21st Century Shit-Talking

Discussion in 'The Grand Chessboard' started by il ragno, Feb 11, 2018.

  1. il ragno Proud American Deplorable

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2010
    Message Count:
    Ratings Received:
    +9,123 / 30 / -85
    Regardless of whether it's late 20th or early 21st, if it's pretend-wisdom coughed up to generate a check, you can find it in the New York Times.

    The Times. A continuum of shit-talking; by shit-talkers, for shit-talkers. Two centuries running!

    David Brooks: All We Have to Do to Afford Unrestricted Immigration Is to Make ...
    FEBRUARY 9, 2018

    In the New York Times, David Brooks offers a ray of hope for you miserable American non-immigrant losers:

    So that’s why “the case for restricting immigration is pathetically weak,” as David recently explained in the NYT.

    See: that’s All We Have to Do.

    Just make everyone a Jeff Bezos. Why can’t everyone be a Richest Man in the World?

    Ask yourself: Has anyone even tried this solution yet?

    I didn’t think so!

    Like, uh … Elon Musk! And Mark Zuckerberg. (But not Donald Trump. What did he ever change?)

    And Steve Jobs, although not lately.


    It’s simply All We Have to Do to enjoy the new, improved America 2.0 of unrestricted immigration.

    Okay, to be frank, it’s actually a two-step process to make everyone a changemaker.

    All we have to do to make everyone a changemaker is to first make public schoolteachers much more like Bill Gates.

    A commenter explains:

    Yes, Brooks has really thinkfluenced the paradigm and doubled down on performant bandwidth this time… It bespeaks the quantum effects of failing better via lifehacking mindshare analytics for synergistic megascale blockchains. What an outliar!

    To which another commenter adds:

    Yes, his thought-matrix has vectors of intersectionality that can be cross-referenced not just to individual change-makers but to agglomerated groups of change-makers of every type.

    Ah, but then some alt-Right haterade-stirrer had to bring it up:

    I do see the advantages of adaptability. I really do. So, I can see where Brooks is coming from.

    But his idea of ‘changemaking’ (meant for white goyim) is passive, resigned, and weak. It means a people should just look AROUND THEM (and ABOVE THEM) and try to conform to new norms and modes forced on them by bigger forces such as oligarchic elitism and mass invaders.

    ‘Changemaking’ is useful but it must come after Chargetaking. A people must first take CHARGE of their nation, their borders, their narrative, and their meaning. And then, once they feel secure and united in tradition, identity, and purpose, only then should they be in changemaking mode. A people who have chargetaking get to choose in what ways they want to make changes in their society. The changes will not be made by sneering globalist elites(with no national loyalty) or by masses of invaders who just want to leech off the legacy of Historical Americans.

    A people with national sovereignty and autonomy have a say in how their nation should be changed for the better. They not only respond to changes but mold the changes. In contrast, a people without national sovereignty have no say in the changes all around them. Their only hope is to adapt to coercive changes that fundamentally alter the very meaning and culture of their nation. They have No Say in the change. Their only role is to nod along and follow along… like dogs.

    Now, Israel has both chargetaking and changemaking. Israelis are a very adaptive people in the global market place. They remain afloat with world currents and learn to swim and row. So, they are talented changemakers in that sense. But they have total charge of Israel. Israel has a definite meaning and purpose in terms of history and future. The changemakings are ultimately supposed to serve the well-being of Israel as a Jewish state for Jewish people and culture. The socio-economic adaptibility ultimately serves something bigger than GDP and consumerism.

    Among Jews, changemaking follows chargetaking. Indeed, if Brooks is purely about changemaking, why did he raise his son to serve in the IDF? Surely, if he looked all around him, he would have noticed he is living in America and surrounded by goyim. He should have forsaken his Jewishness and raised his kid to just go with the flow and assimilate and adapt to rest of America.

    But Jews didn’t just resign themselves to fitting in and adapting. They maintained their autonomy of identity and heritage and meaning. They took charge of what they are and what they must do to secure Jewish power and well-being.
    Sure, Jews were very adaptive as changemakers, but they didn’t just change in accordance to the whims of the larger goy society. If anything, they took charge and led in formulating the kind of changes that would best serve Jewish interests.

    So, people with chargetaking use changemaking to change the world to better serve their own identity and interests.

    But a people without chargetaking can only changemake to adapt to the Agenda and Narrative pushed onto them by OTHER people.

    What Brooks is really saying is “Leave the chargetaking to us Jews. We will keep taking charge, and we will decide what kinds of changes that America needs. As for you white goyim, just shut up and adapt to OUR vision of change.”

    I don’t like it. I think white people should wake up and go into chargetaking mode. Take charge and don’t let you and your people’s future to be determined by the likes of Brooks who is turning out to be a snake.

    One thing for sure, if globalism gets its way, everyone below the upper crust will only be making changes.

    We say to Brooks, ‘keep the changemaking’.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Blitzed: 45,839 Points (Irrefutable. Nice touch at the end.) Feb 12, 2018
    Bluto: 270,405 Points (fuckin' jews) Feb 12, 2018
    Prima Morte: 51,280 Points Feb 13, 2018 at 7:58 AM
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List

Share This Page