SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Small town Republican thoughts on refuting the alt-right. In The Republican Journal:
I want to make one thing very clear: The Waldo County Republican Committee absolutely, unequivocally condemns Nazi and KKK ideologies and actions, as well as any other kind of bigotry, and we encourage all of our voters and the community at large to do the same.
For fellow Republicans out there, worry not, we don't like Antifa's ideology and actions either, but we need to clean our own house; we need to worry about our own responsibilities.
Such honesty, and clarity of thought!
The most dangerous part of politics today is identity politics, trolling, pathos and a severe lack of critical thinking. You cannot defeat the insidious hatred of bigoted politics with more hate. By doing so, you morph the conversation away from policy and ideology to silly label syntax, eventually devolving completely into back and forth verbal gymnastics. Make no mistake, these trolls are ready for you as you stoop to their level, and they beat you up with mountains of experience.
So what do we do? Very simple. Stay neighborly by controlling your reaction. Seek out those with whom you disagree, try to understand them first, and politely offer your counter argument.
And it looks like the Republicans in Maine, if not in Illinois, are rejecting the alt-right.
The way to defeat Mr. Kawczynski is not by attacking him, but by attacking his ideas. Here are some flaws in his thinking: His immigration ideas are antithetical to the Maine Republican party platform, a section of which states, "We support the assimilation of legal immigrants into Maine society."
Kawczynski's ideas stand in contrast to Maine history and culture; in fact, it is white folks with racist ideologies who pose the greatest threat to Maine's foundation, not other races of people.
Another brilliant tidbit:
Ultimately, all you have to do is walk outside with your eyes open in this state to see that Kawczynski's fearmongering about "white genocide" is completely laughable.
Entire guest column is well worth a read.
(Score: 2, Informative) by bradley13 on Friday February 09 2018, @01:44PM (15 children)
This looks like desperate virtue-signalling by a bunch of "cuckservatives". Which is a denigrating term applied to people who claim to be conservative, but don't have the guts to object to progressive politics.
Mr. Kawczynski is sort of a mild "alt-right", what those in the alt-right refer to as "alt-west". In Maine, he apparently founded the group New Albion [newalbion.org], which lists its values as:
Really, there's nothing in there that ought to be controversial. Western, European culture is what Maine has, and it is something to be proud of. That doesn't prevent other people, in other places, from taking pride in their cultures. Culture in New England is European, and people like Mr. Kawczynski take pride in that.
Looking at some of the articles on the New Albion site, the most controversial one I could find is entitled "First Thoughts on White Civil Rights". The title is deliberate, because the article is protesting precisely the fact that you can support any race except "white". Why should it be possible to have black pride, but not white pride? Why should affirmative action exist? What's wrong with a level playing ground? Whatever answers you prefer, there is nothing wrong with asking these questions. Ultimately, the article simply calls for "the equal protections of all races".
Reading TFA, it seems that the Cuckservatives absolutely must distance themselves from Mr. Kawczynski, because they desperately do not want to be seen as impolite.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Friday February 09 2018, @02:56PM
There are both rational and "true believer" people on both sides of the gap. And what true believers hate the most is not the opposing side — it's "traitors" in their own camp. For them, there's nothing worse than sowing some doubt in their message. That's why Damore (a strong leftist) was dealt with so harshly — and you just provided a fine example of alt-right denigrating those who dare to "cuck" by discussing with the other side.
It's usually easy to tell whether someone is such a true believer, and in the current state of politics, trying to persuade such people appears to be futile. Those who are willing to admit that in at least some matters they could possibly be wrong, though, can engage in productive talks.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday February 09 2018, @03:23PM (2 children)
I've never heard that phrase before. The best supported definition of "alt-right," last I looked, included racism as a component so I would not identify with it, but some people (and not only the regressive left) use it much more broadly. In many cases, the motive is explicitly propagandistic - it's done as a conscious effort to smear any and all opposition as similarly racist.
"Really, there's nothing in there that ought to be controversial."
True, and this is how extremism on one side feeds extremism on the other. Not that long ago 'racist' was taboo, a really bad word, a hateful insult that no one wanted to be called. It still is, for some of us. But some, particularly the regressive leftists, have overused that, extended it to the point it became ridiculous, and worn that taboo away. People got used to the fact that anyone that disagreed with any of the radical regressivists dogma is going to be called a racist, and no one is shocked anymore. Does that mean that everyone is now racist? No, but it means those individuals who *are* racist now have a much easier time recruiting others to their beliefs. The taboo that inhibited them has been destroyed by overuse, much like the effectiveness of antibiotics can be destroyed by overuse.
"The title is deliberate, because the article is protesting precisely the fact that you can support any race except "white"."
Which brings up how sometimes half-way understanding something can be more dangerous than not understanding it at all. That sort of politically correct dogma reflects a view no less racist than that of the KKK or the Nazis. These people got the 'nazis are bad' message but completely mangled the 'racism is wrong' message and have become caricatures worthy of Goebbels.
"Ultimately, the article simply calls for "the equal protections of all races"."
There's only one (currently existent) human race, my friend. We're all in this together whether we like it or not.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday February 09 2018, @04:26PM (1 child)
"There's only one (currently existent) human race, my friend. We're all in this together whether we like it or not."
That's actually really nicely said. Kudos.
---
You know what we need? The classic trick to unite populations? We need an external enemy. An alien invasion or something. Works every time...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:17AM
Kudoes, or kudzu?
(Score: 2, Informative) by meustrus on Friday February 09 2018, @05:26PM (7 children)
You are making a huge mistake assuming that other Republicans agree with you. They don't. It's not a matter of "guts". It's a matter of what their moral and rational minds have always believed to be good policy.
Here are a few examples of policies that have been uncontroversially Republican for a good while now, but which I expect you would consider "progressive politics" anyway:
Not saying that I do or don't agree with these policies. But you'd be throwing out at least half of the Republican party by asserting that true Republicans oppose them.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Friday February 09 2018, @09:37PM (6 children)
Citation please.
For the record there is no american farmer selling crops overseas. They only sell to a local grainery. It's companies like Cargill that make all the markup between the domestic price and the international price and get filthy rich in the process.
An individual farmer would need something on the order of 125,000 acres in production (minimum) [25 million bushes] before any international buyer could seriously consider placing an order against a years production.
Free trade on commodities has almost no effect on the domestic price these days. (Pretty much all the impoverished countries are now self sufficient with regard to domestic cereal production).
There was an Alibaba direct sale of US cherry crop to China a few years ago ... China buyers apparently pay a lot more for cherries.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:27AM
Not strictly true, but true enough for your argument, I think. I have been party to transactions between individual farmers/ranchers and far off business partners. I haven't been party to any overseas transactions, but "international" would include US/Canada deals, as well as US/Mexico, and Canada/Mexico deals. But, the vast majority of farmers/ranchers tend to sell their product locally, because their financing and other debts are local. If the banker loans you twenty thousand against your season's harvest, you are kind of limited to arrangements that your banker approves of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:37AM (1 child)
Pretty much all the impoverished countries are now self sufficient with regard to domestic cereal production
In some places, crop yields are already down due to climate change.
Growing zones for crops are shifting toward the poles.
I heard someone on Pacifica Radio ("Alternative Radio"?? "Letters and Politics"??) talking about how there is a trade in virtual water via grain markets.
Things didn't sound all that self-sufficient to me.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:46AM
I don't know what THIS spring will deliver (been a lot harder this winter: much colder and a lot more snow... like when i was a kid, not like lately), but the last few years has seen a longer growing season here in Canada: moved up a whole 'planting zone', whatever it's called.
I like it! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday February 12 2018, @07:17PM (2 children)
From my local newspaper: Iowa corn farmers tell Trump: 'Don't withdraw from NAFTA' [desmoinesregister.com].
Commodity producers are a little smarter than you seem to think. They might sell local, but they know enough about the distribution chain to know that a lot of their product ends up overseas.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by PocketSizeSUn on Tuesday February 13 2018, @06:24AM (1 child)
That isn't true for Iowa corn, hence the huge ethanol subsidies, that's all local production. Include silage and domestic animal feed and that accounts for pretty much all the Iowa production.
From the article
NAFTA participation isn't going to do f* all to fix that. If Iowa is selling corn below cost to Mexico and Canada that is itself a violation of NAFTA anyway (selling below cost is called dumping). We call them commodities because there is no 'market differentiation' on these productions. Mexican corn and Canadian corn is just corn on the commodities market. Same as Iowa corn and Nebraska corn ... it's just corn.
https://www.iowacorn.org/media-page/corn-facts/ [iowacorn.org]
9% of Iowa corn leaves the state of Iowa. A *very* *very* small portion of that may even leave the country ... say 1%.
All told ... NAFTA participation by the US (as it is implemented today) is net loss for Iowa, not including the ~1% of Iowa corn that sold at a net loss.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday February 13 2018, @02:46PM
I'm not here to argue that NAFTA in particular or free trade in general are good or bad for agriculture. I'm here to argue that NAFTA in particular and free trade in general is favored by Republicans, especially farmers, in the state of Iowa and likely throughout the entire corn belt.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @08:08PM
Never been to Maine, I take it? Yes, there are some recent invaders, but they really don't identify much with their place of origin.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:38AM (1 child)
Do you understand that every single rational person dismisses you immediately as soon as you start throwing "cuck" around? That somehow manages to be even lower and less sophisticated than third-grade schoolyard banter.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @07:54AM
The origin of the term is revolting, but it does make an excellent metaphor. It's only a tad off due to some definitions of the non-metaphorical cuck not requiring the cuck to consent.
Here, a cuck is one who willingly allows himself to be exploited by others who are not related to him. For example, handing over this great nation to a bunch of foreigners instead of leaving it exclusively for the benefit of the next generation of normal (cultural, legal, etc.) Americans.
Metaphorically, there are no conservative cucks. Even with the original sexual meaning, if you rounded up a bunch of willing cucks and checked their politics, you wouldn't find a non-liberal.