I've often thought that, given that the Left has recently been discovering that there are limits to what can be achieved by means of social conditioning and social engineering ("nurture") they will turn to genetics to try and eliminate us. This is like a preliminary echo of that.
I had to chortle at some of the blatant misrepresentations of history. I'm glad you provided a finishing excerpt which mentioned the Tang. Ancient China is perhaps the prime example of a continuous culture which enjoyed market and statist periods. Without exception the market periods were more prosperous, and a less centralised and less authoritarian approach allowed merchants to use their own initiative to mitigate natural disasters like floods and famines.
The Tang encourages private production in farming. Cities like Chang’an became bustling commercial hubs. Tax policies were relatively light, and merchants gained social status. During this period, prosperity meant granaries were often well-stocked, and trade networks could import food during shortages- making famines less devastating than in more rigid systems. The Tang’s decline, though, saw increased state intervention and corruption, which weakened this resilience.
The Song Dynasty is perhaps the best example of the booming economies which thrive during market periods. It was typical of early capitalist periods- paper money introduced but without excessive money printing, private workshops flourished, and agricultural output soared with new rice strains. The population doubled, and urban centres thrived. This economic flexibility allowed the Song to weather natural disasters better than most. For instance, during floods or droughts, merchants could redirect grain via extensive river networks, and local officials often relied on private initiative rather than centralized edicts. Contrast this with statist periods, where rigid quotas and hoarding by elites often exacerbated famines.
Generally, market-oriented eras tended to decentralize decision-making, letting farmers and traders respond quickly to crises. Surplus production and trade networks acted as shock absorbers- when one region failed, another could step in. Statist periods, by contrast, often funnelled resources to the state or elites, leaving little slack for disaster recovery. Data from historical records (like the Twenty-Four Histories) shows lower famine mortality in market-leaning dynasties like the Song compared to, say, the Qin or late Ming, though exact numbers are hard to pin down.
Ironically, he does have a point about genetic differences between social conservatives and liberal brains. Conservatives have larger amygdala's meaning that they are more threat-aware of other humans and the innate capacity for evil in human nature, although liberals generally dismiss this as being 'fearful'. This difference is why liberal world travellers are far more prone to being kidnapped, raped, trafficked, murdered and beheaded, as they dismiss well-founded State Department warnings on travel in many regions. What the Left and Left-leaning liberals presume are universal human values are often unique aspects of Western culture. Civic nationalism is implicitly tied to the classically liberal Judeo-Christian values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights (although modern political thinking doesn't allow for a distinction between national feeling (patriotism) and nationalism, the latter of which usually results from wounded or imperilled national feeling). For the most part other parts of world either don't hold these values or don't sacralise them- most cultures are quite happy to be friendly and welcoming to travellers because they love tourist's money, but try to settle and take the better jobs usually reserved for their children, and animosity is sure to follow, unless you happen to be an attractive Western woman.
Left wing authoritarians are a distinct group from liberals. It's why we've seen such changes on the Left, as the fluffy liberals of the past have been replaced and cowed into submission by fear of Left Wing Authoritarians. It was long presumed that authoritarianism was an inherently Right Wing Trait. A 2021 study by Emory University psychologists, led by Thomas Costello, found that left-wing authoritarians share psychological traits with right-wing authoritarians, like dogmatism and intolerance of dissent, but differ in key ways. Leftists prone to authoritarianism were more likely to see the world as dangerous and feel intense, uncontrollable emotions under stress, contrasting with right-wing authoritarian's preference for social order and hierarchy. In many ways, the past decade in the West is yet another validation of horseshoe theory, first remarked upon by Bayard Taylor in the 1850s.
Thus far no work has been done to study the brains of LWAs. I'm sure the research will be fascinating if the work is ever done.
The Chinese Nationalists were Geoist in outlook; Sun Yat-sen was an open admirer of Henry George.
Chang Kai-shek implemented his policies in Taiwan. It was an easy sell, as much of the land was owned by Japanese who the majority Chinese population didn't much care for.
Seeing Taiwan outpace China for so many decades (until recent) tells me that the left took a hard wrong turn when they abandoned Geoism for Socialism.
Ever hear of Coase Theorem? Eric Weinstein's been arguing it recently as an alternative to UBI. I don't think most realise exactly what's coming in relation to AI and robots.
I'm generally in favour of LVT, but am probably going to annoy you when I argue a specific exemption for agriculture. Farms are incredibly competitive, in many ways they are now capital businesses. What's worse is that new entrants generally fail for entirely meritocratic reasons. Vertical farming failed. So did the high tech version of standard agricultural practices- the only person who made it work was Dyson, and then only because he's also running an energy business and growing 750 tonnes of strawberries in the luxury end.
Today in the West most farming falls into two categories. Green Revolution and what I would call Value Farming, generally consisting of smaller farms providing higher value goods for niche areas of the market- organic, restaurant grade or high quality.
My objections isn't ideological it's pragmatic. An imposition of an LVT which extends to farming essentially hands a huge comparative advantage to anyone not subject to LVT, which is a problem unless one can enforce LVT globally, handing a huge advantage to farmers outside the LVT zone.
In many ways this is similar to the old arguments which used to surround the Doha Round. Some economists place the economic value of implementing Doha at around $2000 per $1 spend compensating Western farmers for lost earnings from implementing Doha. What this fails to recognise is regulatory costs and burdens imposed by government in the West.
If we look at grains or wheat, by removing crop subsidies in Europe we might expect to see prices on bread rise by 14%. For fruits and vegetables the figure is lower at 11%. Subsidies are high on eggs, then meats, with milk possessing the highest level of subsidy. However, what this fails to recognise is the regulatory burden, and other externalities imposed by government and it's related structures. Put simply, farmers in many other parts of the world enjoy a 20% to 100% cost advantage, because of government mandates.
In other words, if farmers in North America and Europe had BOTH the subsidy and the cost disadvantage imposed by government removed, Doha wouldn't work- free from impediment and 'help' European and North America farmers possess is a significant comparative advantage in terms the costs of the goods they can produce. The best example of this is the way the American government has been handling the problem with egg production and the poultry. To say their approach is all wrong is an understatement.
So I would impose an LVT, but I would exempt all agricultural land which is currently productive- for either growing or grazing. I do concede there is specific exception in relation to landholders who lease- it's a form of rentier economics which is becoming increasingly common in many managed portfolios, and there is an argument that widespread tenancy farming is a reversion to what might be called an aristocracy of capital interests. An LVT for landholders who don't farm the land themselves would probably be a good idea, and this could also be more broadly applied to corporations involved in agricultural production.
One of the great tragedy of our times is that regulatory burdens have been applied unequally in the West. Generally smaller farms have been hit with far higher costs imposed by government- and not just because of economies of scale. Farming can be a lot more heterodox in the ways it creates value, and, as a general rule, where uniformity has been imposed it's been imposed for the benefit of farming at scale and in favour of corporate interests. American egg washing requirements is a fairly straightforward example, because it also reduces the quality and shelf-life of the eggs. It's why European eggs are tastier. Removing the cuticle makes eggs degrade faster, meaning that at point of sale eggs in America are often already less fresh. The mandate also redefines safety signals making them the responsibility of bureaucrats to enforce through grading. Cuticle washing adds 5% to 10% to cost to retail cost, once costs like refrigeration and other supply chain costs are factored in.
Egg washing also indirectly pushes contagion risk. Any form of push towards scale and centralisation in agriculture does. This is why I stated early that regulatory burdens don't favour small farms. The chances of contagion for small farms are very small compared to megafarms- this applies across the board for all forms of animal farming. An agricultural sector which is composed of smaller farms is antifragile in terms of contagion, an agricultural sector composed of large players is not. Yet small farms are often the target of enforcements measures like culls, when they don't have the contagion and aren't the ones who've been systemically increasing risk.
I can't argue against you too strongly; you've obviously given this a lot of thought.
I don't personally mind giving farmers a break. A lot of my family is country. I just don't want to see giant corporations owning all the farmland and charging rent to the rest of us for the privilege of eating.
That's why I added a bit about landholders leasing, corporations and rentier economics. It's also worth noting that the West currently hands corporations a tax advantage compared to family farms- especially in areas like CGT.
One way to do it would be to calculate the upper range limit of a family farm and then use that as ceiling for an agricultural LVT exemption. Corporations and other rich private landholders would be above this threshold and they would have to pay LVT because of their scale.
It seems like me, you're sympathetic to family farms. Here's a couple of things I managed to uncover. A lot of the problem is vertical integration. By 2005, the USDA estimated 41% of agricultural commodities were produced under contracts, up from 31% in 1993. Corporations like Tyson or Smithfield don’t always own the land but exert control through contracts with farmers, dictating production and pricing.
Second, agricultural subsidies disproportionately benefit larger players. Agricultural subsidies in the US have hovered around £20 billion for the last few decades. Between 1995 and 2009 the largest 10% of operations received 74% of all subsidies.
Your LVT could work, if there's an an exemption for family-sized farms, as could a shift in subsidies. Subsidies favour commodity crops which favour scale- as a shift towards a wider range of crops would help family farms.
One of the big problems is that the USDA s long been seen as favouring larger operations, so it's worth thinking about ways to use non-institutional instruments to effect change. It seems like you're in the right neighbourhood thinking about LVT.
I've been doing research for a while on the subject, because here in the UK our government has been damaging farmer's interests for a while through alignment with the climate agenda and the EU's insane Farm to Fork 2030 agenda. It just got a whole lot worse with the new Labour government. Keir Starmer even held a meeting with Blackrock and it looks like they've set-up a fund to buy up farmer's land, as the farmers are forced to sell because of the new inheritance tax changes. They want the land to build new housing.
Fascinating and important insight. Is there any way your research could inform lobbyists against the Labour reforms? Is there any such group or are you a voice in the wilderness at present?
I generally just write a piece on Substack dealing with the issues involved, and then rely on other more prominent Substack writers to launch articles on the subject. Timing seems to be the main factor. A while back I was one of the first to publish on the Dutch farmers, about two weeks before the main wave hit.
That's fine, it's the research side of things I really enjoy, and my main aim is to develop a clear voice in writing for a sci fi novel. AI has really helped on the research side. I used to spend hours painstakingly trawling the internet for research materials. With the right questions and pre-existing knowledge in a particular subject matter I can now unearth a huge amount of material in under an hour.
I do plan to take action on the UK farming issue and how it relates to the Housing Crisis and what is effectively a land grab by government. All the info is out there. The Guardian wrote a piece about planning changes and called planning uplift (price changes through change of usage) the 'hope' value. The more intelligent UK right-leaning publications are aware of the problem. I think they, like me, they are waiting for a suitable media event to launch into the subject material.
If an opportunity doesn't present itself in a reasonable timespan I will probably contact the National Farmers Union and go hunting for a sympathetic family farm hurt by the changes, and the intentions behind them.
Of course, all of this stems back to a genuine structural problem. An acre of building land in the South of England can cost £1 million, and in the North of England the figure was closer to £300k and rising, last time I checked. And contrary to the popular imagination, there is plenty of suitable land for building in the UK- we just have archaic and stifling planning laws, much like those of many of the blue states where housing in is high demand.
The correct answer is a more libertarian approach to planning, from which many people with disused or underutilised land could moderately benefit. Instead the government seems to be pursuing an approach designed to make local councils look like the good guys, riding to the rescue on a white charger. The problem is that this tramples on the property rights of existing landholders.
But yes, I am pretty much a voice in the wilderness., although in the past I have benefited from getting the timing right to grow my readership. I have almost no X or other social media presence, but have managed to get my readership up to 730 unpaid subscribers.
The Omnivore's Dilemma suggested that subsidies have been the primve mover behind transforming the American midwest from a patchwork quilt of small family farms to a monoculture of F1 Hybrid Corn, as well as the vertical integration you mentioned. The state distorts markets by picking winners and losers. 86ing the subsidies can only improve things.
That's the tough part. There's no major constituency dedicated to getting rid of a 5-cent per bushel spinach subsidy, but you can bet those receiving the largesse will fight tooth and nail to keep it.
More power to you. At present I’m cancelling subscriptions to reduce Substack noise, and but for that I’d happily subscribe myself, and may indeed do so in the future. Hopefully you can grow a readership quickly if you do get the timing right.
This guy's desperately wishing there was some group of people he had permission to be racist against---wants it even more than actual racist right wingers, who after all wouldn't have come up with the idea of black people if they didn't already exist.
- Red vs. blue pilled = knows HBD/hidden facts vs. not
- Big brain vs. retarded = high vs low smarts
These can all combine in every way, so Trump trying to annex Greenland/Canada is based (macho to hostile takeover) but retarded (offensive to longtime allies, economically unwise) (and neither red or blue pilled).
"They are fearful, emotional, biased, stupid, closed minded and every other negative adjective."
Of course, this could be accurately said about leftists.
"Who cares about races, let's talk about the genetic differences between leftists and rightists, and then impose a strong reading of history where leaders and societies can be neatly classified into one of these two modern categories."
Who cares about leftists or rightists...Realists unite.
I have never seen such an example of someone who lives in the eternal now than delegating ancient empires as either leftist or rightest.
I've often thought that, given that the Left has recently been discovering that there are limits to what can be achieved by means of social conditioning and social engineering ("nurture") they will turn to genetics to try and eliminate us. This is like a preliminary echo of that.
I had to chortle at some of the blatant misrepresentations of history. I'm glad you provided a finishing excerpt which mentioned the Tang. Ancient China is perhaps the prime example of a continuous culture which enjoyed market and statist periods. Without exception the market periods were more prosperous, and a less centralised and less authoritarian approach allowed merchants to use their own initiative to mitigate natural disasters like floods and famines.
The Tang encourages private production in farming. Cities like Chang’an became bustling commercial hubs. Tax policies were relatively light, and merchants gained social status. During this period, prosperity meant granaries were often well-stocked, and trade networks could import food during shortages- making famines less devastating than in more rigid systems. The Tang’s decline, though, saw increased state intervention and corruption, which weakened this resilience.
The Song Dynasty is perhaps the best example of the booming economies which thrive during market periods. It was typical of early capitalist periods- paper money introduced but without excessive money printing, private workshops flourished, and agricultural output soared with new rice strains. The population doubled, and urban centres thrived. This economic flexibility allowed the Song to weather natural disasters better than most. For instance, during floods or droughts, merchants could redirect grain via extensive river networks, and local officials often relied on private initiative rather than centralized edicts. Contrast this with statist periods, where rigid quotas and hoarding by elites often exacerbated famines.
Generally, market-oriented eras tended to decentralize decision-making, letting farmers and traders respond quickly to crises. Surplus production and trade networks acted as shock absorbers- when one region failed, another could step in. Statist periods, by contrast, often funnelled resources to the state or elites, leaving little slack for disaster recovery. Data from historical records (like the Twenty-Four Histories) shows lower famine mortality in market-leaning dynasties like the Song compared to, say, the Qin or late Ming, though exact numbers are hard to pin down.
Ironically, he does have a point about genetic differences between social conservatives and liberal brains. Conservatives have larger amygdala's meaning that they are more threat-aware of other humans and the innate capacity for evil in human nature, although liberals generally dismiss this as being 'fearful'. This difference is why liberal world travellers are far more prone to being kidnapped, raped, trafficked, murdered and beheaded, as they dismiss well-founded State Department warnings on travel in many regions. What the Left and Left-leaning liberals presume are universal human values are often unique aspects of Western culture. Civic nationalism is implicitly tied to the classically liberal Judeo-Christian values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights (although modern political thinking doesn't allow for a distinction between national feeling (patriotism) and nationalism, the latter of which usually results from wounded or imperilled national feeling). For the most part other parts of world either don't hold these values or don't sacralise them- most cultures are quite happy to be friendly and welcoming to travellers because they love tourist's money, but try to settle and take the better jobs usually reserved for their children, and animosity is sure to follow, unless you happen to be an attractive Western woman.
Left wing authoritarians are a distinct group from liberals. It's why we've seen such changes on the Left, as the fluffy liberals of the past have been replaced and cowed into submission by fear of Left Wing Authoritarians. It was long presumed that authoritarianism was an inherently Right Wing Trait. A 2021 study by Emory University psychologists, led by Thomas Costello, found that left-wing authoritarians share psychological traits with right-wing authoritarians, like dogmatism and intolerance of dissent, but differ in key ways. Leftists prone to authoritarianism were more likely to see the world as dangerous and feel intense, uncontrollable emotions under stress, contrasting with right-wing authoritarian's preference for social order and hierarchy. In many ways, the past decade in the West is yet another validation of horseshoe theory, first remarked upon by Bayard Taylor in the 1850s.
Thus far no work has been done to study the brains of LWAs. I'm sure the research will be fascinating if the work is ever done.
The Chinese Nationalists were Geoist in outlook; Sun Yat-sen was an open admirer of Henry George.
Chang Kai-shek implemented his policies in Taiwan. It was an easy sell, as much of the land was owned by Japanese who the majority Chinese population didn't much care for.
Seeing Taiwan outpace China for so many decades (until recent) tells me that the left took a hard wrong turn when they abandoned Geoism for Socialism.
Ever hear of Coase Theorem? Eric Weinstein's been arguing it recently as an alternative to UBI. I don't think most realise exactly what's coming in relation to AI and robots.
I'm generally in favour of LVT, but am probably going to annoy you when I argue a specific exemption for agriculture. Farms are incredibly competitive, in many ways they are now capital businesses. What's worse is that new entrants generally fail for entirely meritocratic reasons. Vertical farming failed. So did the high tech version of standard agricultural practices- the only person who made it work was Dyson, and then only because he's also running an energy business and growing 750 tonnes of strawberries in the luxury end.
Today in the West most farming falls into two categories. Green Revolution and what I would call Value Farming, generally consisting of smaller farms providing higher value goods for niche areas of the market- organic, restaurant grade or high quality.
My objections isn't ideological it's pragmatic. An imposition of an LVT which extends to farming essentially hands a huge comparative advantage to anyone not subject to LVT, which is a problem unless one can enforce LVT globally, handing a huge advantage to farmers outside the LVT zone.
In many ways this is similar to the old arguments which used to surround the Doha Round. Some economists place the economic value of implementing Doha at around $2000 per $1 spend compensating Western farmers for lost earnings from implementing Doha. What this fails to recognise is regulatory costs and burdens imposed by government in the West.
If we look at grains or wheat, by removing crop subsidies in Europe we might expect to see prices on bread rise by 14%. For fruits and vegetables the figure is lower at 11%. Subsidies are high on eggs, then meats, with milk possessing the highest level of subsidy. However, what this fails to recognise is the regulatory burden, and other externalities imposed by government and it's related structures. Put simply, farmers in many other parts of the world enjoy a 20% to 100% cost advantage, because of government mandates.
In other words, if farmers in North America and Europe had BOTH the subsidy and the cost disadvantage imposed by government removed, Doha wouldn't work- free from impediment and 'help' European and North America farmers possess is a significant comparative advantage in terms the costs of the goods they can produce. The best example of this is the way the American government has been handling the problem with egg production and the poultry. To say their approach is all wrong is an understatement.
So I would impose an LVT, but I would exempt all agricultural land which is currently productive- for either growing or grazing. I do concede there is specific exception in relation to landholders who lease- it's a form of rentier economics which is becoming increasingly common in many managed portfolios, and there is an argument that widespread tenancy farming is a reversion to what might be called an aristocracy of capital interests. An LVT for landholders who don't farm the land themselves would probably be a good idea, and this could also be more broadly applied to corporations involved in agricultural production.
One of the great tragedy of our times is that regulatory burdens have been applied unequally in the West. Generally smaller farms have been hit with far higher costs imposed by government- and not just because of economies of scale. Farming can be a lot more heterodox in the ways it creates value, and, as a general rule, where uniformity has been imposed it's been imposed for the benefit of farming at scale and in favour of corporate interests. American egg washing requirements is a fairly straightforward example, because it also reduces the quality and shelf-life of the eggs. It's why European eggs are tastier. Removing the cuticle makes eggs degrade faster, meaning that at point of sale eggs in America are often already less fresh. The mandate also redefines safety signals making them the responsibility of bureaucrats to enforce through grading. Cuticle washing adds 5% to 10% to cost to retail cost, once costs like refrigeration and other supply chain costs are factored in.
Egg washing also indirectly pushes contagion risk. Any form of push towards scale and centralisation in agriculture does. This is why I stated early that regulatory burdens don't favour small farms. The chances of contagion for small farms are very small compared to megafarms- this applies across the board for all forms of animal farming. An agricultural sector which is composed of smaller farms is antifragile in terms of contagion, an agricultural sector composed of large players is not. Yet small farms are often the target of enforcements measures like culls, when they don't have the contagion and aren't the ones who've been systemically increasing risk.
I can't argue against you too strongly; you've obviously given this a lot of thought.
I don't personally mind giving farmers a break. A lot of my family is country. I just don't want to see giant corporations owning all the farmland and charging rent to the rest of us for the privilege of eating.
Seems like you're hip to that risk, though.
That's why I added a bit about landholders leasing, corporations and rentier economics. It's also worth noting that the West currently hands corporations a tax advantage compared to family farms- especially in areas like CGT.
One way to do it would be to calculate the upper range limit of a family farm and then use that as ceiling for an agricultural LVT exemption. Corporations and other rich private landholders would be above this threshold and they would have to pay LVT because of their scale.
It seems like me, you're sympathetic to family farms. Here's a couple of things I managed to uncover. A lot of the problem is vertical integration. By 2005, the USDA estimated 41% of agricultural commodities were produced under contracts, up from 31% in 1993. Corporations like Tyson or Smithfield don’t always own the land but exert control through contracts with farmers, dictating production and pricing.
Second, agricultural subsidies disproportionately benefit larger players. Agricultural subsidies in the US have hovered around £20 billion for the last few decades. Between 1995 and 2009 the largest 10% of operations received 74% of all subsidies.
Your LVT could work, if there's an an exemption for family-sized farms, as could a shift in subsidies. Subsidies favour commodity crops which favour scale- as a shift towards a wider range of crops would help family farms.
One of the big problems is that the USDA s long been seen as favouring larger operations, so it's worth thinking about ways to use non-institutional instruments to effect change. It seems like you're in the right neighbourhood thinking about LVT.
I've been doing research for a while on the subject, because here in the UK our government has been damaging farmer's interests for a while through alignment with the climate agenda and the EU's insane Farm to Fork 2030 agenda. It just got a whole lot worse with the new Labour government. Keir Starmer even held a meeting with Blackrock and it looks like they've set-up a fund to buy up farmer's land, as the farmers are forced to sell because of the new inheritance tax changes. They want the land to build new housing.
Fascinating and important insight. Is there any way your research could inform lobbyists against the Labour reforms? Is there any such group or are you a voice in the wilderness at present?
I generally just write a piece on Substack dealing with the issues involved, and then rely on other more prominent Substack writers to launch articles on the subject. Timing seems to be the main factor. A while back I was one of the first to publish on the Dutch farmers, about two weeks before the main wave hit.
That's fine, it's the research side of things I really enjoy, and my main aim is to develop a clear voice in writing for a sci fi novel. AI has really helped on the research side. I used to spend hours painstakingly trawling the internet for research materials. With the right questions and pre-existing knowledge in a particular subject matter I can now unearth a huge amount of material in under an hour.
I do plan to take action on the UK farming issue and how it relates to the Housing Crisis and what is effectively a land grab by government. All the info is out there. The Guardian wrote a piece about planning changes and called planning uplift (price changes through change of usage) the 'hope' value. The more intelligent UK right-leaning publications are aware of the problem. I think they, like me, they are waiting for a suitable media event to launch into the subject material.
If an opportunity doesn't present itself in a reasonable timespan I will probably contact the National Farmers Union and go hunting for a sympathetic family farm hurt by the changes, and the intentions behind them.
Of course, all of this stems back to a genuine structural problem. An acre of building land in the South of England can cost £1 million, and in the North of England the figure was closer to £300k and rising, last time I checked. And contrary to the popular imagination, there is plenty of suitable land for building in the UK- we just have archaic and stifling planning laws, much like those of many of the blue states where housing in is high demand.
The correct answer is a more libertarian approach to planning, from which many people with disused or underutilised land could moderately benefit. Instead the government seems to be pursuing an approach designed to make local councils look like the good guys, riding to the rescue on a white charger. The problem is that this tramples on the property rights of existing landholders.
But yes, I am pretty much a voice in the wilderness., although in the past I have benefited from getting the timing right to grow my readership. I have almost no X or other social media presence, but have managed to get my readership up to 730 unpaid subscribers.
The Omnivore's Dilemma suggested that subsidies have been the primve mover behind transforming the American midwest from a patchwork quilt of small family farms to a monoculture of F1 Hybrid Corn, as well as the vertical integration you mentioned. The state distorts markets by picking winners and losers. 86ing the subsidies can only improve things.
That's the tough part. There's no major constituency dedicated to getting rid of a 5-cent per bushel spinach subsidy, but you can bet those receiving the largesse will fight tooth and nail to keep it.
More power to you. At present I’m cancelling subscriptions to reduce Substack noise, and but for that I’d happily subscribe myself, and may indeed do so in the future. Hopefully you can grow a readership quickly if you do get the timing right.
This guy's desperately wishing there was some group of people he had permission to be racist against---wants it even more than actual racist right wingers, who after all wouldn't have come up with the idea of black people if they didn't already exist.
Proof that POL POT DID NOTHING WRONG.
“In just 200 pages Ryan argues his case that rightists are archaic humans that are biologically and psychologically distinct.”
Libtard Erectus Walks Among Us
I’m gonna go harass him.
Psychological testing from birth? Dude can't even see the tyrant in the mirror.
"Based and retarded." I thought that "based" was supposed to be good.
In some meme use:
- Based vs. cringe = macho vs. weak
- Red vs. blue pilled = knows HBD/hidden facts vs. not
- Big brain vs. retarded = high vs low smarts
These can all combine in every way, so Trump trying to annex Greenland/Canada is based (macho to hostile takeover) but retarded (offensive to longtime allies, economically unwise) (and neither red or blue pilled).
"They are fearful, emotional, biased, stupid, closed minded and every other negative adjective."
Of course, this could be accurately said about leftists.
"Who cares about races, let's talk about the genetic differences between leftists and rightists, and then impose a strong reading of history where leaders and societies can be neatly classified into one of these two modern categories."
Who cares about leftists or rightists...Realists unite.
> if a bit unhinged
A bit? Stalin had nothing on him as far as *ideas* go.