The confederacy had many problems from the get-go.
From the start it effectively made third world status mandatory by forbidding infrastructure improvements. You want a bridge across the Mississippi which connects the nation and facilitates prosperity? Sorry that’s NOT allowed.
Along with a host of other structural issues and slavery which came with its own problems.
If the confederacy had won the war, the best case scenario is that it would be a British puppet state that collapses state by state within 30 years.
But these topics are dominated by third worlders who can only comprehend a shallow larp about “killing whitey.”
My favorite thing about leftists shamelessly copying RW giga edits is who they chose for it. Ivan Drago is a buff blonde White man who ruthlessly beats a black man to death and openly declares that he fights only for himself, not for communism or for the Soviets.
One of the biggest ironies about the modern Democratic Party is its attempt to monopolize a phrase (Our Democracy) that it actively stands against. The Democratic Party is actually one of the most anti-Democratic forces to have ever existed.
Democracy rests on the rulers and the ruled recognizing each other as belonging to the same pre-political “we”. They have to see themselves as sharing a linked fate.
In a democracy, losing an election isn’t the end of the world because the people who beat you are still *your people*. They may be wrong. They may even be idiots. But they are YOUR idiots. They’re still bound up in the same destiny as you are.
That is not how the modern Democratic Party sees the country. Despite its name, it isn’t a democratic party at all. It’s a liberal managerial party that sees democracy as an obstacle, even as it invokes the word “Our Democracy” to justify their relentless assault on a unified American identity.
Coming to believe ~90% of the political differences among Christians boil down to a failure to distinguish between the Biblical roles of the individual, the church, and the State.
No, God did not command governments to forcibly redistribute wealth.
Yes, God commanded Christians as individuals to practice charity.
Individual Christians in Acts “gave willingly and not under compulsion.”
Christians in Acts did not vote for the Emperor to increase the marginal tax rate and call that “generosity.”
I mean, Jesus... just look at this guy. He's not a soldier. He's never seen a half-collapsed building riddled with shrapnel. The worst wars he's ever fought were with the snow on his driveway and perhaps a romantic mishappening. His only interactions with armed conflicts have been through media poeticisms and censored footage from FPV drones. Of course his view of warfare is modelled after that of some French Postmodern philosopher's "hyperreality" gobbledygook. He's never been within 1000 miles of a missile.
So, yes. To him, war does seem like this extradimensional concept perceived through a filtered lens. His experience of it is entirely theoretical. At best, he's skimmed Clausewitz. He is dimly aware that modern war includes atrocity, but more convinced still that, because he has “deconstructed” the imagery around it, he has somehow grasped the thing itself. Enough, at least, to film a video explaining that this is not a real war because the sides are unequal, because the war is disproportionate. After all, reality, apparently, now requires symmetry to qualify as real.
I find it hysterical that, of all people, the fucking etymology creator is the one ranting about the Iran war. You just had to pick the most obviously underqualified person to speak on the topic of warfare as your Western leftist mouthpiece. The poor bastard doesn’t have the faintest idea what he’s talking about, but God as my witness, can he impersonate expertise. Flawlessly, too, might I add. Shame he's a total moron.
Another corrosive lie in modern historiography is that people in the past didn't actually believe in anything.
The Crusaders weren't really Catholics fighting a holy war, they just wanted land.
Stalin wasn't actually communist, he just wanted power.
Hitler didn't believe any of that Nazi stuff, he just wanted to rule.
19th century imperialists didn't have a "civilising mission" they just wanted more territory.
It totally misses what actually drives people.
People actually did believe in religions and ideologies. The Crusaders were actually Catholic. The Bolsheviks were actually communists. And so on.
They may have had other, complementary goals. But they also had a world-vision that provided the impetus for action.
One of the biggest problems with libertarians is that they refuse to examine their principles in face of reality.
Rand has been shot at in a congressional baseball game, had his ribs broken in front of his house, and was cornered with his wife by a leftist mob. He more than anybody should know the danger of leftist violence but still thinks people should put themselves in danger because of “muh principles.”
Leftists who generally hate America and the military suddenly become fire breathing patriots when the Civil War comes up because murdering white southerns is their most powerful recurring fantasy
The movie Gettysburg was released in 1993, a mere 32 years ago.
There was no cultural or political backlash over the respectful, even heroic, depiction of General Robert E. Lee.
We were a different country then
"Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them?"
—Benjamin Franklin
There are policy reasons why you might choose to support the downtrodden. There are humane reasons why you might sympathize with them. The choices aren't faultless or heartless. But it's just plainly not true that living off the compelled contributions of others as an adult is a morally neutral thing on which other people dont get to have negative opinions. Living that way is a bad thing to do to other people, how could it not be? Maybe bad but unavoidable, or bad but it's good that in their generosity they help anyway, those are all debates to have. But we should start with the reality that living on compelled contributions is at least something of a bad thing that people should feel at least somewhat bad about and then figure out what we want to do about that from a policy perspective
The East Wing is (was lol) barely older than my dad while people whose families got here after the invention of the McRib are telling me it was a sacred temple of democracy