument that white 'hillmen' are not better off because of slavery is patently ridiculous
if you can offer a reason for why poor whites were better off because of slavery other than 'they themselves werent slaves' then id be happy to consider it, so far you havent.
Because even disregarding material circumstances, being able to look down on a class of people and having your innate superiority reinforced is psychologically and spiritually rewarding
yes, im sure this compensated them heartily for the brutal poverty and lack of schools / hospitals / roads which proceeded from the fact of slave power.
I'm sure it did too. I think you're seriously underestimating the psychological boost that having a socially mandated inferior caste can give you.
as a person who exists on the same material plane as australians and britons, no i am not.
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:CROATOAN
the survival of early northeastern settlements had far more to do with getting support from disease-devastated Algonquin tribes and then betraying those alliances as soon as it became profitable than any kind of slave economy. way to deny native agency 
noavbazzer posted:Its certainly an impediment to discussion when used as a verbal flame thrower
har har har
Ironicwarcriminal posted:An Islamist/paleoconservative alliance would be pretty cool. Get some Japanese nationalists and the Pope in on it and you have a true internationalists bulwark against godless cosmopolitanism.
I'm not sure that it's compatible, because of the jewy legalism of an islamist bloc, they would end up convincing poor easily deceived christians into invading kafiristan
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:CROATOAN
If youre really equating early settlers who are totally unaware of the local plant and animal life + climate starving until the intervention of hardy negros from dark continent you're officially tripping
Myfanwy posted:If youre really equating early settlers who are totally unaware of the local plant and animal life + climate starving until the intervention of hardy negros from dark continent you're officially tripping
ya i was making a joke about insular american culture that i thought iwc wouldnt recognize lol jesus you people take everything so seriously
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:Myfanwy posted:If youre really equating early settlers who are totally unaware of the local plant and animal life + climate starving until the intervention of hardy negros from dark continent you're officially tripping
ya i was making a joke about insular american culture that i thought iwc wouldnt recognize lol jesus you people take everything so seriously
those starvers were my borderland hick thug ancestors
littlegreenpills posted:simply admit that you are a literal piece of excrement
I'm great, look how good I look and how much expensive stuff I have, je possede de nombreuses fourrures
Similarly, as I'm sure you all know, the terms Left and Right wing originated in the French Revolution. The Left represented the murderous, uneducated, unwashed horde of common thieves and the Right represented the noble and wise aristocracy, descendants of a long and storied French tradition, who were tragically genocided. Along with them went the French national identity, which is why the remnant nation has been flailing about ever since, killing off its own revolutionary leaders and then establishing five constitutions, two empires, and a vassal state.
Conservatism is the ideology that the educated and wealthy ruling elite should stick together to keep the masses under control. It is the ideology that the existing civilization should be preserved and strengthened rather than destroyed in mass suicide. It is synonymous with being counter-revolutionary.
Maintaining power is a crucial element of this strategy. Any mechanism that makes the masses behave better is a good one. It is fundamentally rooted in collectivist thinking, nationalism, and class struggle.
Those who aren't members of the ruling elite, but are nonetheless conservatives, believe the elites make better masters than the ignorant masses would. They are sometimes striving to be accepted into the elite class themselves.
Libertarians on the other hand hate the status quo, envision themselves as revolutionaries, believe in all sorts of mystical egalitarian gibberish and therefore are quite correctly placed on the left side of the spectrum.
As for the statement that paleocons/libertarians began opposing foreign intervention after the Cold War, Pat Buchanan is famous for arguing against US intervention in World War 2.
Edited by eternal_virtue ()