Donald Trump vs JFK

By now I am sure you have heard Trump in his Florida rally complaining about the press for doing exactly what an alert and dutiful press is supposed to do: pointing out his lies whenever he tells them (ie. every day). He has also complained extensively about this on Twitter and on other occasions, including his megalomaniac “All negative polls are fake news” quote.

For contrast, I want to put Trump’s attitude toward the press side by side with the attitude of a real American President towards the press, a President who in one of his most famous speeches – his Address to the ANPA - warned America precisely about the danger of those who behave like Trump and his team, and about the very necessity of the press to be especially vigilant in face of such forces:

“We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/31/trumps-team-is-mad-people-are-calling-the-travel-ban-a-ban-even-though-they-also-called-it-a-ban/

… And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/30/trumps-national-security-lie-administrations-false-defense-of-its-muslim-ban-sets-a-worrying-precedent/


If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/16/in_press_conference_trump_lies_exaggerates_obfuscates_and_calls_the_media.html

and its presence has never been more imminent.

http://patch.com/illinois/chicago/ice-raids-going-get-worse-says-illinois-dem-thrown-out-meeting-paul-ryan

… Its preparations are concealed, not published.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/white-house-denies-claims-100000-9840430

Its mistakes are buried, not headlined.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/how-kellyanne-conway-and-sean-spicer-get-away-with-lying.html

Its dissenters are silenced, not praised.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/senate-republicans-silenced-elizabeth-warren-for-reading-a-letter-by-coretta-scott-king

No expenditure is questioned,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bisnow/2017/02/16/trumps-border-wall-could-cost-22b-twice-as-much-as-previously-estimated/#5e319a7e5198

no rumor is printed,

https://www.scribd.com/document/326055870/Doe-v-Trump-et-al-refiled-complaint-9-30-16

no secret is revealed.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/15/1634026/-Meet-the-23-Republicans-blocking-Congress-from-seeing-Trump-s-tax-returns-Is-your-rep-on-the-list


No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary.

(“I also want to speak to you without the filter of the fake news.” – Donald Trump)

 This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”

(“The White House is running smoothly. So smoothly.” – Donald Trump)

We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

(“They have been calling us wrong now for two years. They don’t get it.” – Donald Trump)

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed … that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– … not to simply give the public what it wants

(“They have their own agenda and their agenda is not your agenda.” – Donald Trump)

–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.” – John F. Kennedy

(“We are not going to let the fake news tell us what to do, how to live or what to believe.” – Donald Trump)

So there you have it. And now let me conclude with a brief but important excerpt from one journalist:

http://deadline.com/2017/02/john-dean-donald-trump-press-enemy-tweet-nixon-1201915941/

“He has a lot of supporters who don’t think before they act, and they have a lot of guns.”

If you are a lefitst, please arm yourself and tell all other leftists you know to arm themselves ASAP. Really.

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Donald Trump vs JFK

  1. John Johnson says:

    “He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.” -Thomas Jefferson

    So far, it seems Trump & co. have made up three fake terrorist attacks…

    By the way, leftists must be careful not to underestimate Trump. I’ve read one suggestion that his Sweden comment was actually a psyop:

    Sweden was intentional. It was supposed to get people to start googling Sweden and “related terms”, and it sorta worked like a charm.

    If there was an actual “incident” then the results for it would have been all over the place, and there would have been “nothing shocking” about it really because these terrorist attacks in Europe have become commonplace….. but no results pop up, so people start looking.. and what do they find?

    If you are curious, try googling a few of those terms for yourself. The results are objectively horrifying, and that was the intent.

    The mention of Sweden in this case was no mistake. It was quite intentional, and it accomplished it’s goal pretty well considering.

    It is only when you realize these things are not missteps to be ridiculed, that you can begin to engage the true intent.

    The author of the quote above links to this graph showing a spike in related ZC-themed searches. I think he’s on to something:

    http://i.imgur.com/8zjIfX2.png

    Here’s Trump’s vague quote:

    “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris.”

    Like Bush, Trump is a frontman playing the fool. His outrageous character provides plenty of material to serve as a distraction to allow more insidious things to go unnoticed.

    People on both the left and right have picked up a number of parallels between Trump and Nixon. Former Nixon administration people like Henry Kissinger have assisted Trump, so these are probably not coincidental. For example, the slogan “Silent Majority” originated with Nixon, both seem to be filling their administration with spineless “yes-men”, and of course the “Madman theory” couldn’t be more fitting to Trump…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

    Hopefully Trump will go the way of Nixon, but I am concerned the mafia in control of US politics will not repeat the same mistakes they made in the 50s-70s. Even with their sloppiness, they still got away with killing JFK, MLK, Malcom X, making the “War on Drugs” the new Jim Crow, and all kinds of other outrageous shit.

    The media has done a somewhat decent job getting word out about Trump and others’ ties to Russia, but it seems the public is not as outraged as they should be, quite frankly. And even worse, Trump supporters refuse to believe he could do wrong so long as Breitbart publishes an article to the contrary… The age of full-blown yellow journalism is upon us once again. What future awaits us?

  2. AS says:

    @JJ

    The results are objectively horrifying,and that was the intent.”

    I agree that it was Trump’s intent for the results to be horrifying, but I disagree that there is anything objective about it. Presently, much right-wing propaganda consists simply of videos comparing street scenes of Sweden decades ago and street scenes of Sweden today. (This is also done with Britain, France, etc..) But such videos only move people rightwards if people aesthetically prefer the former, and people only aesthetically prefer the former if they judge according to Western standards (just as when shown street scenes of Tel-Aviv and street scenes of Gaza these same people will aesthetically prefer the former). We need to change their standards so that they aesthetically prefer the latter (as I automatically do). It starts with raising consciousness that gentrification is a bad thing, from which current demographic trends can be viewed as a route towards gradual de-gentrification.

    In gentrified neighbourhoods, every time a new business takes over a shop, it redecorates the entire interior – a massive waste of resources – even when the previous materials were still in good condition and could have been used for decades if not centuries more. The same is true of residential properties, even if the new resident is not even the new owner but merely a new tenant! Whereas in de-gentrified neighbourhoods, redecoration only occurs when absolutely necessary, both in business and residential properties. This is so much less wasteful, and the “run-down” appearance of the streets is a direct aesthetic testimony to its non-wastefulness. Not only do I appreciate the non-wastefulness, but I love the appearance itself! This is in contrast to rightists who incessantly talk on their blogs about how the “Third World scum” have no “pride” in their neighbourhoods.

    Then we have street stalls, another frequent target of rightist complaint, with their endless photos showing a bevy of street stalls accompanied by captions such as “Is this Somalia/Pakistan/[insert stereotypical "Third World" country in rightist imagination]? No, this is [insert Western city]!”. But street stalls are how small businesses are meant to start! Where street stalls are illegal (mainly in Western countries), this forces startup business owners to take out a loan from a bank in order to have enough money to rent a shop, which means that the bank and the landowner (plus insurance companies) together swallow up most of the profit that should belong to the business owner (who consequently has to charge higher prices from customers just to make a living)! When people open street stalls (regardless of legality), they are helping society break free of non-labouring profiteers. And again, not only do I understand the finance, I love the visual appearance and atmosphere of the street stalls themselves! But of course the rightists will say they are a sign of “Third-Worldization” of the neighbourhood. If so, then no wonder I appreciate “Third World” living conditions.

    And there are many more examples. Yet so many people out there do not see the positive beauty that I (and you too?) effortlessly see when they look at these street scenes. Many (False) LEFTISTS do not see this, even; instead they only defend the demographic changes by calling for “tolerance”. They are not the ones who can bring victory, because they call upon people to defend something that in honesty even they themselves aesthetically dislike (and hence must tolerate). Only we can bring victory, because we call upon people to defend something that we sincerely consider superior. But we need to get everyone on our side seeing it this way first.

  3. Atmajyoti says:

    @AS:

    Interesting points about gentrification. I enjoy street vendors also, especially the farmers market we have around here on Saturdays. Also makes more sense to have everything on one street rather than scattered around a city or village I think. Certainly would reduce traffic.

  4. Atmajyoti says:

    Was thinking that perhaps the best design for the main road ways of a city or village would actually be the Gnostic Cross…

  5. AS says:

    A good article on Trump and Sweden:

    http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/20/14669572/sweden-trump-immigrant-crime

    On Sunday, the president took to Twitter to explain himself. Apparently, he had watched a segment on Fox News — the Friday episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, specifically. In the segment, filmmaker Ami Horowitz alleged that there was “an absolute surge in gun violence and rape in Sweden” as a result of mass Muslim immigration:

    Jew-in-the-Corner Phenomenon strikes again!


    A cursory look at the data shows there is no immigrant-driven crime wave in Sweden. There has been no “absolute surge” in rape. And Horowitz, the ultimate source of all this, is facing serious allegations of selectively editing footage of Swedish police officers to make it seem like they’re blaming crime on immigrants when they actually aren’t.

    What we need to note is that burden of proof is psychologically modified by tribalism. In tribalist thinking, only ingroup people are innocent until proven guilty, whereas outgroup people are (at best) guilty until proven innocent. We have seen this explicitly taught in the Talmud, but now we see that Gentiles fooled by Horowitz probably don’t even need to have studied the Talmud in order to instinctively apply the same attitude. The reason for this is simple. Most people support presumption of innocence primarily because they want to protect themselves from false accusation. But tribalists only care about accusations from within their tribe. Accusations from outside their tribe do not matter (see Talmud). Therefore they have no incentive to presume innocence of outgroup people, because they have no need for reciprocation of presumed innocence from outgroup people. They only need to make sure their tribe is strong enough to physically protect ingroup people from retribution by outgroup people. With this condition achieved, it actually benefits the tribe to presume guilt among outgroup people, because indiscriminate measures against the outgroup are indeed highly effective in protecting the ingroup, while the incalculable cost in injustice is borne entirely by the outgroup.

    This last point – that targeting entire ethnicities IS effective in protecting the ingroup – is something that leftists need to start admitting and thus energizing anti-racists to fight it on moral grounds, instead of claiming that it is ineffective in a lame attempt to dissuade racists from it on pragmatic grounds. It is precisely that it is effective that it must be sabotaged before it has a chance to take effect. Telling other leftists that it will prove ineffective gives them a false sense of security and hence an excuse for inaction. This is a similar point to what JJ and I were discussing in private recently:

    Me:

    one thing we have to change about leftist propaganda is to get leftists to stop saying that things which rightists want to do are “impossible”. I have heard so many leftists say this, e.g.: “Deporting millions of people is impossible.” What leftists don’t seem to realize is that, by them saying this over and over again, and by rightists then actually trying to do this very thing, it makes the rightists appear heroic for challenging the apparently impossible, and by association makes deporting people seem ‘cool’. In effect, they are repeating the same mistake that they were making throughout the Trump candidacy. First it was: “Trump getting the nomination is impossible”, then it was “Trump winning the election is impossible”, and in each case it happened, yet they have not learned from this at all and are now reacting to Trump’s policies in the same way; “Building a border wall is impossible”, “A travel ban is impossible”, etc.. What is the problem with leftists?!

    What leftists should be doing is acknowledging that deporting millions of people is perfectly possible (hence not only removing the heroic image from rightists but also rousing potential victims of deportation to the very real danger they are facing), but explaining why it is WRONG. This is how you prepare people to FIGHT AGAINST something. If you get your own side believing that what the enemy wants to do is “impossible”, why would your own side feel any need to fight against it?

    In summary, each time you say something is “impossible”, your enemy will try their hardest to prove you wrong while your own side will believe you and hence relax, and observers will side with whichever side is acting more energetically. Thus saying something is “impossible” is about the best way there is to make sure it happens.

    JJ:

    leftists would immediately see the problem of posing a challenge to rightists if they were familiar with this, quite common, meme and were immersed in internet culture to see firsthand the attitudes which caused this meme’s creation in the first place:

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/challenge-accepted
    This is like literally Internet Culture & Memes 101.

    Continuing on the meme example,

    Leftists say “Don’t do this thing!”

    Rightists then mock this, and encourage each other to do the thing using this meme:
    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/do-it-faggot

    Then once they succeed, they use this meme against complaining leftists:
    http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/54/73/61/11779167/6/1024×1024.jpg

    _____

    @Atmajyoti

    “Interesting points about gentrification.”

    Another common aesthetic feature of de-gentrified neighbourhoods that I like is the outdoor hanging laundry. Do you like this too? I have heard people living in gentrified neighbourhoods complain about neighbours hanging laundry outdoors, claiming it looks “Third World”…..

    “I enjoy street vendors also, especially the farmers market we have around here on Saturdays. Also makes more sense to have everything on one street”

    I always remember one visit to such a street filled with stalls in a mostly Muslim neighbourhood. The children were having a cardboard box fight (similar to a snowball fight but with cardboard boxes instead), and using the stalls as cover, while adults just continued selling/buying stuff in between the flying cardboard boxes, none of them telling the children to stop. I was in a good mood for the rest of the day.

    Here is how Golden Dawn treats street stalls:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYQd2OFlRZE

    Possibly coming soon to other countries where the far-right is rising. We will be needing that .50 machine gun of yours.

  6. kasper says:

    Brother Nathanael – Has Jewry Infiltrated The Local Police? (Jan 19, 2012)

    This was produced several years before the BLM movement (also funded by Jews) they suspiciously seem to go hand-in-hand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8E-LDJK5V0

  7. John Johnson says:

    “Presently, much right-wing propaganda consists simply of videos comparing street scenes of Sweden decades ago and street scenes of Sweden today.”

    Perhaps, but I think the person meant the ‘shocking’ reports one comes across when specifically looking for “refugee crime”. (Although the only thing ‘objectively’ shocking about these are the proclivity of rightists to make up crimes (e.g. Colohoax) and their failure to fairly cover crimes by non-immigrants!)

    On the subject of strengthening neighborhoods, I shared this with Lucius previously:

    https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/11/19/fine-grained
    http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/

    Unfortunately, some of the site’s authors support gentrification as a mechanism to inject funds into otherwise dying communities (although I imagine they would argue speculators who redo houses/shops only to sell them later for a quick profit are not the same as gentrifiers who plan to stay in a community for the long term; and that fixing up abandoned/decaying properties isn’t necessarily the same thing as gentrification). But I think this is a promising movement for resurrecting a sense of community in American towns.

    “But of course the rightists will say they are a sign of “Third-Worldization” of the neighbourhood.”

    The most hilarious part is when US rightists say this, while simultaneously believing that a fundamental aspect of American culture is entrepreneurship (and that the pesky “big government” is the one trying to stifle local businesses)… Street vendors are the epitome of American entrepreneurship, and rightists are attempting to stop them from making a humble living (to add insult to injury, rightists will often brag that their great-grandparents lived a similarly humble lifestyle when they first immigrated to this country…) I guess at that point it’s more sad than funny.

  8. Atmajyoti says:

    @AS:

    Another common aesthetic feature of de-gentrified neighbourhoods that I like is the outdoor hanging laundry. Do you like this too? I have heard people living in gentrified neighbourhoods complain about neighbours hanging laundry outdoors, claiming it looks “Third World”…..

    I live in suburbia and we still hang our laundry out to dry. Most people in my grandparents neighborhood in Germany still hang their laundry outside; as did most in the neighborhoods in England that I have lived in. People who think as you have mentioned are snobbish idiots in my book. When it comes to laundry, there is nothing more refreshing than air dried clothes.

    I always remember one visit to such a street filled with stalls in a mostly Muslim neighbourhood. The children were having a cardboard box fight (similar to a snowball fight but with cardboard boxes instead), and using the stalls as cover, while adults just continued selling/buying stuff in between the flying cardboard boxes, none of them telling the children to stop. I was in a good mood for the rest of the day.

    My grandparents always took me to the markets all around Germany whenever I would go to visit them, so I recall partaking, and witnessing similar scenes to what you have described.

    I would love to turn a .50 cal machine gun loose on Golden Dawn just for what they did in the video that you posted. Talk about injustice, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I thought only Jews liked to destroy other peoples markets, apparently I was mistaken…

  9. Atmajyoti says:

    A point I have been making with a lot of people is that Bush Jr. clearly stole the first election, and got elected for a second term. Then I usually say something along the lines of: “Lets you know what the majority of the electorate are about…”, or something similar. I make sure to always use the word ‘electorate’ rather than ‘people’, no matter how I word it, however.

  10. AS says:

    @JJ

    “I think the person meant the ‘shocking’ reports one comes across when specifically looking for “refugee crime”.”

    I know, but this is so trivially rebutted that it seemed superfluous to repeat the argument, namely that deporting criminals does not reduce crime but merely transfers crime onto victims whom one does not care about. Then again, this is an argument that even American leftists are not using enough in opposition to Trump’s “bad hombres” rhetoric, so maybe we do need to repeat it more after all…..

    “their failure to fairly cover crimes by non-immigrants”

    They cover crimes by non-immigrants all the time, so long as these non-immigrants are “non-white”…..

    They also do not cover crimes by immigrants from Ukraine, Poland, etc…… except when these crimes involve beating up “non-whites”, in which case the criminals are called “heroes”…..

    “Unfortunately, some of the site’s authors support gentrification as a mechanism to inject funds into otherwise dying communities”

    They are capitalists against big business, as they themselves admit:

    The problem with modern capitalism is that there are not enough capitalists. We need a system that encourages diverse ownership of capital

    Accordingly, the street scene photos they use as positive examples are not what we should consider aesthetically appealing:

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd6676e4b0fedfbc26ea91/t/546d29b0e4b05a70ad8521d1/1416440246611/?format=750w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd6676e4b0fedfbc26ea91/t/546d2a2de4b041a6cb8b00b2/1416440369113/?format=750w

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd6676e4b0fedfbc26ea91/t/546d2a4be4b041a6cb8b0162/1416440395481/?format=750w

    In fact I would point out that these look more like what street scenes looked like at the height of Western power; they also admit this:

    If we imagine we jumped back 100 years ago,

    In short, these are Westerners who consider big business to be a threat to Western civilization. These are not our allies. It’s not that we like big business, but we dislike it from the left whereas they dislike it from the right.

    What we should be encouraging is positive aesthetic appreciation for frugality, to the extent that such neighbourhoods acquire cultural prestige just for being what they are:

    http://www.favelatourismworkshop.com/

    http://slumtourism.net/

    There should be an equivalent of this in the US. But we don’t want people to merely tour slums as a voyeuristic novelty, we want people to be seriously motivated to transform their own lifestyles in this direction, thereby phasing out from more and more neighbourhoods businesses that offer non-essential products/services. In other words, not only do we oppose gentrification, we call for active de-gentrification.

    _____

    Another person for PACPO to contact and recruit (Lucius, where are you?):

    http://www.gq.com/story/rumana-ahmed-trump-white-house-atlantic

  11. Atmajyoti says:

    The greatest arguments against Capitalism was actually written by Adam Smith. Most Captitalists don’t make it past the first couple pages of his book. The irony of course being that most Capitalists site Smith as the founder of modern Capitalism. Near the end of the book Smith actually gets into why Capitalism would be an absolute disaster for the planet.

  12. Atmajyoti says:

    Jip, this is the world we live in.

    “Some acolytes of Smith might be surprised if they ever read him.” LOL!
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12758941.Adam_Smith__the_father_of_capitalism_____and_one_of_its_fiercest_critics/

  13. Atmajyoti says:

    “You mean you support something that you’ve actually never read?”

    Average person: “Uhhhhh….”

    :D

  14. John Johnson says:

    “They are capitalists against big business, as they themselves admit:”

    I think they are using this rhetoric in order to appear politically impartial (since forming a strong sense of community shouldn’t be a petty “partisan” issue) and not alienate any potential followers. In the US, saying capitalism is good is a safe talking point which will satisfy rightists, and “encouraging diverse ownership of capital” is enough to satisfy most liberals (but obviously not radical leftists).

    “If we imagine we jumped back 100 years ago,”

    You must keep in mind they are talking from an American perspective. Basically the only (still existing) cities older than 200 years in the US were founded as colonial outposts. By thinking of cities as they were 100 years ago, they are actually looking at a time period when many cities were being founded by believers in the American Dream with a shared sense of purpose. They are asking us to imagine if we lived in a romanticized town in the Wild West (for example), filled with fellow Americans united by a sense of purpose and community; not that we literally lived 100 years ago when Western Civilization was building towns on the ashes of Native American towns and kept “non-whites” from becoming part of the community.

    For example, it is very likely that the buildings in this picture are literally only 100-130 years old. This is the norm for many places in America.
    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd6676e4b0fedfbc26ea91/t/546d29b0e4b05a70ad8521d1/1416440246611/?format=750w

    So “100 years ago” in this case doesn’t mean “before the greedy mega-corporations and PC wimps ruined our traditions”, but rather ‘when small towns actually had a sense of community and functional economy to allow the community to live’. At least, that is how I interpreted it, and how I imagine other American leftists would if they were to read that article.

    “Accordingly, the street scene photos they use as positive examples are not what we should consider aesthetically appealing:”

    Regarding the images, I think #3 looks ugly and gentrified. #2 looks like overly-elaborate colonial era architecture (like NYC from the Dutch era), but the writer’s point was that non-wealthy community members had a chance to obtain real estate for their businesses, because each individual building was smaller. Is this not superior to the present-day trend where a very wealthy land developer/speculator builds a single massive (and ugly) building and charges high rent on all the people who want to obtain a location for their business? Another positive aspect to having more, but smaller, buildings is that each one has a chance to take on an individualized look. The barber shop, corner store, etc. will be easily connected with the appearance of the building they are located in (thereby helping community members locate each business, and aiding in the formation of memories unique to each building/business), whereas such a thing is impossible in strip-mall-style buildings which have a homogenized appearance (and often rapid turnover of businesses, since people can not always afford the high rents).

    Image #1 is how most small town American main street business districts look. It would look better if the buildings on the right of the image weren’t painted flashy colors, but architecturally the buildings are simple. [Most 'main street' commercial buildings are more elaborate than these, in fact:

    http://previews.123rf.com/images/michaelshake/michaelshake1501/michaelshake150100169/35836049-A-photo-of-a-typical-small-town-main-street-in-the-United-States-of-America-Features-old-brick-build-Stock-Photo.jpg
    http://www.opendurham.org/sites/default/files/images/2007_3/111_115WMain.jpg
    ]

    Notice that the building farthest to the left even has its 2nd storey windows covered up–does that not “de-gentrify” it to some extent? I doubt you’d argue that we should tear down every main street building and replace it with something less architecturally-elaborate (that seems more wasteful than gentrification!). For better or worse, this is the existing infrastructure American towns have to work with.

    “But we don’t want people to merely tour slums as a voyeuristic novelty, we want people to be seriously motivated to transform their own lifestyles in this direction, thereby phasing out from more and more neighbourhoods businesses that offer non-essential products/services. In other words, not only do we oppose gentrification, we call for active de-gentrification.”

    This is a good ideal, but a major problem in the US is that there are many gentrified neighborhoods and many neighborhoods that are so run-down that they are dying because they cannot economically support their community, yet few in between. The Strongtowns website is basically asking why, since ’100 years ago’ non-gentrified and non-tourist-reliant communities were able to exist (even ‘poor’ neighborhoods were able to subsist without succumbing to the destitution which seems to plague most of them today)–but today these very same communities are dead or dying. What changed to cause this? A cultural issue, most likely, but I do not think the authors implicitly link the lack of purpose which is destroying communities with the declining influence of Western Civilization!

    “These are not our allies.”

    Sure, we do need a True Leftist version of their movement, but I believe we can recruit people who are interested in restoring a sense of local community from the same pool as they do. I do not think the majority of people attracted to the Strongtowns movement are irredeemable rightists.

  15. Teresa Huizar says:

    The Conversation we need to have about Milo, Child Sexual Abuse, And The Myth Of Consent:

    In part, I am cheered to know that in 2017, Trump’s American society still finds defending the rape of children under 18 beyond the realm of acceptable discourse. But fascinating as it is to recount Milo’s many other transgressions, his gut-churning comments about child sexual abuse reveal a vile and all-too-common myth: that children under 18 can somehow consent to sex with adults. They can’t. Full stop.

    It’s heartbreaking to see an admitted child sexual abuse victim like Milo attempt to minimize his trauma by insisting that he chose it. In the world of Children’s Advocacy Centers, where we coordinate the investigation of child abuse and provide services to heal the trauma it causes, we hear it over and over—from the incest victim who has been told by her father that she “came on” to him to the child aged just 16 abused by his coach that truly thought that the person who exploited him loved him.

  16. Atmajyoti says:

    Adults do manipulate children; I agree there.

  17. AS says:

    @JJ

    ““encouraging diverse ownership of capital””

    This just leads to a more thorough selection in favour of aggressiveness. Whereas capitalism that offers no opportunity for new capitalists favours the old capitalist bloodlines (which are certainly likely to be aggressive) in particular, capitalism that offers much opportunity for new capitalists favours aggressive bloodlines in general. In the former scenario, there is at least a faint hope that the old capitalist bloodlines – able to indefinitely stay in power from their existing wealth alone without further need to apply their aggressiveness – mix/mutate through the generations to become less aggressive, perhaps eventually even less aggressive than the national average, thus coming to begin to resemble aristocracy. In the latter scenario, however, even this hope vanishes, as the system selects afresh for aggressiveness in each new generation.

    “is enough to satisfy most liberals”

    Are liberals satisfied because they do not understand this process or because they just want to stick it to the old capitalists while actually admiring aggressiveness as a trait?

    “You must keep in mind they are talking from an American perspective.”

    OK.

    “Is this not superior to the present-day trend where a very wealthy land developer/speculator builds a single massive (and ugly) building and charges high rent on all the people who want to obtain a location for their business?”

    Does not the rent problem also occur with the small buildings? If anything, the classical economic argument in favour of the large building is that it offers more units for the same land area (via more floors), thus lowering the rent for each tenant. From our perspective this is unsatisfactory because we oppose renting as a whole, but for those who accept renting, I am unaware of a mechanism by which the rent could be lower with fewer available units.

    “http://previews.123rf.com/images/michaelshake/michaelshake1501/michaelshake150100169/35836049-A-photo-of-a-typical-small-town-main-street-in-the-United-States-of-America-Features-old-brick-build-Stock-Photo.jpg”

    Ouch! My eyes!

    “Notice that the building farthest to the left even has its 2nd storey windows covered up–does that not “de-gentrify” it to some extent?”

    A feature of de-gentrified shopfronts is that they are wide-entry, for example:

    http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/fd/9d/cb/fd9dcb9d1cad409ed0572c41063dae2c.jpg

    http://fxcuisine.com/blogimages/japan/tokyo-kappabashi-dori-cookware-market/DSC_1994-1000.jpg

    In the picture you were referring to, on the other hand, notice that the shopfronts all have residential-size doors along with glass display windows ie. narrow-entry. To de-gentrify would require getting rid of these and replacing them with roller doors:

    http://johnsonmatel.com/2011/August/Sao_Paulo/favela_street.jpg

    http://johnsonmatel.com/2011/August/Sao_Paulo/Potato_point.jpg

    so that the shopfront is at any time either completely open (as with Potato Point) or completely closed to the extent that you cannot see inside (as with the shop adjacent to it). This makes for a more friendly atmosphere during business hours, and a less commercial appearance during non-business hours. It also makes clear from a distance whether the shop is open or closed, instead of requiring potential visitors to go near enough to read a rather small ‘Open/Closed’ sign on the inside of a glass door. Another superior characteristic of this design is that it is incompatible with indoor air conditioning during business hours. What do you think?

    “I doubt you’d argue that we should tear down every main street building and replace it with something less architecturally-elaborate (that seems more wasteful than gentrification!).”

    You are correct. Total demolition should be applicable only to highly symbolic buildings:

    https://www.trumphotels.com/

    “Sure, we do need a True Leftist version of their movement, but I believe we can recruit people who are interested in restoring a sense of local community from the same pool as they do.”

    I agree. Another potential sub-project for PACPO, I suppose.

    @Teresa

    “They can’t. Full stop.”

    Thank you for demonstrating your open-mindedness and interest in rational discussion.

    @Atmajyoti

    “Adults do manipulate children”

    Yes, such as by making them believe that their consent is worthless, and thereafter forcing them to do things they do not want to do while prohibiting them from doing things they want to do, and telling them that it is “all for your own good”, because “we know better” and “one day you will thank us”.

  18. Atmajyoti says:

    I compare Trump to Netanyahu frequently. A point that worked very well the other day with a person who had just gotten out of a conference about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. One of several conversations were I was able to pass on the 9/11 missing links documentary. When he entered my auto he had stated that he takes a ‘neutral’ stance on the whole issue. I have a feeling that person did not leave my car in a neutral mind state, however….

  19. John Johnson says:

    “Are liberals satisfied because they do not understand this process or because they just want to stick it to the old capitalists while actually admiring aggressiveness as a trait?”

    For many it is probably the latter, although I think when it comes to people who desire a sense of community it is the former.

    Keep in mind that before Bernie Sanders’ political campaign, “socialism” was a taboo word in mainstream politics ever since the ‘Red Scares’. Capitalist rhetoric is deeply embedded in contemporary US thinking. Without the authors reiterating their support for capitalism, too many people would be suspicious that their (weak) criticisms of ‘big business’ style capitalism were actually dirty commie attacks on American ‘traditions’, or some nonsense. Liberals are used to having to tone down their ‘liberalness’ in order to prevent rightists from putting their fingers in their ears and shutting down any chance for honest debate and conversation from happening. (Yes, liberals often use this tactic to avoid debate as well, but rightists have been using it much more often and effectively in recent decades).

    Small towns tend to skew towards conservative views, so the authors realize that they cannot alienate this segment of the population if they want to make any practical nation-wide changes. Criticising the status quo of “big business” capitalism in favor of “small business” capitalism is about as anti-traditional as mainstream liberals are willing to get regarding economics. (At least in the years before Sanders broke the taboo on “socialism”, which is when many of the Strongtowns articles were written).

    Small and medium-sized run-down towns are the bulwark of conservatism in the US; getting them to think negatively of capitalism will take much time and effort. In many towns, the original “old capitalists” have long since left for bigger cities or died off, and their role in the local economy has been filled by chain stores. Strongtowns wants the practical goal of having money stay in the community and not be siphoned off to the chain store’s headquarters. This is a first step towards autarky, and I believe most liberals who dislike capitalism will be satisfied that the Strongtowns rhetoric at least does not have the practical effect of making it more difficult to sell anti-traditional solutions to small town residents in the future.

    Radical leftists might not like the strategy of slowly eroding away at capitalist thinking, but most American towns are not ripe for communist-style mass labor uprisings to overthrow capitalism, or anything of that sort.. I think most liberals would think the Strongtowns ideas are not a perfected manifesto in themselves, but meant to facilitate discussion of new ideas. It is of course up to leftists that they enter the debate and provide anti-traditional ideas to the discussion.

    “Does not the rent problem also occur with the small buildings?”

    Perhaps, but it seems to me that when the building only has the capacity for a single store it would be more likely for an individual to either buy the small building outright (eliminating the need for rent), or conceivably being able to save up enough money to buy the building from the landlord.

    Presumably the landlord of the small building would own less overall realestate and make less profit, compared to the landlord who owns the building which takes up the entire block (because there is lower barrier to entry in cost and oversight for a landlord to buy a small building, and maintenance & administrative efficiency would be reduced if 1 landlord owned a block with multiple tiny buildings, as compared to a single block with 1 building where maintenance and administrative processes are streamlined). Therefore the landlord of the small building would be more willing to sell their rental unit to the occupant (since they make less money and it is easier for them to divest and change careers if they so choose), whereas the landlord of the giant building wouldn’t (since they invested a ton of money to build the huge building, and it makes a big profit).

    “the large building is that it offers more units for the same land area (via more floors)”

    As an additional practical consideration, since at least the 1950s, most new construction in the US has been based around cars. Buildings for businesses are built as large as possible on the outskirts of town, and much land is used for parking lots. This is much less efficient than the old-style small buildings which were built in the center of the city (within walking or cycling distance of most residents) and utilize land much more efficiently (by being crammed close together, rather than contributing to urban sprawl).

    I admit it is likely more efficient to build buildings with more floors in huge cities like New York or Chicago, but for most American towns, future urban planners will benefit from studying how small and mid-sized cities were laid out and operated pre-car.

    “What do you think?”

    I like those ideas.

    What do you think about malls? Although malls themselves are enclosed, air-conditioned and carefully manicured buildings, the shops inside them are structured similarly to what you describe (ignore the chain brand logos in the pics).

    http://www.bookworldstores.com/images/location/StoreFront1.jpg
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RUEzWVXnu6U/UvLfK0VLAuI/AAAAAAAGf3A/iUp7v5aFJ6k/s1600/SEARS%2BATHENS%2BGEORGIA%2BSQUARE%2BMALL%2BStore%2BAtlanta%2BHwy.%2BSears%2BStore%2BGeorgia%2BSquare%2BMall%2BClothing%2CCraftsman%2BTools%2C%2BKenmore%2BAppliances%2C%2BHome%2BFurnishing%2BDecorations.JPG

    I actually always thought it was cool how mall stores were closed up with simple metal grates! Something elegant about the simplicity of it.

    http://www.ohio.com/polopoly_fs/1.556197.1420675491%21/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_500/wetseal08.jpg

    Although most malls are of course plagued by chain stores, malls in medium sized towns often have local businesses in them as well. Malls were often a popular hang out place for youths, although I think their economic and cultural significance has been declining in recent years as suburbanites have been less inclined to shop at overpriced chain stores in the malls.

  20. AS says:

    @JJ

    “Keep in mind that before Bernie Sanders’ political campaign, “socialism” was a taboo word in mainstream politics”

    You have mentioned this before, but I believe that our side is not doing nearly enough to boldly disregard taboos. Rightists are on the rise because they don’t care. We cannot fight them effectively so long as we keep walking on eggshells. The middle follows the extremes. The last thing we should be doing is looking to the middle for guidance.

    “Small and medium-sized run-down towns are the bulwark of conservatism in the US; getting them to think negatively of capitalism will take much time and effort.”

    On the contrary, from my observations, they seem to already think negatively of capitalism, but from the right (e.g. opposed to businesses hiring whomever is willing to work for lower wages). This is why they voted for Trump! Rightists accuse capitalism of being pro-immigration, and for this reason say that capitalism is bad. Surely you are aware of this?

    “Radical leftists might not like the strategy of slowly eroding away at capitalist thinking”

    I disagree that it is eroding away at capitalist thinking at all. I consider “small business capitalism ” to be MORE capitalistic than “big business capitalism” for the reasons outlined in the previous comment. To use a mythical analogy, “big business capitalism” is Agamemnon, whereas “small business capitalism” is Achilles. I don’t like Agamemnon either, but it is Achilles who shaped Western civilization! (My point in the previous comment about quasi-aristocracy even applies to this analogy: remember that the Atreides claim descent from Atreus (Agamemnon’s father)?)

    “but most American towns are not ripe for communist-style mass labor uprisings to overthrow capitalism, or anything of that sort”

    That’s not what I am demanding. (We are anti-communists!) I am proposing an aesthetic approach instead.

    “Presumably the landlord of the small building would own less overall realestate and make less profit, compared to the landlord who owns the building which takes up the entire block”

    The problem is in this presumption. How did the landlord of the big building get the entire block on which to build his large building in the first place if not by first buying up one by one all the pre-existing small buildings on the block and then demolishing them? So if this landlord buys up all the small buildings on the block, but merely keeps the small buildings to rent out directly, he does not own overall less real estate, though it is true that he would make less profit from rent. Yet he would almost certainly be making more from EACH tenant, since there are fewer of them.

    “Therefore the landlord of the small building would be more willing to sell their rental unit to the occupant (since they make less money and it is easier for them to divest and change careers if they so choose), whereas the landlord of the giant building wouldn’t (since they invested a ton of money to build the huge building, and it makes a big profit).”

    Would a landlord of a residential apartment block be less willing to sell apartments to occupants for the same reason? This would be very strange behaviour if it were the case.

    “As an additional practical consideration, since at least the 1950s, most new construction in the US has been based around cars. Buildings for businesses are built as large as possible on the outskirts of town, and much land is used for parking lots. This is much less efficient than the old-style small buildings which were built in the center of the city (within walking or cycling distance of most residents) and utilize land much more efficiently (by being crammed close together, rather than contributing to urban sprawl).”

    I agree with this. I am by no means defending the large buildings(!); I am merely pointing out that attempting to use purely ECONOMIC arguments against them will be difficult. Ecological/aesthetic arguments, such as this one, are much more persuasive.

    “What do you think about malls? Although malls themselves are enclosed, air-conditioned and carefully manicured buildings, the shops inside them are structured similarly to what you describe”

    Although these mall shop entrances are wide relative to their own height, they are not wide relative to the interior width, as your photos show (the interiors are even wider!). My understanding of the term “wide-entry” is that entrance width and interior width follow a 1:1 ratio.

    In any case, this type of mall does not exude the aesthetic feel that I am trying to get across. The shop units are too large, and there is also far too much wasted communal space. One common feature of malls is that the shops are positioned along the circumference, while the centre is empty space. This is incredibly wasteful and reflects hubris:

    http://www.bulgariamall.bg/newd/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/1.jpg

    https://adc3ef35f321fe6e725a-fb8aac3b3bf42afe824f73b606f0aa4c.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/propertyimages/189/orland-square-mall-01.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Inside_view_of_City_Mall.jpg

    I far prefer corridor-layout malls, which besides being less wasteful also go much better with the de-gentrification theme:

    https://suq4y2a28lmqho672fl5ldv7-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/center-building-market-ameyoko-ueno-_1340459-1500×1003.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/HK_Shum_Shui_Po_evening_%E7%BE%8E%E5%AF%A7%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83_Merlin_Centre_mall_corridor.JPG/800px-HK_Shum_Shui_Po_evening_%E7%BE%8E%E5%AF%A7%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83_Merlin_Centre_mall_corridor.JPG

    Notice the de-gentrified ceilings/floors. If the surfaces are gentrified, it screws up the entire atmosphere even in a corridor layout:

    https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/13/d2/f1/path.jpg

    http://www.bath.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/images-of-bath/The-Corridor-Bath.jpg

    “I actually always thought it was cool how mall stores were closed up with simple metal grates!”

    I remember as a child waiting for the metal grate at the video game arcade to open, so I could be the first one inside…..

  21. Legion says:

    I don’t really understand how you find that Chinese mall aesthetically pleasing. It looks incredibly cramped in there. Can you explain how this makes any sense?

    I much prefer the feel of open air shopping centers that allow for some greenery…
    http://whns.images.worldnow.com/images/25616826_BG1.jpg
    http://polyadhawaiitours.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Ala1.jpg
    https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/mamilla-shopping-mall-jerusalem-israel-isr-may-s-upscale-street-open-air-55378894.jpg

    Also, squares built around a central, hopefully functional, fountain look very nice and are popular social areas in south and central America…
    https://photos.smugmug.com/Rome-Day-One/i-qgPK77s/0/L/The%20Reality%20of%20Being%20a%20Tourist%20in%20Rome-L.jpg (imagine it without all the tourists)
    http://mediaschool.indiana.edu/chile-2015/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2015/05/chile-groupatfountain-web.jpg
    http://l450v.alamy.com/450v/f093x1/view-of-fuggerei-social-housing-complex-at-augsburg-bavaria-germany-f093x1.jpg
    http://s298.photobucket.com/user/tlcohio/media/RomePlazaNarvonne.jpg.html

    I posted a few because I couldn’t find the ideal one I am looking for (perhaps the first one in Rome is the best, but the back of the fountain features an inaccessible building accompanied by over the top architecture not captured in the photo, however it is the layout of the shops around the fountain that I want to emphasize), and unfortunately most of these fountains are designed in a more lavish style with no functionality or comfortable area in, around, or adjacent to.

    I think that a shift towards Aryan culture would inevitably bring a revival of the outdoor market…
    http://blogs.ionis-group.com/isg/planete-ouverte/media/Moore_Street_market,_Dublin.jpg
    http://cinderellastravelshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Mercato-Ballaro-in-Palermo-Sicily.jpg
    http://images.neverendingvoyage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ballaro-market-palermo-sicily.jpg
    http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/55521630.jpg

    I also enjoyed the atmosphere of the bazaar during my brief time in the middle east…
    https://www.theistanbulinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/grand-bazaar-istanbul-2.jpg

    The concept of human settlement engineering and layout of town centers always fascinated me, but I never studied it and have no familiarization with concepts.

  22. AS says:

    “I don’t really understand how you find that Chinese mall aesthetically pleasing. It looks incredibly cramped in there. Can you explain how this makes any sense?”

    Firstly, remember that when most people hear “Chinese”, they think Huaxia, which probably looks more like this:

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8882196_f1024.jpg

    The de-gentrified aesthetic that I am praising is Yue.

    It would only be cramped if there were many shoppers. I would even argue that this is a design coherent with population decrease! With few shoppers, it is very space-efficient.

    More important, however, are the frugal materials that are exactly enough for the purpose, with nothing in excess. Look at the floor tiles, for example: just a uniform square grid, no complicated tessellations using different-shaped, different-sized, different-coloured slabs. Look at the shop signs: straightforward printed signs, none of the 3D-lettering and lights-behind-the-letters crap. Speaking of lights, the simple fluorescent tubes (besides being more energy-efficient) actually match the shape of the corridor, and do not require lampshades. And so on.

    Luxury businesses would automatically avoid setting up shop in this mall, in other words the mall’s humble decor selects for basic shops, which then makes it even more appealing to me since I hate even seeing luxury shops. This is what de-gentrification is all about.

    You have to intuitively tune into the wider Yue neighbourhood look to feel the full beauty. Here is a music video to help you:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2PMozOUdts

    See the movie if you get a chance.

    “http://whns.images.worldnow.com/images/25616826_BG1.jpg”
    “http://polyadhawaiitours.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Ala1.jpg”

    The main question I invite you to consider is to what extent luxury businesses would avoid malls such as these, in other words to what extent these malls select for basic shops.

    (If you want a mythical approach, imagine what an archetypical shopkeeper would look like in these various malls. For example, I could easily imagine in my picture entering the first shop on the right and seeing Auco temping there, or the third shop on the left and seeing Tingyao behind the counter, whereas Leizu wouldn’t be caught dead even passing through the corridor! In your pictures, on the other hand, I have some difficulty imagining meeting the Spider Woman there.)

    “https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/mamilla-shopping-mall-jerusalem-israel-isr-may-s-upscale-street-open-air-55378894.jpg”

    No comment necessary…..

    “Also, squares built around a central, hopefully functional, fountain look very nice”

    I like fountains too.

    “I think that a shift towards Aryan culture would inevitably bring a revival of the outdoor market…”

    Definitely! This discussion began as a conversation about street stalls!

  23. John Johnson says:

    “there is also far too much wasted communal space. One common feature of malls is that the shops are positioned along the circumference, while the centre is empty space. This is incredibly wasteful and reflects hubris”

    I agree in the examples you show, but I think it is possible for malls to have some sort of centerpiece or gathering place in their common area which is not wasteful. Like I said, many malls in the US were popular hangout places for youths. Basically an indoor version of a town square or park where adults would allow them to be without much supervision. Many malls have ‘food courts’ in areas surrounding restaurants which can be used for simply hanging out as well.

    “You have mentioned this before, but I believe that our side is not doing nearly enough to boldly disregard taboos. Rightists are on the rise because they don’t care. We cannot fight them effectively so long as we keep walking on eggshells.”

    I think there are plenty of leftists who are utterly disappointed that the Democrat party chose to “play it safe” and effectively sabotage themselves during this election cycle. However, there seems to be no bold leftist movement at the moment…cough cough PACPO…willing to harness their energy and break the taboos.

    “On the contrary, from my observations, they seem to already think negatively of capitalism, but from the right (e.g. opposed to businesses hiring whomever is willing to work for lower wages).”

    From my observations the right is blaming liberals for their “big government regulations” on businesses for “taking jobs away”. For example, I saw one rightist argue that Trump has already created/”brought back” 70,000 jobs because he reversed Obama-era regulation on the coal industry. Of course, it turns out the 70,000 figure was a high estimate of how many jobs dried up in the coal industry during Obama’s term–NOT how many jobs Trump “brought back” to the coal industry (which is probably closer to 0). They also argue mandating employers to provide healthcare for their employees “hurts business” because this means the employer makes less profit.

    While I’m aware that rightists love to say “immigrants took our jobs”, I think they view immigration as a tangential issue which does not affect how much they value capitalism. (“Took our jobs” is just an easy excuse to cover up the fact that they primarily hate the current wave of immigrants since most of them are “non-white” Latinos, as well as to make themselves feel better for having difficulty finding jobs in this post-industrial and post-’great recession’ era–they think its shameful and even ‘unnatural’ for a traditional family man “provider” to struggle with unemployment!).

    I’ve seen many say that without the dirty liberal government allowing so many immigrants (via the 1960s immigration laws) and failing to “secure our borders”, the “hordes” of immigrants who all come here specifically to “leach off welfare” would not be a problem and everything would be fine (just like it was in the 1900s-1950s, when the “good” and “industrious” kind of immigrants came here, dontchaknow!). I’ve also seen many argue that businesses wouldn’t choose to hire undocumented immigrants if businesses didn’t have to contend with “big government policies” such as minimum wage laws, healthcare expenses, and other things employers are required to provide (as these laws apparently make the businesses so unprofitable that they can’t afford to operate if they hire non-immigrants…).

    In other words, many rightists do want businesses to be able to hire those willing to work for less wages, but “liberal big government regulations” prevent the businesses from easily hiring Americans for less than minimum wage, so the businesses are “sadly left without any choice” except to hire undocumented individuals.. Regarding jobs that are lost by moving to other countries, I think rightists view this as an efficiency problem caused by “government regulations” preventing the “free market” from being able to function perfectly and make new jobs. To appeal to these people, politicians call themselves “job creators”–rightists don’t care what kind of jobs these are (they just focus on manufacturing jobs since these were moved out of the country relatively recently, which rightists believe was caused by high taxes and regulations making them too unprofitable to function in the US—they’re not criticizing the businesses for moving out due to being greedy(!!)), they just want the government to step out of the way and let the “free market” create jobs, or something to that effect.

    Remember, rightists want Trump to run America like a business (Trump constantly boasted he is the best “job creator” in politics since he is a rich businessman!). Is that not a pure embodiment of capitalism? Trump campaigned on being a businessman and “experienced job creator”, rather than a lame “establishment politician” who hurt businesses with regulations. Trump voters want less obstacles for businesses to pursue capitalism.

    Since the Reagan-era, many Republicans have campaigned for a “small government” (which makes them libertarian-leaning in economic issues). As I’ve seen one leftist joke before, libertarianism would basically be “uber capitalism” where businesses are free to exploit citizens without any government oversight.


    By the way, remember my earlier post where I quoted Bannon saying he was like Lenin and wanted to topple the establishment? He recently said “if you look at these Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction.”
    http://www.salon.com/2017/02/24/steve-bannon-says-trumps-cabinet-of-billionaires-is-selected-for-a-reason-deconstruction/

    Given the Trump administration’s appointment of people like Scott Pruitt who want to ‘dismantle’ the EPA, I think Bannon has not changed his views much since the Lenin comment. (I don’t think he actually ever wanted to topple the government Lenin-style, he was just trying to be dramatic)
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-plans-to-abolish-environmental-protection-agency

    It has been the Republicans’ goal since at least Reagan to make the government “smaller” by decreasing regulation and taxes. ‘Tea Party’ people like Ted Cruz attempted to “starve” the government through the shutdown of 2013 and continuous gridlock–so I don’t think Bannon’s original comment was necessarily that shocking in this context (if anything he was emboldened by the success of ‘Tea Party’ backlashes in the congressional elections during Obama’s presidency).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

    Of course, I worry that once Bannon and Co. deconstruct the establishment (and indeed it is a toppling/deconstruction, didn’t you once mention that today’s US exists in a post-counterculture paradigm–whereas MAGA aims to tear this down and bring society back to pre-counterculture views?), the alt right will replace it with something much worse than older Republicans like Reagan could have done…

    “That’s not what I am demanding. (We are anti-communists!) I am proposing an aesthetic approach instead.”

    Of course. I was just being facetious, since I do believe small towns tend to be conservative and would view any undiluted anti-traditionalist ideas as being too anti-capitalist/commie.

    “How did the landlord of the big building get the entire block on which to build his large building in the first place if not by first buying up one by one all the pre-existing small buildings on the block and then demolishing them?”

    In the US, this is often done by buying the small buildings when they have become abandoned or uninhabitable (and therefore super cheap). Historically, there have been a variety of ways that land speculators could increase or decrease the price of buildings/land to their favor (although I haven’t studied this in depth). One famous example is “redlining”, where people in certain neighborhoods were forbidden from receiving loans to fix their buildings–leading to decreasing property values and sometimes leading to abandonment when the buildings became uninhabitable (and then gentrifiers can come in and scoop the properties up). Another example is so-called “urban renewal”, where city governments allow companies to “redevelop” large sections of towns. In this case it is easy for entire blocks to be consolidated under 1 owner since the city government is driving things.

    If each building was non-abandoned and had valuable (but modest) shops in them, it would likely cost much more for the land developer to be able to buy the entire block (and hence less likely for them to try such a venture).

    “Yet he would almost certainly be making more from EACH tenant, since there are fewer of them.”

    In theory, perhaps, but surely the mega-building would increase the perceived price of the land/property, allowing the landlord to charge more? In a gentrification scenario, even residents who live in non-gentrified buildings will have their rent or taxes go up when the neighborhood begins to gentrify and property prices begin to climb! If the buildings are small and kept non-gentrified, then surely prices will be lower than what the speculator could conceivably raise them to (on the exact same property/location) if there was only 1 big building, or even gentrified small buildings.

    In the context of the Strongtowns website, one reason why they promote the small buildings in their “100 years ago” example is because 100 years ago towns were literally being built from scratch. Since the buildings were smaller (and hence their cost), it made it possible to avoid landlords altogether for many people! In the US, many old-style commercial buildings will have the name of the original owner and the year it was built inscribed on top. While I think this is hubris, it is at least a testament to how even non-wealthy citizens could aspire to own their own shop without being debt slaves to money lenders or middlemen.

    “Would a landlord of a residential apartment block be less willing to sell apartments to occupants for the same reason?”

    You mean so that occupants own their own unit? If the apartment building is built with this business model in mind, surely it is best for the landlord to sell it quickly so they can have less maintenance and liability costs, and can move on to build/buy more things?

    If I’m not mistaken, large commercial buildings (with multiple businesses) often have higher turnover of occupants than an apartment where the occupants seek to buy their unit. The owner of the commercial building would be losing out on resale value if they tried to sell their units to businesses (as properties might be foreclosed by banks/lenders, or sit empty if the owner of the failed business cannot market to a buyer–resulting in the landlord having to buy back what was once their property in order to resell, or be stuck with empty space in a valuable commercial zone). Apartments are probably cheaper to build per unit and bring in less profit per unit than commercial buildings, so I suppose apartment landlords arent as picky.

    It is also my understanding that the value of such an apartment would likely go down over time, relative to new construction (although absolute value may go up, due to increasing demand/value for the location of the land). Therefore if the landlord sells early, they are cashing out when prices are most overvalued. (Like on those “house flipping” TV shows where people gentrify a house then immediately resell it so they can repeat the process. That is apparently more profitable than renting out those houses long-term).

    I don’t think commercial districts fluctuate in value and “desirability” as often as residential neighborhoods (since commercial districts are by their nature less numerous and take up less area than the residential neighborhoods they provide service to). Therefore, the owner of the large commercial building would want to hold on to as much as they can. (In addition, it would be more difficult to divest and sell all their units individually if they no longer wanted to be responsible for a certain property, so I think they would see it in their best interest to own all the units so they have more control to shape what is going on on their property. And, other wealthy landlords who might be interested in buying the whole building from them would prefer having a streamlined deal, rather than having to negotiate with the various occupants who each own their own business location.)

    Although perhaps I’m wrong in the above paragraph.

    “Ecological/aesthetic arguments, such as this one, are much more persuasive.”

    Maybe to leftists, but most people in the US want to see money and numbers before they will let down the gates of stubborness which constrain their minds and prevent them from even pondering issues (like environmentalism) that are innately important to leftists.

    Quite frankly, the economic/statistical argument doesn’t even have to be air-tight, it just has to look ‘good enough’ for people to let their guard down and give themselves the ‘ok signal’ to debate things further. While you may be correct that “small business capitalism” is fundamentally more capitalistic than “big business capitalism”, it may be the only practical rhetorical route to get the conversation started in the first place. I believe people’s opinions can be pushed back towards our camp (over the past century, farmers/rural people have somehow become loyal to the party which most openly supports the wealthy class, whereas agrarian populism was common in the 1800s), but sometimes one must apply grease to a rusty machine before its parts will budge. It is up to us to convince the citizens to subsequently dismantle the machine, rather than repair and develop it further (as rightists would do).

    (By the way, reversing car-centric city planning is another major goal of StrongTowns, but as you might imagine this is not as “marketable” as the “reinvigorate capitalism” rhetoric, so it’s not as prominent)

  24. AS says:

    @JJ

    “I agree in the examples you show, but I think it is possible for malls to have some sort of centerpiece or gathering place in their common area which is not wasteful.”

    What I’m criticizing is not just the empty floor space on the ground floor, but also the empty AIR SPACE above it. If you want a common area on each floor, fine, but to have literally no floor at all above the common area on the ground floor, and instead a gaping hole all the way up where people can’t even stand?

    “From my observations the right is blaming liberals for their “big government regulations” on businesses for “taking jobs away”.”

    Weren’t they cheering Trump’s promise to penalize businesses that employ abroad? What do they call such state-imposed penalty if not government regulation? A pure capitalist would oppose any form of state-imposed penalty, which is why I do not consider these rightists to be pure capitalists.

    “I saw one rightist argue that Trump has already created/”brought back” 70,000 jobs because he reversed Obama-era regulation on the coal industry.”

    Yes, but your example and mine combined show that Trump supporters believe that some regulations are good and other regulations are bad. A pure capitalist would believe that all regulations are bad.

    “they think its shameful and even ‘unnatural’ for a traditional family man “provider” to struggle with unemployment!”

    And yet most of them refuse to do the one obvious thing that the immigrants are willing to do: look for a job in another country. They would rather stay put and complain that the immigrants are trying harder than they themselves are to find work.

    “I’ve also seen many argue that businesses wouldn’t choose to hire undocumented immigrants if businesses didn’t have to contend with “big government policies” such as minimum wage laws, healthcare expenses, and other things employers are required to provide”

    Surely by now you see the pattern: they are against government regulations that advantage others but disadvantage themselves, and for government regulations that advantage themselves but disadvantage others. This is not capitalism, indeed this is not any consistent ideology at all, but just raw self-interest. What they want from Trump is not capitalism, but undisguised favours to themselves.

    “Remember, rightists want Trump to run America like a business (Trump constantly boasted he is the best “job creator” in politics since he is a rich businessman!). Is that not a pure embodiment of capitalism?”

    Yet when people explain how Trump’s travel ban would hurt American business, the rightists call these people “traitors who only care about money”…..

    The truth is, to REALLY run America like a business would mean trying as hard as possible to brain-drain every other country in the world. But that is precisely what the rightists are against.

    “Since the Reagan-era, many Republicans have campaigned for a “small government”"

    I thought we had agreed in a past private discussion that the term “small government” should refer to a low-taxation government, which is not necessarily a low-regulation government?

    “It has been the Republicans’ goal since at least Reagan to make the government “smaller” by decreasing regulation and taxes.”

    Yes, but it is possible to have a low-taxation, high-regulation government, and also possible to have a high-taxation, low-regulation government. We need to offer people a more precise vocabulary. I’ve seen many people distinguish between fiscal and social statism, which is a start.

    “In theory, perhaps, but surely the mega-building would increase the perceived price of the land/property, allowing the landlord to charge more?”

    The point is that this is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we are here to tell people that – as you yourself described it so well – it is merely the PERCEIVED price of the land. The only reason that the land ‘is’ worth more is because ENOUGH PEOPLE ASSUME THAT EVERYONE ELSE THINKS it is worth more. This is speculation, not real economics. By introducing new aesthetic standards where frugal/run-down is considered beautiful, we can aesthetically short-circuit the whole thing. You were the one who brought in the excellent terminology of “ruin value” in a prior private discussion! Now is the time to use it!

  25. Kasper says:

    Kennedy was shot in 1963
    he was liberal anti communist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bl8HPP6Z9Q

    Malcolm X – Exposing Liberal Jews Dressed Up as KKK and Nazis (1964)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5XZTfbGiGg

    Rockwell predict BLM in 1966
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?edit=vd&v=YWOoHD_4LCA

  26. Kasper says:

    How Jews Weakened Syria

    Syria became home to the refugees who fled the armies of Ibrahim Basha in 1839

    Syria became home to the Circassian refugees in 1860

    Syria became home to the Armenian refugees in 1914

    Syria became home to the Palestinian refugees in 1948

    Syria became home once again to Palestinian refugees in 1967

    Syria became home to the refugees from Kuwait in 1990

    Syria became home to refugees from Lebanon in 1996

    Syria became home to the refugees from Iraq in 2003

    Syria became home to the refugees from Lebanon in 2006

    It will be written in the history books and generations will remember, that Syria never closed it’s borders for those who fled their homes seeking safety and refuge.

    Syria has never asked any Arab for a visa to enter it’s lands whether it was a visit or permanent stay.

    In Syria not a single tent was put up on the borders to accommodate for refugees across the years, houses were opened, streets were vacated and cities were renamed to allow for refugees to feel at home.

    Antifa(ISIS)
    Spot the difference https://youtu.be/y8N-HoTBCp4

  27. John Johnson says:

    Did anyone see the Yates hearing on Monday? I think the left-leaning media is overstating the importance of the hearing, since both Clapper and Yates said ‘I can’t answer that here because it would involve classified information’ to most of the questions which would have yielded actionable information. Although I think this is a good summary of the results:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/sally-yates-clapper-russia-trump-hearing-michael-flynn

    Here are the best parts of the hearing–an American with a conscience vs Trump lackeys:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s4N-Ex7Xik
    https://youtu.be/lic1qTDup5Y?t=73
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSD0wVWIAyQ
    https://youtu.be/xvi6P5ifeoU?t=128

  28. sally says:

    Hi

    My comment is for the moderators and may be off-topic. I am quite new to study Jews as they are, but I couldn’t help notice when I finally found people like Nick Griffen and David Duke who were speaking about the obvious situation, they were both keen on Iran, like you guys. In fact, I noticed it right off with Griffen, now I’m noticing it repeating itself. Wolf Blitzer (what a name) even said it straight to Duke when he was being interviewed prime time. Wolf said, if we’re so infiltrated by Jews, then why do we let you on to speak your mind?” Well, because unbeknownst to Duke there is a final dialectic to come. The Khazars came out of Iran and it is THOSE original people who used the Khazars to create their empire/war machine. The final dialectic makes Israel bad and Iran good. Because the head of the beast is not in the holy land at all. The beast assumed the identity of the Jews and corrupted mosaic law. Of course something so evil will destroy that which it has used, eg Israel and everyone there, because that’s what evil does. Especially to uppity peeps who believe they are God’s chosen people. It’s an obvious geopolitical move and even me, a celt, can see it. Straight into the arms of Amalek. This has nothing to do with Islam, but the shia do have the genuine claim to the lineage of Mohammed so it would be fun to make them the agents of final destruction, if you were satan. What I’m talking about is much older than Islam and there is waits. So please be careful. At the same time, managing power for the forces of good doesn’t mean being scared to dialectics, it is after all the nature of the universe, but managing them. Otherwise, the biggest criticism of your theory is that you are not functioning from a higher plane. It’s a bit like saying, for example, if we kill everyone with a unibrow we will defeat evil. If you turn it around, then it’s our sin that allows evil to flourish. If we started community banks that don’t charge usury, if we started businesses that cuts out corporate, if we live our lives to the fullest and control our energy systems (tantra) and thoughts, then we cannot be attacked. That is the best option to decrease what’s coming at us, and everyone who is interested in these things should also put extra time into creating fantastic independent business activity. That lessens their power. But still we will have to physically fight, so I’m told, and if so, then the questions of tribalism are fair enough and in fact we need those polarities, too, which can be harnessed in a federation. You can’t come with outlandish ideas that are not in line with the principals of the universe and the nature of humanity. Everything in moderation, respect the rhythms, etc. Because not even the elders of Zion are smart enough to co-ordinate the writings of Marx with all the ideas and actions of all the commie/bolsheviks AND the zionist thinkers all at once. Instead, they are connected to a certain stream of energy, which leads to thought, emotion and action. It gets its power from human/child sacrifice. (To that end, the best things we can do is move in on all the places where they can possibly be accessing their blood. That totally freaks them out. See how they went for pizza gate…) But ultimately, it is the forces of light that defeat the darkness, and there can be no mistaking the light in ourselves and others, and it is the light that is the pole star. All the disinformation about Islam is already failing. They keep pretending “the left” is the problem when conservative politicians are in power. And speaking of the left, don’t discount those waking up. I woke up out of a newspaper job and flew into the arms of the neocon zionist right, because of the principal of polarity. But the zionist right isn’t a great place and it took me just 2 years to finally face the fact that it’s the Jews. And I’m old already. The kids will be much faster. Otherwise, I like the ideas here and I can’t wait to read more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>