hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
Generally special interest group characters fail since they take power away from the player.
The super special trans character can't be seen, as you point out, as anything negative. Now you, as a character in the game, have to contend with, to use old terminology, a special snowflake in your game world. A Mary Sue of sorts. You know this character is not going to betray you or anything like that. You are supposed to like them. That's the sole reason they are there. Because of that they will always lord over your world.
It's made even worse by the fact that since the trans character is almost always a self insert of some trans author, they get an elaborate backstory. They are painted out as being perfect and sympathetic. They are now contending with you as a main character in the story. This is bad and stupid.
To borrow from the old Diversity Propaganda playbook on how blacks were integrated: When you want to normalize something and integrate it into the ingroup of others, make it passive, harmless and subservient. When that has been established, make them valuable and endearing.
The ultimate version of this is making the trans person a love interest for the main character. Not that the MC needs to reciprocate. It might even be better to not give the player a choice to reciprocate. But making it clear that the trans character desires the MC gives the MC all the power they need to feel responsible for that character. Which is very powerful.
To that end you need to make the character look more like a trans persons anime profile pic on twitter than what a trans person who cares a lot about trans representation in gaming actually looks like in real life.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
It didn't look like something out of a silly videogame when Tarrant did it in practice. He, in fact, looked far more vulnerable when he had to reload his rifle compared to when he had to chuck away an empty shotgun to present a loaded rifle. And as I stated before, I don't see the focus on weight being relevant here. You are not traveling long distances. You are not shooting and scooting like John Wick. You are walking door to door shooting children. Worst case scenario is either that you are unable to fire at someone tackling you or that your gun stops working. Carrying an extra gun, ready to fire, solves both of those issues.
I don't see the assertion of a 'true' cost benefit analysis being relevant unless substantiated. There is a very obvious benefit to carrying a secondary rifle. There is a cost that comes with that. But considering the situation I don't see why that cost would be so prohibitive as to be called silly.
We've gone from 'blacks' to 'leftists'. But that's rather besides the point, which would be to answer the question Adams supposedly thinks is being asked: Do black people in America like white people? I'd guess that a 50/50 split on the question is not beyond the realms of reason.
If we remove this question from the 'black' context and put it in a 'leftist' context then I think the red herring of 'white supremacist dog whistles' becomes even more clear. Western leftism has an entire doctrine specifically dedicated to verbalizing the hateful otherization of white people and everything that relates to them. I would hazard closer to a 80/20 split with the majority harboring wild anti-white sentiments.
Is my intuition completely off here?
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
It's sometimes harder to ascertain just how realistic these movies are, or how unrealistic they are. Compared to more modern stuff, the noble savage is so obvious and transparent that one can easily wave them aside. But when the image presented is more pragmatist, realist, ambiguous... That's a lot more believable.
I think that believability is very obviously based on personal preference for 'pragmatism', 'realism' and nuance, as opposed to more in your face progressive ideological notes everyone has heard before. And I think taking the historical narrative seriously is usually an error, and just as fallacious as when a progressive starts mouthing off platitudes about 'hidden figures'. The fact it is more appealing makes it even more sinister.
These are stories from people. These people are not representing reality, they are representing themselves. The producers, writers, directors, actors. Just like modern cinema represents contemporary progressive values, the older movies represent the values of their time. To that end watching them is a good time and a very interesting looking glass into the past psychology of people, but with some caveats.
A part of me always feels that even being actively aware of the movie as the fiction it obviously is, it still taints your imagination and view of the world. Like reading a book, having your own vision on what everything looks like, then watching a movie based on the book and now all you can see when you read the book is the movie. Even worse when one thinks back, knowing this to have happened, and being unable to remember anything of what you originally imagined being.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
I don't think this is the case at all. Money trumps personal belief on the priority list, that doesn't mean personal belief isn't there.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I agree to an extent. Conflating demographic replacement with blacks was always an implicit lefty meme born out of their inability to distinguish ingroup/outgroup bias from narratives surrounding immigration and birthrates. The concern over blacks in the US is not demographic but 'cultural' for a lack of a better term.
When 6% of the population is committing 50-60% of all violent crime you should be allowed to ask why they are all black men and what can be done about them as black men before you start restructuring your potentially high trust white society to account for such a disruptive minority. In that sense blacks act as a disruption generator that fuels the aspects reactionaries hate the most about modern lib/left/progressive expression. Primarily the aspect that they are traitors who refuse to face the hard truths and instead let others carry the cost of the fantasies their unexamined privilege affords them.
To that end black emancipation was never achieved off the back of a popular majority. It was always the elites pushing the envelope and imposing their delusions on the lower classes. The old generation with their old propaganda gets cycled out and the new generation with new propaganda gets cycled in to continue where the old left off.
On the other hand, modern US society is in part based on worshipping black people. I mean, can anyone deny to ridiculous effort both sides of the mainstream enact in just to get a black person to mouth off their talking points? And the fact people genuinely feel that their side is more valid if they have a black person on their side.
I wish I could find the study that, in broad terms, showed how depicting blacks as fighting for a just cause made people more likely to assume blacks in general were more virtuous. It, at the very least, confirmed all of my biases regarding the effects I felt after being exposed to a nigh endless propaganda stream of blacks protesting during the civil rights era against the evil white supremacist empire. I mean, why were the evil white police hitting the innocent blacks who just wanted to be treated the same? My 12 year old brain could make no sense of it, and came to the obvious logical conclusion that one side was good and the other evil.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Performance enhancing drugs or any other sort of 'doping' is a huge loophole for everyone competing in anything. Having natural born advantages is a loophole for everyone at the elite level. Swimmers aren't short, gymnasts aren't tall and nigh every single athlete worth anything has received some form of extra 'supplementation' to their 'diet'. None of that in any way opens the door for trans people to participate in anything since none of that changes the fact that trans people don't fit into the main categories.
If you are not a traditional woman or a traditional man you don't fit and are excluded. No one should need to leverage their ruleset against the demands of those who don't fit. There need not be a special category or a special class. Trans people are simply not allowed to compete according to their 'gender identification' because it falls outside the scope of the categories. If you want to compete, you need to follow the rules like everyone else.
On top of everything else, where do people get the idea that compromising or meeting the demands of a vocal politically motivated minority is in any way necessary or required? Like, why on earth should anyone even entertain some unsound logic pretzel that exists only as a thin veneer for the deconstruction of a century long tradition which is only being pursued so that trans people can 'express their gender identity'. It's total hogwash from start to finish.
Even in a good faith debate about the grains of gray that exist when categorizing men and women, trans people in no way, shape or form fit as a 'gray'. From their time in the womb to everything else. From the tips of their fingers, shape and size of their brain, to the soles of their feet. Men and women are not the same. Categories are never perfect, but that doesn't mean they are therefor subject to our own want and whim.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Why should any man care? If the hobby can't 'maintain' men, for whatever reason, then you won't get men. It's of no greater consequence to the average 'bloke' that there aren't any men on some literary prize list than it is of consequence to them that 'Crochet Weekly' didn't feature many men yet again.
I mean, isn't it equally sad that the modding scene for Battlefield 1942 is dead? So much amazing work, some many hours of entertainment. Amazing feats of skill, long lasting friendships, memories of people who worked and played tirelessly for nothing other than love for their craft.
Men tend to just do great things wherever they are. Any creative exercise done by men has the potential to appeal to other men which snowballs itself further and further until the entire thing meets its end and the next thing takes its place. This is a process that has, for all my life, perpetuated itself without any need or input from women or some arbiter of what is good and what is bad. In fact I've only ever seen it hampered by the presence of women or these sorts of arbiters.
To paraphrase a young African American scholar: 'All a nigga knows is all a nigga loves'. There seems to be this unexamined notion that womens hobbies matter. Or that they should matter. Or that what happens around them matters. Which seems fueled entirely by womens sense of self importance. When the reality is that none of it matters any more than some random dead modding scene or that one flash animation on Newgrounds that no one will ever watch again.
Counter point to that theory is crime victimization surveys. Arrest rates match rather closely with self reported victimization rates. If there were any relevant amount of white criminals going underpoliced you would see that discrepancy in the victimization surveys.
I'd also argue, as a counterweight to the idea that black criminals are more policed relative to white criminals, that black criminals are more likely than white criminals to get away with serious crimes without being arrested due to the sheer amount of crimes being committed in the areas that make up the bulk of black crime rates. Like, for example, in Chicago where the majority of homicides go unsolved.
With regards to every one of those metrics, being young and smart as anything other than white is better than being young smart and white. So I don't really get your point.
I am assuming, if some institution drags you and your family through the coal because of your race, that you put on your big boy pants, as the paterfamilias, and eat shit with a big proud smile on your face. I don't understand what you would propose to do as an alternative given that any advocacy on behalf of your race is prone to get you irrationally annoyed.
I mean, if an institution announces they won't be hiring your children because of their ancestry, you don't get annoyed?
I mean, if a group of blacks beat your son to death and the justice system practically lets them walk, what does a paterfamilias do? Is it not "annoying" that the guys who caved in your sons skull whilst laughing about it get to walk free?
I mean, if a black guy executes your 5 year old and the media refuses to cover the story, does that make you more or less irrationally annoyed than seeing white males engaging in grievance studies?
In all seriousness, I am having a hard time understanding the relative strength and power of the 'slapper' from your analogy. Are you, as a paterfamilias, 'stronger' than the justice system? Media? Corporate America? The implied pride you take in being above racial grievance feels more like the cope of a servant father who tells himself that one day, at least, his son might become a janissary.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I'm not unsympathetic to them. I'm unsympathetic to the people who would have, prior to this event, gloated about luddites being regressive or reactionary and used the term as a pejorative. This class of rainbow people who cheered on automation and censorship right up until those things were turned on them.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
That's a context dependent ingroup justification for why we, the ingroup, happen to deserve our privilege. These arguments don't fly in any context where women are getting the short end of the stick.
The only sentiment that is sincere from feminism is that women are the ingroup and men are the outgroup.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
The baseline assumption for belief, for people who don't know a lot about Holocaust history, is that there is a coherent narrative that makes sense, the historians have consistently agreed on, and the historical evidence has consistently supported.
The problems with this mode of thinking are multiple, but the relevant one here arises when people are asked to evaluate specific parts of the narrative. It becomes a self reinforcing circle. Looking something like: Given that X happened it seems very likely that Y also happened.
Take 3 big Holocaust events that definitely happened. 1, 2, 3. Take one Holocaust event that definitely didn't happen. 4. Say that events 2 and 4 are equally evidenced. Except in the case of 4 there was, by chance, completely exculpatory evidence discovered. Can you still take event 2 as undeniably true?
Both events were equally evidenced. Eyewitness testimony by the hundreds. Both camps were liberated mostly intact. Memoirs written of the horrifying events that unfolded when hundreds of people were crammed into a small chamber to be executed. Infant children trampled under the panicking mass of soon to be slaughtered jews as their mothers wailed in absolute horror. Clawing at the walls, begging for mercy... Except in one case we know for 100% fact that it was all lies conjured up by some guy. Literally just made it all up. Not just that, hundreds of eye witnesses testified jews were being gassed to American investigators. Every single one of them lying.
I have a problem with this. For me, 2 now seems a lot less likely to be true. If 4 was false, but is otherwise exactly the same, the entire catalog of evidence for 2 should now be under serious scrutiny. Eyewitness testimony is no longer enough. You need hard physical evidence because it has been discovered that the bar for evidence that has been set can be met with nothing but lies.
But for people who believe in the narrative, not evidence, they can't do that. 1 happened, 3 happened... What are the odds 2 didn't happen? All the historians agree. All the mainstream. Not even Alex Jones would deny the Holocaust... 2 obviously happened or the Holocaust historians wouldn't say it happened.
I don't know how to better express it. As soon as you find 2 to be within the scope of scrutiny due to the similarity to the standard of evidence used to prove 4, you are a denier. It's no longer 6 million, which it never was. It's no longer 5.2-5.8 million. It's now around 4 million. Congrats. You are a denier. Have fun reasoning with people who, through a reality defying congruence of evidence manage to piece together that every single data point relating to jews from 1900's onwards reinforces the fact that German Nazis killed 6 million of them for ideological reasons between 1939-1945.
It's honestly not worth the effort. You start seeing things. Becoming crazy. Arguing about nothing with people who never looked at any evidence in the first place. The notion never entered their mind. To them it's just a feeling. A self reinforcing circle of things that had to happen.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
I always saw him owing his existence to a white right wing masculinity crisis in the US. Similar to a political Dan Bilzerian or other types of Instagram celebs. Where the typical figures of the right wing sphere are more dweebs and nerds than manly leaders. But they all recognize that being swole would be a much better look. So they adopted him as a sort of proof of concept.
But outside of that the guy seems to exist only in blogs, on twitter and allegedly in the heads of aspiring young Republicans. Similar to a Curtis Yarvin if he took steroids and tried to find meaning in flexing. But on that end I've never read a word the man has said.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Not a complete theory on class by any means but I think there is a distinction to be made between the 'working' class and the 'sitting' class, for lack of better terms.
Listening to talk radio and hearing some of the 'sitting class' people blabber about how 'fifty is the new thirty' made me think that there is a sort of quality of life difference between those who do any form of manual labour and those who primarily just sit inside doing wrist work. I've worked with guys whose bodies are done and they were just in their mid thirties.
I don't know if there is some clean break or boundary there but if you are 'sacrificing' your body, be it your back through lifting things or lungs through breathing in dust, or skin and comfort by working outside in all conditions, and you are not making significantly more than some guy answering the phone and transferring numbers into a spreadsheet... I think most people intuitively understand that one person is better off than the other.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The whole saga has some major plot points that are missing here. I think it would have been better to hold off on posting until it's all together.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Seeing news about James Bond being next on the chopping block. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/25/james-bond-books-edited-remove-racist-references/
Having mixed feelings about this. On one hand I wasn't fond of Ian Flemming's James Bond, though I only read one of his books as a teen. On the other hand the re-writing of history makes me irrationally angry. 'Sensitivity readers' are not something I like, I guess.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The drug overdose death rates are 10 times higher or more now than they were at any time since 1993. At which time the rate increased from 2.8 per 100k to what it was in 2020, 28.3 per 100k.
Your theory does not sync up to reality.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
If I "appreciate" the 'biological null hypothesis', everything you write is wrong. What necessitates one over the other?
I ask since it looks like we are taking the presumptive priors of environmentalism, slapping it with a 'null hypothesis' label and saying that it now beats out the presumptive priors of hereditarianism. I don't see how this changes anything. Other than framing the discussion in a way where your enemy is ignorant and hasn't considered something when in reality I am pretty sure most HBD'ers are pretty well acquainted with the environmentalist worldview.
To me, as an illiterate HBD'er, it just seems like skirting the actual issues. If you don't have an alternative theory of reality to human biology to supplant the HBD one then what is the point of this? Assert we can't know anything about anything and then what? This topic isn't worth discussing outside the context of two competing explanatory worldviews.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
A lot of places don't have a two term rule or anything similar, leading to prime ministers who sit 10-15 years and there are no issues. In short, I'm not really understanding the doom and gloom in your post.
It should feel disheartening to see this sort of brazen nihilism when it comes to error and wrong thinking. But where else can these people go? Most of them have locked themselves away from anything relevant, like the SSC comment described.
I think this sort of nihilism should be recognized for the ultimate cowardice that it is. These things, heredity, psychometrics and all the rest aren't meaningless. They are incredibly meaningful. And these people wallowing in nihilism aren't powerless, they are in fact quite powerful. But when they've already decided they wont do anything because the truth rests outside the Overton Window, the nihilism is entirely predictable and entirely self serving.
The article and the person who writes it are hiding. Cowering. Running away. Psychology's loss is the field itself and everything it impacts. The lives of tens of thousands of people who kill themselves every year after useless morons who are following 'the research' fail to help them. Millions of lives directly made worse due to policy based on fraudulent research.
It's not just that the author of the article is responsible; every social network of people who really should know better but pretend they don't due to whatever personal reasons they have are directly causing this to happen every single time they reinforce the status quo.
To see these people, the sorry state of the field and for them to shrug their shoulders as if this all just fell from the sky... What assholes. Take some responsibility. The fight for sanity has been ongoing for decades. There was nothing stopping these creatures from joining the losing side of truth to try and turn the tide. But they didn't. Instead they actively fight against it and then wonder why people laugh at them at parties when they say they're a psychologist.
No, you are not even remotely close to being a Rennaissance fair actor. They are a lot less embarrassing than you.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
I'm not fond of language like 'hatred' but by the same token I don't live near poor black people. But even then, groups like Volksfront, a former neo-nazi street gang from the US, that was born out of the ethnic strife between poor whites and poor blacks, did not describe themselves as hateful. But by the same token they probably did do 'hateful things' against black people that they perceived as having wronged them.
What I'm trying to get at is this: I can easily recognize visceral hatred in most self described anti-racist people when the topic of rent comes up where I'm from. But why is rent so high? The market is extremely crowded. Why is it crowded? Well... We imported a bunch of foreigners.
You 'hate' high rent, but you don't hate the people who caused it. That's kind of a dilemma of ones own making. If you forbid yourself from 'hating' the cause of your ills then you will simply have to suffer. That sort of self inflicted suffering might be noble and make you a good person according to some anti-racist humanist 'ingroup everyone' ethos. But it is on some level self destructive and stupid. And I think that finger wagging at the people who notice that is a very easy, but very short sighted thing to do.
I'm not saying 'hating' is a good thing. I can certainly see excessive ingroup and outgroup bias make people act stupid. But I'm starting to lean towards the idea that it might be a necessary precursor for self preservation. I mean, my entire life I have seen nothing but openness and kindness towards the foreigner, and at the same time what I would call genuine living standards have gone down because of it.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
At this point being a scam is par for the course. Even our very best minds of rationality and reason found ways to funnel money into dead end policies for criminals.
At this point I'd call it fair to say that you donate money to feel good. There's no reason to assume that any monetary amount will fix anything. If you actually care about an issue you are going to have to do something about it yourself. With that in mind it seems most people don't care all that much.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
When you take your own 'culture' for granted it might seem like others are 'distorting' the meaning of words. When in reality you were always a fish swimming in water.
The dialectic of 'white' left-right politics is over. The battle lines drawn around slight ingroup neurodivergence or the slightly different financial incentives of two neighboring municipalities that expresses itself as mild disagreement over questions like taxation and where to place the bridge are outdated. We are in the throes of a total redefinition of 'western' politics.
It's no longer a few teams fighting in the same sports league. We are now fighting between leagues over who gets funding. It's no use complaining that the basketball players are using their hands, those guys simply don't see European 'football' rules as applying to them. In fact, they see them as restrictive. And why shouldn't they? Why on earth should a basketball player accept a ruleset that takes away all their advantages? You can argue that your 'feet only' sport is the best or whatever, but that's obviously self serving even if you very dearly believe it to be true or even if it is by some objective metric true.
A real lie example of this where I live is trans people. If you belong to this group, in my very 'western' country, you can argue for special privileges for your group. These don't apply to anyone else. You are not seen as a political party or anything of the sort, that would otherwise exist in the 'normal' western political dialectic, no. Instead you are seen through the lens of 'victimary discourse'. And because you have a lot of marketing behind your victimary narrative, people cave in to your demands of receiving preferential treatment at the doctors.
The same is true for immigrants or any non-white. They exist as themselves. They advocate for themselves. They form group coalitions, they weave an animating myth of victimhood and grievance against white people and then they try their darndest to funnel everyone behind their cause. This dialectic isn't born out of circumstance or the natural curve of history. This is a pathological mode of group bias.
There is no onus on one group to adopt the language tradition of another. If it doesn't suit your group, don't use the language. Find something else. The outgroup is always evil, no need to call them good.
Michael Lind, Eugenicons and the Motte.
Recently, Michael Lind, a notable political commentator and anti-immigration activist, took a stab at what he termed the "eugenicons". The most prominent of which being men like Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, Bo Winegard and guys like Richard Hanania, whose face is prominently plastered over the article.
Linds piece paints these "eugenicons" as being not just factually wrong and out of their element with regards to the science, but also politically ineffective. As Lind sees 'race realism' and the libertarian ethos it allegedly expresses itself through these men to be "utterly incompatible" with broadening the appeal of the modern Republican party to working class Americans of all races. Lind, being a bit of a ‘soft’ materialist in the old Marxist sense, has a preferred view of the public as being in a bit of an economic class struggle. Though his view is far more principled and sophisticated than what you generally find among big L Americans Leftists.
Lind’s article is worth a read, and so are the various responses. The two better ones being from Steve Sailer and Brian Chau
Charles Murray did not respond in length, but remarked after reading Linds article that
Sailer, like Murray, voiced his disappointment that the article by Lind was not composed of anti HBD arguments of higher quality. And took issue with the view Lind expresses with regards to the state of the scientific literature at this time. Maintaining that Lind is far behind the curve on just how heavily the evidence has been falling on the side of HBD in recent years and that he also mischaracterizes some of the HBD positions as strict determinism. Pointing out that social causes have a very clear effect, as he cites his new favorite chart of various fatalities rising in line with the 'happening' of George Floyd.
These are all familiar notes for HBD folks, but they focus on facts and details over the broad stroke narrative. Something Brian Chau points out and extrapolates on. And it’s a worthwhile endeavor, given that someone whose been in the game for as long as Lind is probably not going to have his broader political viewpoint or his fondness for the American working class dissuaded by, as he put it:
It’s a fair position to hold, I suppose, so where does Lind get his ideas from?
As Chau sees it, Lind is working from a presupposition of political representation. That is, Lind sees himself representing the American working class. To that end it is no surprise he dislikes the HBD creed, given it is inherently divisive to the multiracial America. Something modern day classical Marxists have been pointing at for a long while, to little effect as they continue to support mass immigration, unlike Lind.
On that note Lind ties Libertarianism and HBD together, showing just how these two ideas are compatible. As Lind puts it:
This is certainly an observation. I think it would be easy, like Chau does, to point out that of the 4 big “eugenicons” only Hanania is ostensibly libertarian and otherwise poke holes in it. But I think that draws us away from the truth value of the statement as it relates to Lind and his position as a representative of the working class American. In a broad class interest narrative, there is an obvious pathway where the notion of free market success correlates with ‘superiority’. At the very least, if we value success in modern society, and we place some stock in the notion of heritability of traits, we end up with an undeniable truth. The lower classes are inferior to the superior upper classes. But as it relates to the "eugenicons", again, it’s not necessarily a truth anyone of the 4 mentioned, Sailer, Murray, Winegard and Hanania, are guided by politically.
Lind goes too far then, or does he? You don’t have to to go full send Capitalist Darwinism or whatever. Most people have the self reflection to look at themselves as a less than perfect part of a greater whole. Or that would be my view. Except that is the minority view of a National Socialist. So I think, to the extent American politics exist as is represented in media, Lind might be more correct than not here. And if “eugenicons” are not viscerally racist in their soul, I’d argue they do have to contend with the old ghost of “Social Darwinism”. Merely pointing at The Bell Curve and HBD as a truth can’t qualify as just another feather of truth in the cap of HBD folks. In the words of Eric Turkheimer, this truth could rival the atom bomb.
Chau's criticism of Lind is that Lind is not seeking truth but instead seeking to represent a class of people. To that end, if there is a truth that can harm them it’s not his duty to have that truth guide him but to shield the people from it. They are stronger together, class solidarity and all that. And through that lens Chau contextualizes some of Lind’s more extravagant misrepresentations of HBD ‘truths’. It’s simply not Lind's job to represent this truth. Lind is representing a class of people. Protecting both its class interest as well as its dignity, at the very least.
Beyond this you will have to read Chau’s article as he takes broader issue with the worldview Lind expresses.
On the whole I find Lind’s position to be stronger than I had suspected after seeing the "eugenicons" pile on him for the various errors and factual misrepresentations made. So long as Lind is accurately representing the people he feels with, his position will remain strong. Particularly since it is dealing with immediate problems that are likely to result from the HBD 'atom bomb' being released on the public. I had always assumed that biological truths would lead people towards something like ethno-nationalist 'democratic' socialism. But I’m now more willing to believe that America could surprise me if the bomb was dropped on them.
On that note it is not clear to me if Lind’s representing of the multiracial American working class is for its protection or ours.
More options
Context Copy link