One element of the yellow vest protests in France is not addressed by analysts of that protest. The increased tax on fuel is not merely a catalyst for general dissatisfaction. Mobility allows the upper working class and lower middle class French to segregate – live away from the Banlieue whilst continuing to work in cities.
Fuel is already a significant expense for the French worker. Increasing the cost of mobility makes it difficult to segregate into smaller French towns / suburbs. Those affected can no longer afford to live in metropolitan, French, France and the tax threatens them with moving to non-French areas.
The yellow vests have long since given up on any hope of entering the middle class which is why they are so desperate to clutch on to what remains of their France.
As someone who has gone from middle class to 1%’er and retired in his 40’s, money was absolutely no use to me OTHER than signal value.
For people with limited ability, money reduces stress. For those of us with ability it does nothing. I have seen no evidence to date that anything over median + 20% produces increased happiness. All we do is purchase cars, homes, and vacations with greater signal value.
The primary value of money is (UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH WARNING:) to separate yourself from people you don’t want to be around – because we have no right of voluntary disassociation.
This is, in my opinion, the primary problem of multiculturalism: it is not possible to separate EXCEPT by economic cost, which means we abandon the middle, lower middle, working, and laboring classes to association with undesirables.
In other words, we cannot judge people by their character and therefore admit them to schools, neighborhoods and businesses (or politics) but we simply put economic sorting in place which because of immigration destroys our middle and working classes. Involuntary Association Is Not A Market Action nor is it commensurable with the Natural Law of Reciprocity. Nor peaceful harmonious coexistence.
This would gut the government,gut the financial sector; gut immigration, redistribute TRILLIONS a year, and mean the average homeowner would require one working parent, pay off mortgages in 15 years, crash the price of houses and rents.
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
yes I have. “nationalize mc; issue one to every citizen over 18; distribute liquidity (regulate interest rates) directly to the people rather than thru the financial sector; distribute 20% of tax revenues to the same means; eliminate consumer interest, by direct loan from treas.
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
@curtdoolittle @BobMurphyEcon I’m not trying to argue with you Curt, just elucidating why I’ve left libertarians like RPM and become more of a Propertarian. Libertarians never apply their own rules, they skew them to fit their personal preference which is the preference for being a victim.
All spinelessMar 16, 2019, 8:22 PMCurt Doolittlewhere did you get ‘radical centrists’????
Are you stupid, or countersignaling?
Curt predicts timeline in 2006.
Stays on message thru the present.
Present overton window continues to match the timeline
Centrists are now swallowing black pills.
Prop has circumvented traps of natsoc’s.
Prop has provided an actionable set of demands and means of implementing them.
Whatever stupid shit you meant, is incoherent in the context.Mar 16, 2019, 8:26 PMGoss Hume”Center pivot” is a tautology used by politically minded individuals that are resplendent in not being tied down to a position but love being edgy. Devil’s in the little details, Curt.Mar 16, 2019, 8:32 PMCurt Doolittlecenter pivot means we supply answers for the mainstream rather than try to generate demand on the fringe.
i do details like no one else on the right by orders of magnitude.Mar 16, 2019, 8:46 PMBill JoslinPeterson, Tim pool, rubin, sargon are all calling themselves “radical centrists” (if central position didn’t included universalism and a reframing of a republic as a democracy – I’d be a centrist)
Truth is – you can’t avoid group identity whether that be on cultural, political, ethnic religous or racial grounds. Our primary issue that has gotten us to this point grounds in identity – specifically, special interests groups able to compete for political privelege has caused the conditions we are in now. And what makes this competition possible stems from democracy coupled with primacy of legislation over rule of law (law writing) AND WHY WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE THE SOLUTION.
By eliminating access to law as the means to further group interests we move group competition from law making (proxy for violence) into commons creation (special interest groups can no longer seek the force of law – the only alternative is to build community to solve community issues)
THIS NECESSITATES A PIVOT TO THE CENTER.
Addressing the center means changing the status quo.Mar 16, 2019, 8:57 PMJason MurphyWouldn’t the idea of centrism preclude the very notion of radical?Mar 16, 2019, 9:00 PMBill JoslinThe battle of the indentarian right and regressive left demonstrates the systemic issues of Western civ in a distilled and simplified form.
Normies and centrists are now looking for a solution to the culture war – our law – the One Law – solves that problem AND solve the problem of restoring the westMar 16, 2019, 9:00 PMBill Joslin”radical” in political spheres is synonymous with revolutionary – not outlierMar 16, 2019, 9:01 PMBill JoslinSo centrists willing to fight for a central position are radical centrists. And the list above are centrists which are fighting in the media sphere and argumentationMar 16, 2019, 9:02 PMSteven KolpekJason Murphy What is a Centrist in an Anarchy Scenario?Mar 16, 2019, 9:06 PMAlan MaupinDon’t understand whatever it is you’re saying.
But, if you’ve got a “solution for western civilization’s problems” … Please, Do Tell!Mar 16, 2019, 9:12 PMJason MurphyDead? IdkMar 16, 2019, 9:18 PMMartin ŠtěpánJason Murphy I’m pretty sure it’s being used as an oxymoron. Centrists are seeing radicalization on both sides, explain it away with a horseshoe theory and satirically call their own position radical too.Mar 16, 2019, 9:22 PMJason MurphyThat actually makes senseMar 16, 2019, 9:22 PMMartin ŠtěpánOh boy, are you in for a treat.Mar 16, 2019, 9:23 PMAlan MaupinMartin Štěpán – Bring it!Mar 16, 2019, 9:42 PMVince Reecentrism isn’t a definable position. it’s simply the shifting mean of two active extremes.Mar 16, 2019, 9:50 PMCurtus MaximusAlan MaupinMar 16, 2019, 10:00 PMCurtus Maximushttps://youtu.be/hl2p3LW2i2IMar 16, 2019, 10:01 PMCurtus MaximusAlan Maupin Scientific GovernmentMar 16, 2019, 10:01 PMAlain DwightNow all we need is a catchy name like Propertarianism, testimonialism, or “the law”..Mar 16, 2019, 10:02 PMCurtus MaximusAlain Dwight NomocracyMar 16, 2019, 10:11 PMMichael D HaasWhat curt is describing is redpilling the mainstream voter and essentially taking them away from the elites who currently pacify them. What you are describing is the cop out made currently by the mainstream voterMar 16, 2019, 10:22 PMEdmund BlackadderWhere have you been?Mar 16, 2019, 10:35 PMJohn Kelly”Radical Centrism” is the guy that is ALWAYS breaking up the fight by getting in the middle instead of allowing the power surge to course correct the issueMar 17, 2019, 2:09 AMDan WarrenPivoting to the center is for the weak. Forcing the center to you is for the strong.Mar 17, 2019, 11:01 AMCurt Doolittlethen why do all the ‘strong’ fail?Mar 17, 2019, 11:08 AMJarrod MarmaTwo of three centrist groups I’m in recently shifted to the left because of older sympathies and new members (AnCap tankies, friends of admins (socialists), and UBI supporters) I was what was deemed a radical centrist when I trolled those groups. It was just simply justifying your right wing views with left wing ideology under the veil of irony. “Marx said we need to arm the populace” things like that. Otherwise I advocated for Classic Liberal policies or fucked around with ideas like People’s Democracy just to see if they would take in the group. It was pretty trying and I lost my patience a while back.
Tl;dr, Radical Centrism is mostly trollingMar 17, 2019, 6:15 PMCaduceus MercuriusShooting in a tram in Utrecht (where I grew up), about an hour ago. Several injuries. Several people injured, Curt.
https://www.rt.com/news/454104-utrecht-shooting-victims-police/Mar 18, 2019, 7:16 AMCaduceus MercuriusPossibly one dead.
It happened one mile from where my brother and nephews live.Mar 18, 2019, 7:22 AMVincent HufkensCurrent situation depicted.Mar 18, 2019, 1:14 PMJon ZotzCan’t wait for the violence, i have things to do.Mar 18, 2019, 11:21 PM
You have no leaders. Because you are from the bottom. The bottom never leads. So be nice to your betters who work in your interests despite your thankless ignorant overconfident empty words.
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
GENERATION JONES 55-65: TECH+DEINDUSTRIALIZATION AND THE FAILURE OF THE MARXIST SOCIALIST PROGRAM
When I was in high school we had the oil crisis, the evaporation of the postwar advantage, the fall if iran, near zero chance of employment out of college, and the conversion of marxism-socialism to postmodernism (lying).
Gates, Jobs, and Ellison, Halloween, Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, Indiana Jones, Neuromancer
—“Generation Jones is the social cohort of the latter half of the Baby boomers to the first years of Generation X. The term was first coined by the author Jonathan Pontell, who identified the cohort as those born from 1954 to 1965 in the U.S. who came of age during the oil crisis, stagflation, and the Carter presidency, rather than during the 1960s, but slightly before Gen X. Other sources place the starting point at 1956 or 1957. Unlike older baby boomers, most of Generation Jones did not grow up with World War II veterans as fathers, and for them there was no compulsory military service and no defining political cause, as opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War had been for the older boomers. … The name “Generation Jones” has several connotations, including a large anonymous generation, a “keeping up with the Joneses” competitiveness and the slang word “jones” or “jonesing”, meaning a yearning or craving. It is said that Jonesers were given huge expectations as children in the 1960s, and then confronted with a different reality as they came of age during a long period of mass unemployment and when de-industrialization arrived full force in the mid-late 1970s and 1980s, leaving them with a certain unrequited “jonesing” quality for the more prosperous days of the past. “—
—“Originally, GenJonesers were mistakenly lumped in with Boomers because of their mutually high birth rates. But generations stem from shared formative experiences, not head counts. Over time, the original mistaken Boomer Generation definition has become widely discredited, with many top experts now embracing Generation Jones as a distinct generation. These experts underline the importance of distinguishing between the post-WWII demographic boom in babies versus the cultural generations born during that time. Jonesers were born between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s, with the exact birth years varying from nation to nation. In the U.S. and most Western countries, the birth years most often used for GenJones are 1954-1965. Extensive research has shown dramatic differences between the collective
