Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "Triggernometry"
channel.
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@matteymat In a case where someone isn't as well informed as can be, the right thing is to at least ask the right questions, and Kisin certainly did. He repeatedly challenged them to explain why manufacturing should not be re-shored and they repeatedly steered clear, revealing themselves completely.
Offshoring results in more pollution of every type because when China needs more electricity to satisfy Western demand—and remember, Western consumption is far higher than it would be without globalization, because globalization means the West can afford to pay for many, many more shiploads of Chinese stuff—when it needs more power, I say, it simply digs more coal out of the ground, or pays Russia, Australia or Canada to do it, builds several more generating stations, and proceeds to burn it without restraint or proper environmental controls at all. As Kisin pointed out, British managers of energy production and goods-producing factories would do it much more cleanly.
So when offshoring of manufacturing drives down domestic rates of pollution, people like Kisin's interlocutors support it, patting themselves on the back even though the situation has actually worsened from an environmental perspective, as well as from economic, social and national security perspectives. I'm certain the Chinese political leadership just can't believe how fortunate it is, having the West act totally against its own interests and in favour of those of China itself. It's an ongoing, stunning, total victory for them.
You don't need to be a genius to realize all this, you just need ordinary good sense and a sufficient lack of desire to run with the herd and parade your sanctimony. That panel, almost all the media, and almost all political leadership are shameless panderers to mentally ill neo-Marxist bullies. The fact of this is crying out for a full explanation.
He trapped them and they got mad at him because they know he's right. If they really believed otherwise they would have addressed his question directly in a friendly manner, wishing to help him understand. But they were only concerned with protecting their rhetorical 'sunk costs' (their investment, metaphorically speaking) in globalist policies and left-activist dogma. The latter two things are actually not even a match for each other. Indeed they're very much at odds, which is why anyone trying to stand behind both of them simultaneously has to perform the most awkward and embarrassing contortions to get through even a minute of debate.
Anyone could see all these things I've pointed out about these people from the heights of space, unless he or she were a total hypocrite not on speaking terms with the truth. And that's a good way of describing them—as well as perhaps half the population, perhaps more.
The fact that Kisin is rising out of total obscurity and into prominence is really somewhat heartening. Now just watch as they gang up on him to annihilate his reputation. Smooth-talking savages that they are, It's the tactic they rely upon most.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I agree with 'left-libertarian'. But 'classical liberal' is quite a tricky term. I think you, like Dave Rubin and some others, use it to mean the moderate mainstream liberalism of the 1960s-90s. Kennedy liberalism, I guess.
But classical liberalism really means the liberalism of the later 19th century which favoured free enterprise, free speech, public schools, and so on—but which was socially conservative and would have blanched in horror at the size of today's governments, today's levels of taxation, today's social permissiveness.
So classical liberalism was very conservative by today's standards despite the fact that in large part it's where today's liberalism came out of. (Today's liberalism also in part came out of Marxism/socialism, but in pretty bleached-out form obviously.)
When people use the modern term 'neo-liberal' disparagingly to refer to what are really today's somewhat moderate right-wing libertarians, they are basically accusing them of resembling the classical liberals of 150 years ago.
I hope all this is clear, but if it's not, think of an analogy with how Democrats and Republicans in America switched places in fundamental ways about a century ago. The word 'liberal' really changed in meaning around the same time as well.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3