I don't understand this reasoning - is the simple fact that the tool hasn't been used in 100+ years an argument for not using it?

https://thebaffler.com/latest/the-forgotten-man-ganz

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.", quote from John Maynard Keynes' book

and then the article above starts with "This is not a theory of history likely to find many supporters today."

how can he just assert that out of thin air

I certainly support it

"Trumpism, we are often told, represents the end of conservativism as a movement guided by ideas and intellectuals"

I've never been told that

so, that's the start of this article - the premise, and the article is a ~35 minute read according to my software

"Throughout the early 20th century, eugenics would become mainstream thinking, leading to abuses like forcible sterilization and the entire Nazi movement." <:what:382980756139409409>

I mean there's no doubt that the nazis used eugenics from the very start of their political reign, but is it fair to say that the whole concept of nazism, or the ensuing regime, would not exist if not for the concept of eugenics?

I'd say it's a ludicrous statement, hitler didn't write his books until after being imprisoned for the failed coup, and it was a direct result of the treaty of versailles

https://medium.com/neodotlife/intelligence-genes-eb18c5ef759c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwUtA2Rxieo

LUUL

that's one thing dave rubin gets right, he doesn't have a 40 second intro with crappy music

@Broo TulsiGang 2024 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 which part is funny? it's 1 hour and 30 minutes, and even at 2x speed it's really boring

and this host is not informed at all, he should at least do 30 minutes of research preparation for his guest

I know both of them for years

so it's all hilarious

cus they are both centre Left

but very different

might have known Rich almost 20 years

https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

lots of alarmist talk, and then halfway through the article, they sink their own alarmist take on the situation entirely

"When asked by the FT about a specific customs agreement, one sanguine Indian diplomat first denied it existed, then said it would not matter anyway: “I’m sure people have forgotten it.” "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42523045

SeemsGood

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42517555

haha

https://archive.fo/1Dsz7 Bruh. This.... is... this is savage af. I mean oh my god.

Kilroy is ded LUUL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42524076

Corbyn thinks he's Centre LUUL

If Corbyn is Centre. What is Left of Corbyn? <:think_literalpepe:378717098630971397>

the greens. and corbyn isnt wrong. because there hasnt been a properly left wing party since clement atlee. its always been left wing light. even with tony blair its been thatcherite light. its a good change.

well yes the NeoCons NeoLibs are the same

I <3 Neocons

imagine living under the tories for 3 terms....... and having no real opposition.

thats where we are currently. and corbyn is going to win the next election because of this.

its been almost a decade of tory rule.