Trump Has Successfully Tapped Into My Fear of Brown People & Anyone Who Isn't An Old, White Man

[No Country for Old White Men]

I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't everybody
be like me? Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.


Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire bozo
rules the GOP
Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and their
fear of a female president


1. The Siegfriedian super-provider

The Donald instinctively appeals to them in their moment of prolonged personal
crisis that has deep cultural and economic roots.

With his near-Neanderthal looks, albeit one with hair that is beyond the range
of human evolution, Trump provides a perfect shield to protect men against
their current existential fears.

Many American men have fears of failing their wives and families as
“providers.” Enter Trump, the instinctive, but – despite occasional missteps –
at the core amazingly sure-footed psycho-political strategist.

With his constant references to how many people he employs and pays, he casts
himself, at least subliminally, as a super-provider.

Talking of archaic forces in play, it is no exaggeration to say that today’s
American men feel downright emasculated, especially considering how they were
raised with, or socialized to, rigid gender norms and expectations.
2. The anti-Hillary shield

Not only do they have to contend with a world where women are more successful
at university level.

Coordinating careers and family lives, American women have also proven vastly
superior to men when it comes to multitasking – a pivotal attribute in our
ever more complex lives and workplaces.

U.S. women have also managed to shrink the income gap. The “glass ceiling” – a
longstanding construct to protect less productive men from better-qualified
women – is seriously cracking in the United States.

Among young professionals, women are ever more widely recognized as the real
performers. And, according to photo-rich essay features even in such noble
places as The New York Times Magazine, in colleges it is now increasingly the
women who go on the hunt.

In addition to reversing the old hunter-gatherer model, it is also no longer
men who necessarily bring home the larger share of “the bacon.”

As a result, American men – by tradition presumed to be the “strong” ones –
now increasingly feel as if they are the weak gender.

It is not an overstatement to say that the constant references to male
“strength” may have been human history’s most successful PR campaign.

The fact that they cannot really admit to weakness in a society that still
emphasizes male strength so much – just witness the still existing contrast
between hunky American football players and cheerleaders – only makes the
problem worse for them.
3. The American dreamer

As the contrast between that expectation and men’s self-perception as meek and
beat becomes ever more undeniable, Donald Trump enters the stage. Whoever
feels the blues that way must be smitten by the performance of Donald, the
Primordial.

While Arnold Schwarzenegger’s entire image is rooted in being muscle-packed,
Trump’s is that he gets his way with good-looking women, whether on reality TV
or in real life (and all of it while doing high-powered business deals).

His admiring audience is sure of one thing: The Donald never backs down when
challenged by women, including by the steeliest of them.

The implicit message and his direct appeal is clear: How many other men do you
know who are as folksy and down to earth as Trump, while also being
spectacularly rich?

To be sure, Trump’s is the vulgar version of the American Dream. But, unlike
so many of his admirers, at least he still gets to live it – and in a truly
full-throated version.

His may be an admittedly garish version of that dream. Nevertheless, a vast
pool of people who no longer harbor any delusions about themselves longs to
partake in his dream life.
4. The lancer

In many ways, Trump acts like the rough-hewn courtier of a bygone era. He
operates on the basis of some very straightforward principles.

These may be repugnant to some, but prove remarkably effective in an American
operating environment: Never apologize. Never back off. Always be on the
offensive – and count on the other side retreating.

Based on this stance, despite all his relative ignorance and rudeness, Trump
simply oozes confidence. Under his wing, men feel paradoxically protected.

He acts a bit like the medieval knight who, full of unshakable belief in
himself, rides straight ahead at the opposing knight, certain that he will
knock him off his horse.

Most amazing of all, Trump doesn’t seem to care even to put his visor down as
he accelerates on horseback to lance his opposing number.
5. The underdog

At a popular level, Trump manages to capture the emotional elixir of many
Hollywood movies devoted to the subject of being elected President of the
United States. Kevin Kline’s “Dave” (1993), Chris Rock’s “Head of State”
(2003) and Robin Williams’ “Man of the Year” (2006) — all in their own ways —
are thus scripts for the Trump campaign.

What these Hollywood dreams all have in common is that they feature a
completely unlikely candidate as being on the road to take the White House.

Virtually every of these movies has a moment at which the prospect of getting
elected president has become wholly unlikely. Only a truly bizarre turn of
events unfolding could still deliver what is otherwise a certain failure of
the campaign.

As with Trump, these movies’ particular narrative arc is that the candidate’s
ultimate success becomes all the more certain as serious, basically
insurmountable obstacles are thrown his or her way.

6. The mirror image

Trump is a true nightmare for the Republican Party. In the past, it excelled
in driving forward policies that benefitted the country’s rich, while putting
up candidates for President who were not all that rich — and certainly not
ostentatious about it.

Trump makes mincemeat of that finely calculated “modesty.” He personifies the
exploitation of nearly every business loophole game ever served up by the U.S.
Congress. For Democrats, he is the personification of the “greed is good”
message which Michael Douglas first made famous, playing Gordon Gekko (what a
perfect moniker for Trump) in his 1987 movie “Wall Street.”

Trump embodies exactly what the current Republican Party and their highly
elitist and utterly materialist philosophy stand for — however much they
refuse to see that. His rhetoric and style are perfect displays of what the
Republican Party has wrought with its turns over the past two to three
decades.
7. The devil

Trump plays a doubly devilish game — not just regarding the Republican Party,
but especially so regarding Hillary Clinton.

Archetypal leitmotifs aid him in that effort. The late 17th century Salem
witch trials, which occurred in what was then known as the Province of
Massachusetts Bay, are the main reference point of mass hysteria directed at
women on the territory of today’s United States.

Recall that Hillary Clinton is regularly perceived among significant swaths of
the Republican Party electorate as a “witch” – if not a label even less
charitable – and is constantly made the scapegoat for all of America’s
problems (e.g., Benghazi), at least as far as they cannot be laid at the feet
of its first Black president.

Inserting crass and admittedly archaic approaches into political races is part
of the American political tradition, even though they have so far primarily
taken the shape of race-baiting and religion-baiting – not gender-baiting.

The rules of the campaign game in this regard are simple: You can do it, if
you can get away with it. That, in turn, requires one not to leave any
fingerprints during the act of transgression, so that one cannot be judged as
being out of line.

This goes beyond attacks on Hillary. As if to salvage himself from charges of
gender baiting, Trump is also acting as a “devil” vis-à-vis other Republicans
as he plays games with them on women’s issues.

The party has subliminally used its anti-abortion stance as a “wedge” issue,
to create a sharp contrast to Democrats. More fundamentally, it has used this
issue as its very own way to hold women in check to this very day.

Enter Trump. He upsets the Republican apple cart with a simple two-step
maneuver: First he deliberately highlights his rivals’ anti-women policies and
he then creates a strong contrast to his own positions – by vowing to stand up
for “the whole issue of women’s health.”

This move is designed to go right at the party establishment’s current
standard-bearer Jeb Bush.

During the recent flap about Planned Parenthood, the third Bush who finds
himself in the race for the White House has argued in favor of excising any
funds for the organization from the federal budget.

Hard though it may be to believe, on women’s issues – of all possible issues!
— Trump is really a master class in effective political communications.

While bedeviling the Republican Party, he manages at the same time at least to
neutralize some of those charges from the liberal camp about him being a
misogynist.

Achieving all this while knowing that his own political appeal very much rests
on capitalizing on nourishing deep-seated fears among men about being
dominated by women begs disbelief – if it weren’t so real.

Consider what may well happen next: If and when Trump gets to the main event,
being selected as the Republican candidate presumably against Hillary Clinton
as an opponent, he can then perform another masterstroke.

In the general election campaign, he could argue to Democratic voters that he,
Trump – with his views on women’s issues – has done more to alter traditional
Republican Party position than anybody else.

Trump’s goal is self-evident. He wants to further confuse the party faithful
and toss up the race.

8. The killer executive

Ever the one to up the ante, Trump has already cleverly staged his
self-inoculation against further charges of misogynistic tendencies.

Talking about women in business in particular, he has stated that “They are
amazing executives. They are killers.”

Ever the dialectician(!), what is ostensibly intended as a compliment to women
also creates further fear in men. In his own imagery and experience, Trump
isn’t just referring to them as competent executives, but – via the killer
analogy – as veritable business Amazons.

While using that phrase as an anti-misogyny shield for himself (toward women
and liberals) among his core constituency of meek men, that killer image also
conjures up the mortal fear of Hillary, the Democratic Party woman who is
marching ever closer toward being the country’s top executive.

To all those living in fear of that, the subliminal message is clear enough:
Who else but Trump, the “killer” executive, can stop her?
9. The gambler

We don’t know whether Trump has read his Dostoyevsky. Most likely, he hasn’t.
And yet, he surely acts like a character out of the 19th century Russian
novelist’s dark work.

Call it genius, dumb luck, unbelievable or whatever, but where it’s game over
for everybody else, Trump always manages to find a new trap door — for himself
as much as for other people’s emotions.

What is truly unbelievable, as shown above, is how he is often able, in one
fell swoop, to find an answer for the very different calculations and emotions
of both sides of the political equation.

Trump’s campaign manager may be none other than a famous imaginary character —
Alexei Ivanovich, the central character in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s 1867 novel,
The Gambler.

Like a figure right out of Dostoyevsky, Trump himself – through often bizarre
turns – plumbs ever greater depths of the American national character.

To the frustration of both Republican and Democratic Party political
operatives, at least so far he has managed to get away with his big gambles.
10. The greatest reality TV producer

The missing link in transporting Dostoyevsky right into the America of today
is “reality” TV. It thrives upon keeping audiences hooked on wanting to know –
from one commercial break to the next, week to week and year after year — what
new, crazy low its main characters will reach.

The success or failure of each of those shows is directly related to the
ability of the producers of those shows to select the right characters.

Ideally, they have a totemic appeal (like Trump), which allows the show to
reach – and stay connected to – the largest possible audience.

Trump is a master of that art from his shows on NBC. His biggest campaign
weapon thus is the subconscious connection that is embedded in so many
Americans’ psyche today.

For the viewers, these shows are a pressure valve. For Trump, it is the
ultimate thing money cannot buy – a tool to entertain himself, while casting a
true spell over the entire nation.

[Malcolm McMahon]

No Country for Old White Men <noco...@white.man> wrote:
>I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't everybody
>be like me? Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>
>
> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire bozo
>rules the GOP
>Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and their
>fear of a female president
>

There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do with the
battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one simple,
devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West has
enjoyed for most of the 20th century has stalled, basically since the new
millenium termed.

This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little politicians of
any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that have
substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of wealth
between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.

Like most profound social change this is not the result of politics, but of
technological change. I would say it's largely down to two inventions. The
Internet, and perhaps more importantly, the container ship.

Now the gut reaction to this by those suffering from frustrated expectations is
to build a wall arround their nation. It wouldn't _work_, of course, but its
the first thing people think about it and, for those not reflective enough for
second thoughts, that's as far as they get.

What's happening in America at the moment seems to me frighteningly similar to
what went on in Germany in the '30s. There was the same rage. The same search
for scapegoats. Trump is riding this rage not intuitively, but consciously, by
calculation just as Hitler did.

It's in situations like this that the threat of fascism rears its ugly head.
The real thing, not just the generic buz word against anyone that wants to tell
us we're misbehaving.

[DVH]

On 12/03/2016 17:06, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> No Country for Old White Men <noco...@white.man> wrote:
>> I don't care if our species would never reproduce again, why can't everybody
>> be like me? Old, stupid, uneducated, white and impotent.
>>
>>
>> Emasculated white men love Donald Trump: The real reason a billionaire bozo
>> rules the GOP
>> Trump's rise is directly related to a certain white male limpness -- and their
>> fear of a female president
>>
>
> There's no doubt that there's a frightening amount of anger in the American
> public at the moment. But I don't think it is, at root, anything to do with the
> battle of the sexes or any subltety of psychology. It's down to a one simple,
> devastating fact, the decade by decade rise in median wealth that the West has
> enjoyed for most of the 20th century has stalled, basically since the new
> millenium termed.
>
> This is actually nothing to do with politics, and there's little politicians of
> any stamp can do about it. Its about globalisation, the same changes that have
> substantially reduced poverty in the world, have seem an evening out of wealth
> between nations. That means those of us who were at the top are losing out.

Why do you believe globalisation is/was inevitable?

[Malcolm McMahon]

Because of the increasing ease of international trade. Protectionism is
manufactured scarcity. It's an attempt to buck market forces. As soon as its
cheaper to have something manufactured in, say, China, and have it shipped over
than it is to manufacture it locally, any attempt to prevent that from
happening is like trying to prevent water flowing down hill. It may please your
local artisans, until they want to buy something which is artificially
expensive.

In the end, technological change always wins over politics.

Politics has _far_ less power to improve things than politicians would like to
believe, and would like _you_ to believe. In the end, the engineer trumps the
politician.

[NoBody]

You can easily say the exact same words about Hillary and Bernie. They
are using the exact same tactics, just directed at a different
population. Wonder why people only notice Trump?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <g22bebp7l8mou39ln...@4ax.com>,

How are Hillary and Bernie doing the same. Exact examples, please.

--

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[FPP]

He kind of has a point... Bernie and Hillary are portraying the top 1%
as having reaped all the gains in the last 20 years - leaving the
middle and lower classes to slide backwards.

The difference is that Bernie and Hillary are right. Our society,
since the 80's, has been rewarding the top 1% at the expense of the
bottom 99%. Since the advent of the 21st century, the pace has just
accelerated.

To the question as to why people only notice Trump - it's because he's
putting on a better show. He's playing on people's justified fear,
anger and prejudices by blaming Mexicans, Muslims and other minorities
for the inequities.

Where it goes off the rails is when a demagogue like Trump begins to
actively promote and incite violence at his rallies. Now, he isn't
just your run of the mill politician hoping to get elected - he's
downright dangerous.

Ask yourself if this sounds familiar...

A charismatic and authoritarian leader who preaches intolerance against
one particular religion?

A charismatic and authoritarian leader who leads his adoring
worshippers in a personal loyalty oath and ask them to raise their arms
in a salute?

A charismatic and authoritarian leader who uses propaganda and lies to
sway the angry downtrodden mob to "make their country great again"?

A charismatic and authoritarian leader who advocates killing innocent
family members of his enemies?

A charismatic and authoritarian leader who advocates forming a
"deportation force" to go door to door and round up members of a
certain ethnic group?

A charismatic and authoritarian leader who proposes to use torture of
his adversaries because "they deserve it"?

A charismatic and authoritarian leader who incites the people at his
rallies to violently attack dissenters in the crowd?

A charismatic and authoritarian leader who freely quotes Benito Mussolini?

If I asked a historian for the name of such a man, who do YOU think
would JUMP to mind first?
--
Liberals believe in global warming because of the scientific data.
Conservatives don't believe in global warming because it felt a little
nippy this morning.

[NoBody]

They both attack and demonize groups in an attempt to direct outrage
at those groups. Simple examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html?_r=0

https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/12/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-taxes-rich/

If you don't see the above as scapegoating and fingerpointing, you
need to get some serious objectivity.

[NoBody]

FPP agrees with their demonization because it fits his agenda. Didn't
expect much else from him.

> Our society,
>since the 80's, has been rewarding the top 1% at the expense of the
>bottom 99%. Since the advent of the 21st century, the pace has just
>accelerated.

Under the leadership of the Democrats. How do you explain this when
the party that is for "the little guy" (laughter) has been running
things?

[abelard]

all true...but that doesn't look to me like you quite answered the
question



--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 22:11:45 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

what are they doing? eating 50 times as many meals?

trump is an economic illiterate or an organised liar...

hillary and bernie are just economic illiterates in thrall to the
shallow religion of socialism




--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

not going to happen...

she's just another cult member


--
www.abelard.org

[Malcolm McMahon]

Was it inevitable? No, we could have had another world war instead. Given
relative peace and the advances in transport techology, probably.

In any case its a move in the direction of justice. The international cake is
still getting bigger, but the slice of that cake taken by the emergent
ecconomies such as India, China, South Korea is getting larger _faster_.

I never really believed that we would go on taking many times our fair share
forever. We've been running of historical capital, not any present superiority.
(By "fair" is mean a share of the proceeds roughtly comensurate with our
contribution).

Through the 19th century we were rich because we have better guns, through the
first half of the 20th we were rich because we had better factories, a better
educational system. Why are we still rich?

[Malcolm McMahon]

Because he pretends that the gut-instinct, simplistic solutions would work.
Because he ecourages people's worst instincts.

[Malcolm McMahon]

Well, of course, they haven't been. POTUS hasn't much influence over the
ecconomy if the legislator blocks him from doing anything in that area (or in
any area, for that matter).

But neither party has an answer.

[abelard]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:07:09 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

ok thus far

>I never really believed that we would go on taking many times our fair share
>forever. We've been running of historical capital, not any present superiority.
>(By "fair" is mean a share of the proceeds roughtly comensurate with our
>contribution).

britain did not have to live off the capital...it could have invested
on a much greater scale...

it is eating the seed corn as every socialist regime does, that puts
the fat happy countries of the west into difficulties

>Through the 19th century we were rich because we have better guns, through the
>first half of the 20th we were rich because we had better factories, a better
>educational system. Why are we still rich?

because we still have some capital


--
www.abelard.org

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <at6deb95n9ihveftu...@4ax.com>,

It's not demonizing if those you are criticizing are destroying our
democracy.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:17:29 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

Don't forget that the President has not hesitated to use Executive
Orders to get what he wants so the Legislative branch hasn't really
any way of stopping things.

>
>But neither party has an answer.

On that we agree.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:09:34 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon

As do both Hillary and Bernie. Kind of silly to point the finger at
just Trump.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:09:06 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

I can say the EXACT same thing about Hillary and Bernie (as well as
Obama).

[Malcolm McMahon]

Given the determination of the opposition he could have accomplished nothing at
all without taking such measures. But, as I understand it, the division of
powers leaves the president with almost no levers to affect the ecconomy.
That's a function of the legislature. The Repulicans have been effectively in
charge of the ecconomy throughout most of Obama's administration.

From the start the Republicans made it an aspect of party discipline. NO
cooperation, under ANY circumstances.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <o1ngebd2u4rrnc494...@4ax.com>,

In what way? What exact things are they doing to destroy democracy?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <j0ngebdejvd9bs7fe...@4ax.com>,

Give examples of Hillary and Bernie doing any such things. Their exact
words, in their full context, of course.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <epmgeb9hoe2vudpue...@4ax.com>,

The President has signed far fewer Executive Orders than any President
in recent history.

Executive orders are the way that Presidents enforce the laws that
Congress has passed.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <part1of1.1.NDi$fplH8...@ue.ph>,

Yep. They put their party above the American people and their needs.

I call that sedition.

[FPP]

He can't, and won't. It's not like you're ever going to get anywhere
with logic and facts.

You DO realize that he's just a sockpuppet, right? I no longer address
him (sorry, THEM) anymore.

They just did a read on Trump's proclivity to lie through his teeth...
and after examining his rally speeches, they found he lies once every
five minutes, on average.

For Christ's sakes, he just said that nobody's ever been injured at one
of his rallies - even though the video of "the sucker punch seen 'round
the world" has been played ad nauseum, for days on end.

> With the GOP front-runner scooping up delegates in a march toward the
> Republican nomination, POLITICO subjected a week’s worth of his words
> to our magazine’s fact-checking process. We chronicled 4.6 hours of
> stump speeches and press conferences, from a rally in Concord, N.C., on
> Monday to a rally on Friday in St. Louis.
>
> The result: more than five dozen statements deemed
> mischaracterizations, exaggerations, or simply false – the kind of
> stuff that would have been stripped from one of our stories, or made
> the whole thing worthy of the spike. It equates to roughly one
> misstatement every five minutes on average.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730

The

man is a pathological liar. NoBody, I mean, not Trump. Trump is a
SERIAL liar, but at least he KNOWS it.

But I'm sure NoBody is now going to blame me for math, too...
--
"Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie", until you can find a
rock." - Will Rogers

[Alex W.]

I would add that it is probably going to get harder for any one nation
or region to achieve comparably dominant positions as Europe enjoyed in
the 19th, and the US for much of the 20th century. The reason:
low-hanging fruit. The "easy stuff" has already been done. British
mills turned wool and cotton from colonial possessions into global
industries and reaped vast fortunes back in the 19th century -- but
today, fabric has been commodified and turning a profit is that much
harder. Driving economic growth by tapping previously unused "virgin"
resources such as fallow land or mineral resources was what created
enormous wealth, but it can happen only once. The same applies across
the industries and sectors of our economies.

[abelard]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:37:08 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

no argument...

but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...

the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
pre-eminence in that capital



--
www.abelard.org

[Alex W.]

Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge,
and the creative application thereof.

And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.

We have been coasting for a while now, content to bask in apparent
growth and gains from new industries such as IT, and happy to indulge in
collective navel-gazing. Societies such as ours whose education systems
put a premium on inclusiveness and on turning out happy well-adjusted
kids who feel good about themselves rather than young citizens who know
how to read and write properly and who have a good grounding in the
sciences .... well, societies like that will not last very long. We
have masked the effects of such disastrous educational policies by using
our inherited capital wealth to lure the actually well-educated talent
from the developing and emerging nations into working for us -- but that
cannot last. Indian IT workers without whom Silicon Valley would not
exist may be happy to take US dollars for now, but they are building up
the experience, the wealth and the contacts to build world-beating
knowledge companies back home one day. The same goes for just about any
other industry.

[abelard]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:53:02 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:

>> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>>
>> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>> pre-eminence in that capital
>>
>
>Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge,
>and the creative application thereof.

i'm very content with that translation

>And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.

certainly...however, we do still have that advantage as of today...

the more the west votes in socialist governments, the quicker
it will erode

>We have been coasting for a while now, content to bask in apparent
>growth and gains from new industries such as IT, and happy to indulge in
>collective navel-gazing. Societies such as ours whose education systems
>put a premium on inclusiveness and on turning out happy well-adjusted
>kids who feel good about themselves rather than young citizens who know
>how to read and write properly and who have a good grounding in the
>sciences .... well, societies like that will not last very long. We
>have masked the effects of such disastrous educational policies by using
>our inherited capital wealth to lure the actually well-educated talent
>from the developing and emerging nations into working for us -- but that
>cannot last. Indian IT workers without whom Silicon Valley would not
>exist may be happy to take US dollars for now, but they are building up
>the experience, the wealth and the contacts to build world-beating
>knowledge companies back home one day. The same goes for just about any
>other industry.

i'm arguing with none of that


--
www.abelard.org

[Alex W.]

On 16/03/2016 17:02, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:53:02 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:
>
>>> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>>>
>>> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>>> pre-eminence in that capital
>>>
>>
>> Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge,
>> and the creative application thereof.
>
> i'm very content with that translation
>
>> And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.
>
> certainly...however, we do still have that advantage as of today...
>
> the more the west votes in socialist governments, the quicker
> it will erode

Firstly, I have noted that you do appear to be somewhat hazy on the
proper definition and usage of the term "socialist".

Secondly, I would like to point out that a major reason for the relative
underperformance of Americans in tertiary education is the sheer cost of
studying. US colleges being free to charge "what the market will bear"
is a massive deterrent and a huge barrier to young Americans who want to
study and who would help the country maintain its lead in the knowledge
race ... but who simply cannot afford it.

[abelard]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:07:48 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:

>On 16/03/2016 17:02, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:53:02 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/03/2016 11:25, abelard wrote:
>>
>>>> but production is a function of work, resources and intelligence...
>>>>
>>>> the last of those still appears unlimited and the west still has
>>>> pre-eminence in that capital
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not intelligence -- that is equal everywhere -- but rather knowledge,
>>> and the creative application thereof.
>>
>> i'm very content with that translation
>>
>>> And on that score, we are losing our advantage, FAST.
>>
>> certainly...however, we do still have that advantage as of today...
>>
>> the more the west votes in socialist governments, the quicker
>> it will erode
>
>Firstly, I have noted that you do appear to be somewhat hazy on the
>proper definition and usage of the term "socialist".

try getting socialists to define socialism adequately

yitz tries a cheap dictionary...

i use years of speaking to them, years of reading about what
they actually do

as none of them tend to talk sense i decided to form a
definition myself and put that online
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist_religion.htm

if they(or you) don't like it...you can always try your own
alternate

virtually every time you(i) ask a socialist about a particular
socialist...they tell me that person is not a real(tm) socialist

without a sane working definition one can discuss nothing
coherently

>Secondly, I would like to point out that a major reason for the relative
>underperformance of Americans in tertiary education is the sheer cost of
>studying. US colleges being free to charge "what the market will bear"
>is a massive deterrent and a huge barrier to young Americans who want to
>study and who would help the country maintain its lead in the knowledge
>race ... but who simply cannot afford it.

the usa produces most of the advanced work around the world

every society has far more sheep than high level producers...
most people don't want to do the necessary work...

society is entirely dependent on very few people for real
advance

american books where it matters are often decades ahead of
british books



--
www.abelard.org

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <dktaag...@mid.individual.net>,

Yep. Foreigners getting degrees in US universities used to stay and
contribute to the US economy. Now, more and more of them are going home
and building the economies of their home countries.

[Alex W.]

You get it arse backwards.

You are the one with the "alternate" definition.

>
> virtually every time you(i) ask a socialist about a particular
> socialist...they tell me that person is not a real(tm) socialist
>
> without a sane working definition one can discuss nothing
> coherently
>
>> Secondly, I would like to point out that a major reason for the relative
>> underperformance of Americans in tertiary education is the sheer cost of
>> studying. US colleges being free to charge "what the market will bear"
>> is a massive deterrent and a huge barrier to young Americans who want to
>> study and who would help the country maintain its lead in the knowledge
>> race ... but who simply cannot afford it.
>
> the usa produces most of the advanced work around the world

The USA ... but is it produced by Americans? A US company may own the
patents and market the blockbuster product, but that does not mean the
work this success rests on was done by Americans.

[abelard]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:04:00 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>

there you go you see.....no definition

>> virtually every time you(i) ask a socialist about a particular
>> socialist...they tell me that person is not a real(tm) socialist
>>
>> without a sane working definition one can discuss nothing
>> coherently
>>
>>> Secondly, I would like to point out that a major reason for the relative
>>> underperformance of Americans in tertiary education is the sheer cost of
>>> studying. US colleges being free to charge "what the market will bear"
>>> is a massive deterrent and a huge barrier to young Americans who want to
>>> study and who would help the country maintain its lead in the knowledge
>>> race ... but who simply cannot afford it.
>>
>> the usa produces most of the advanced work around the world
>
>The USA ... but is it produced by Americans? A US company may own the
>patents and market the blockbuster product, but that does not mean the
>work this success rests on was done by Americans.

why do you care...the usa controls most of the big international
corporations...
an idea that nobody uses is nothing but an idea...


--
www.abelard.org

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <dkvdoj...@mid.individual.net>,

And with foreign students going home instead of staying to work here in
greater numbers and foreign workers also returning home after building
their resumes, who is going to take their places if the fundies
completely destroy the teaching of actual facts, including those all
important science facts.?

[Alex W.]

It wouldn't actually be so bad if they went home.

Students from developing nations who go home after their studies help to
build nations. They build roads and hospitals, they staff civil
services, and they provide scarce and much-needed educated labour. All
this is of great benefit to our companies as they expand into those
markets. It means a larger and more lucrative local market, it reduces
the need for expensive in-house training schemes, it provides for better
infrastructure and services to operate their businesses.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <dkvmu6...@mid.individual.net>,

Of course, that's true.

But it's very bad for the US because now they're not doing it here,
helping the US stay on top.