Zuby, who is a very smart guy, made note of something that is actually built into the name of this website (Culturcidal – our culture is committing suicide).
Thanks for writing this difficult to read column. I hardly think you're wrong. Even people who say things like; "well things look bad now, but America has always risen to the occasion," are living in the past. The people have changed. Programming instead of educating, spending- oops, I mean investing- in everything except balancing the budget. Is there one person who can dispute Ben Franklin's prediction when he said that our democracy will last until people figure out they can vote to raid the treasury? Esp now, with idiots in states like CA making it "ILLEGAL to ask if a person is a citizen of the United States." Why would someone on welfare not vote to raid the treasury since they're not paying Federal income tax? John, I have to agree with you, I believe this nation will implode, either through economic catastrophy or civil war. Our military won't even be powerful enough for a strong man to threaten much, except Canada and Mexico, and what would be the use in that?
We're on a glide path that will lead us right off of a cliff and the only thing we have to do to go over the edge is not change a thing. Unless people get that and make big changes, the only question is when it happens.
Seeing the writing on the wall is pretty clear; however, it's your closing paragraph that rings the bell.
"The reality is that even if it isn’t going to happen tomorrow, our country is on track to die and every politician, activist, and citizen should be starting with that same assumption when they come up with policies, ideas, and proposals. If anyone is not treating it with that level of seriousness, they’re out of touch with reality and that needs to change."
“First of all, there have always been a lot of liberals who want to see our current system leveled to the ground.”
Leftists - there have always been a lot of *leftists* who want to see the system leveled.
And now there are a lot more hard-core leftists. Decidedly il-liberal leftists.
The old-school liberals don’t actually want to see the system burned to the ground, they just want us to become Scandinavia. I don’t agree with them, but their goals aren’t insane, just wrong.
What these old-school liberals *are* guilty of is not pushing back against their pro-Hamas oppressor-oppressed cultural Marxist woke left wing, who as you say do want to burn the system to the ground, oblivious to the reality that 95%+ of them would be worse off and less happy if they got what they think they want.
You are actually the one being hyperbolic with your claim of “verified”.
I only agree with about 75% of them, and I disagree on the speed of the course, and I think it much more likely we muddle through, suboptimally, rather than crash.
But given what’s gone on the last few years, no reasonable person should rule out the possibility that he’s correct.
Really, so you disagree with 25% of the claims John has made. Tell me, please, which ones, and why? What factors do you see will allow the US to muddle through? I'm curious, and thanks, Andy G.
- per my note above, most “liberals” want to turn us into Scandinavia, they don’t want to burn it down completely (the hardcore leftists do, but they don’t yet dominate the Dem agenda, and imo at least for a while the Dems would/will get crushed at the polls if/when the leftists do fully take over control of the Dem Party).
- there are not “ multiple foreign countries including Russia and China among others spending enormous amounts of money to create chaos, … in America”, there is only one: China (whether other countries wish it or not, only China can afford to spend “enormous” amounts on this)
- while I detest wokeness, most surely including the wokeness that’s been introduced to the military, it’s not true that not “much effort is being put into making our military a better fighting force”; we still spend untold billions annually and still have the strongest military in the world.
- “the government is doing almost nothing to find out why, clean up the food supply, and increase the availability of healthy food”. While I agree the government is doing almost nothing to “clean up” the food supply, I am glad of that (government is involved in far too many things as it is). I think the assertion is completely overblown as a “major problem”. And there is more than enough healthy food available. That so many people don’t take advantage of that is primarily on them, and it would be bad if the government got much involved besides *perhaps* making better recommendations.
- “The Democrats are proposing radical, destabilizing ideas like getting rid of the Senate filibuster for legislation and stacking the Supreme Court that would likely lead to the end of America as a Republic with very little pushback on the Left”. While I agree getting rid of the filibuster would be bad, and the Dems are likely to do it next chance they have, that per se is not a radical idea, just a bad one. And in fact even on the left there has been pushback on stacking the Supreme Court.
- the most incorrect statement of all is this one: “we’re a nation embroiled in a rapid decline economically”. While we ain’t doing nearly as well as we could be, we are not even in decline economically, let alone *rapid* decline.
- this is wrong, too: “the chances of [us hanging] happening are nearly 100% unless our country radically shifts course”. A radical course shift not required, but a course correction *certainly* is. Th chances of “hanging” ain’t anywhere close to 100%, even as I agree they are a lot further from 0.01% than ever before.
The 4 factors I see allowing us to muddle through:
1. we are still in fact a rich, highly productive country.
2. all other major countries have even worse problems than ours
3. The American people still have ingenuity
4. We’ve been through somewhat similar hard times before, and we’ve pulled through.
Now I surely understand anyone who doesn’t accept my point 4, and I acknowledge there is certainly the possibility that I’m wrong - which is simply what I wrote in my first response reworded.
Thank you for your reply. Allow me a brief rebuttal on certain points, starting at the top. You say Dems will get crushed at the polls if Libs take over. If you believe the polls, Harris could win. Reparations? Price controls? DEI first? Walz has written that we need to abolish the electoral college. Biden spoke about term limits for SCJ, and the pushback was basically, well, that would violate separation of powers. The reason we are "muddling along" economically is we are living off the dollar being the world's reserve currency. With the national debt at $32 Trillion, increasing by another $2 Trillion this year, we are paying our bills by opening up new credit cards. Barack "monetized the debt," and got away with it. But eventually the world will realize we are printing Monopoly money and go crypto or something else. As far as military strength, look at the numbers. We are advanced in some tech, but recruiting is down, and with all the trashing of our country we are not raising enough young people who love this country enough to die for it. The "other times" we pulled through we were much more self-reliant and had survival skills, not very much anymore. Ignore the founding fathers' words if you want, but John Adams was right about our system of government being only for a religious, moral people. We don't have many of those people left, and they are aging out. Much rides on the election in three weeks, which will win? Thoughtful analysis and tough choices, or Santa Claus and magical thinking?
Andy, Why am I deemed hyperbolic when expressing my opinion regarding John’s opinions? I think I’m tired of having to base my opinions on other people’s opinions. I’d really like to see more fact based dialogue. When media is rife with opinions like “ liberals want to destroy our government and replace it with Marxism” or “conservatives want to destroy our democracy”, nothing good can come of it. These statements are “hyperbolic”
Everyone is so entrenched in their own opinions that they do not have any interest in facts. I agree that this is not a sustainable way forward. I, for one, yearn for those bucolic days of my youth when liberals and conservatives were capable of sitting down and having real discussions. Vitriol has led to stagnation. Our country is not healthy.
“I think I’m tired of having to base my opinions on other people’s opinions.”
Unfortunately for you, you’re kinda out of luck on that one. The halcyon days of the second half of the 20th century are long gone. To the extent it was true, or at least mostly true, then, journalists and the MSM no longer do facts, they pretty much only do opinions.
The closest thing left you can find is probably the WSJ if you want news that isn’t completely drenched in opinion bias. Partly the Internet is to blame for that, to be sure, but not solely.
The word hyperbolic referred almost exclusively to your assertion that he presented his opinions not just as “facts” but as “verified facts”.
For the record, I yearn for those “bucolic” days, too, but for reasons different than yours.
Back then, we were mostly having disagreements between the center- left and the center-right (plus a few “hardcore” right economic opinions coming from the classical liberals/libertarians that happen to be my crowd).
Today, the agenda on the left is largely driven by hardcore socialists and cultural Marxists spewing il-liberal oppressor-oppressed woke crap and seeking authoritarian solutions, including the suppression of free speech, to achieve their aims.
Meanwhile on the right *some* (and I emphasize only some) of the agenda is authoritarian populism seeking to impose their will - much of which is bad economics - via authoritarian means.
Social media is no doubt a factor in the vitriol, of course. But at least as big a reason is that the policy differences between the left and the right are MASSIVELY different than they used to be (as the Dem Party has moved way left on economic issues, and way to the left on identity politics crap) and authoritarianism is more and more seen as acceptable on both sides (again to be clear, it has MUCH greater acceptance on the left than on the right, but I can’t deny that it exists as a meaningful factor on the right, too).
Thanks for writing this difficult to read column. I hardly think you're wrong. Even people who say things like; "well things look bad now, but America has always risen to the occasion," are living in the past. The people have changed. Programming instead of educating, spending- oops, I mean investing- in everything except balancing the budget. Is there one person who can dispute Ben Franklin's prediction when he said that our democracy will last until people figure out they can vote to raid the treasury? Esp now, with idiots in states like CA making it "ILLEGAL to ask if a person is a citizen of the United States." Why would someone on welfare not vote to raid the treasury since they're not paying Federal income tax? John, I have to agree with you, I believe this nation will implode, either through economic catastrophy or civil war. Our military won't even be powerful enough for a strong man to threaten much, except Canada and Mexico, and what would be the use in that?
We're on a glide path that will lead us right off of a cliff and the only thing we have to do to go over the edge is not change a thing. Unless people get that and make big changes, the only question is when it happens.
Seeing the writing on the wall is pretty clear; however, it's your closing paragraph that rings the bell.
"The reality is that even if it isn’t going to happen tomorrow, our country is on track to die and every politician, activist, and citizen should be starting with that same assumption when they come up with policies, ideas, and proposals. If anyone is not treating it with that level of seriousness, they’re out of touch with reality and that needs to change."
“First of all, there have always been a lot of liberals who want to see our current system leveled to the ground.”
Leftists - there have always been a lot of *leftists* who want to see the system leveled.
And now there are a lot more hard-core leftists. Decidedly il-liberal leftists.
The old-school liberals don’t actually want to see the system burned to the ground, they just want us to become Scandinavia. I don’t agree with them, but their goals aren’t insane, just wrong.
What these old-school liberals *are* guilty of is not pushing back against their pro-Hamas oppressor-oppressed cultural Marxist woke left wing, who as you say do want to burn the system to the ground, oblivious to the reality that 95%+ of them would be worse off and less happy if they got what they think they want.
Same result, I grant you.
So many opinions presented as verified facts.
Seems to me they are presented as opinions.
You are actually the one being hyperbolic with your claim of “verified”.
I only agree with about 75% of them, and I disagree on the speed of the course, and I think it much more likely we muddle through, suboptimally, rather than crash.
But given what’s gone on the last few years, no reasonable person should rule out the possibility that he’s correct.
Really, so you disagree with 25% of the claims John has made. Tell me, please, which ones, and why? What factors do you see will allow the US to muddle through? I'm curious, and thanks, Andy G.
Which claims don’t I agree with:
- per my note above, most “liberals” want to turn us into Scandinavia, they don’t want to burn it down completely (the hardcore leftists do, but they don’t yet dominate the Dem agenda, and imo at least for a while the Dems would/will get crushed at the polls if/when the leftists do fully take over control of the Dem Party).
- there are not “ multiple foreign countries including Russia and China among others spending enormous amounts of money to create chaos, … in America”, there is only one: China (whether other countries wish it or not, only China can afford to spend “enormous” amounts on this)
- while I detest wokeness, most surely including the wokeness that’s been introduced to the military, it’s not true that not “much effort is being put into making our military a better fighting force”; we still spend untold billions annually and still have the strongest military in the world.
- “the government is doing almost nothing to find out why, clean up the food supply, and increase the availability of healthy food”. While I agree the government is doing almost nothing to “clean up” the food supply, I am glad of that (government is involved in far too many things as it is). I think the assertion is completely overblown as a “major problem”. And there is more than enough healthy food available. That so many people don’t take advantage of that is primarily on them, and it would be bad if the government got much involved besides *perhaps* making better recommendations.
- “The Democrats are proposing radical, destabilizing ideas like getting rid of the Senate filibuster for legislation and stacking the Supreme Court that would likely lead to the end of America as a Republic with very little pushback on the Left”. While I agree getting rid of the filibuster would be bad, and the Dems are likely to do it next chance they have, that per se is not a radical idea, just a bad one. And in fact even on the left there has been pushback on stacking the Supreme Court.
- the most incorrect statement of all is this one: “we’re a nation embroiled in a rapid decline economically”. While we ain’t doing nearly as well as we could be, we are not even in decline economically, let alone *rapid* decline.
- this is wrong, too: “the chances of [us hanging] happening are nearly 100% unless our country radically shifts course”. A radical course shift not required, but a course correction *certainly* is. Th chances of “hanging” ain’t anywhere close to 100%, even as I agree they are a lot further from 0.01% than ever before.
The 4 factors I see allowing us to muddle through:
1. we are still in fact a rich, highly productive country.
2. all other major countries have even worse problems than ours
3. The American people still have ingenuity
4. We’ve been through somewhat similar hard times before, and we’ve pulled through.
Now I surely understand anyone who doesn’t accept my point 4, and I acknowledge there is certainly the possibility that I’m wrong - which is simply what I wrote in my first response reworded.
Thank you for your reply. Allow me a brief rebuttal on certain points, starting at the top. You say Dems will get crushed at the polls if Libs take over. If you believe the polls, Harris could win. Reparations? Price controls? DEI first? Walz has written that we need to abolish the electoral college. Biden spoke about term limits for SCJ, and the pushback was basically, well, that would violate separation of powers. The reason we are "muddling along" economically is we are living off the dollar being the world's reserve currency. With the national debt at $32 Trillion, increasing by another $2 Trillion this year, we are paying our bills by opening up new credit cards. Barack "monetized the debt," and got away with it. But eventually the world will realize we are printing Monopoly money and go crypto or something else. As far as military strength, look at the numbers. We are advanced in some tech, but recruiting is down, and with all the trashing of our country we are not raising enough young people who love this country enough to die for it. The "other times" we pulled through we were much more self-reliant and had survival skills, not very much anymore. Ignore the founding fathers' words if you want, but John Adams was right about our system of government being only for a religious, moral people. We don't have many of those people left, and they are aging out. Much rides on the election in three weeks, which will win? Thoughtful analysis and tough choices, or Santa Claus and magical thinking?
More later, but I said the Dems will get crushed for years if the *woke* take over and they become the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel party.
They’re already a far left party now economically and on identity politics and sadly still win half of the elections
Andy, Why am I deemed hyperbolic when expressing my opinion regarding John’s opinions? I think I’m tired of having to base my opinions on other people’s opinions. I’d really like to see more fact based dialogue. When media is rife with opinions like “ liberals want to destroy our government and replace it with Marxism” or “conservatives want to destroy our democracy”, nothing good can come of it. These statements are “hyperbolic”
Everyone is so entrenched in their own opinions that they do not have any interest in facts. I agree that this is not a sustainable way forward. I, for one, yearn for those bucolic days of my youth when liberals and conservatives were capable of sitting down and having real discussions. Vitriol has led to stagnation. Our country is not healthy.
“I think I’m tired of having to base my opinions on other people’s opinions.”
Unfortunately for you, you’re kinda out of luck on that one. The halcyon days of the second half of the 20th century are long gone. To the extent it was true, or at least mostly true, then, journalists and the MSM no longer do facts, they pretty much only do opinions.
The closest thing left you can find is probably the WSJ if you want news that isn’t completely drenched in opinion bias. Partly the Internet is to blame for that, to be sure, but not solely.
The word hyperbolic referred almost exclusively to your assertion that he presented his opinions not just as “facts” but as “verified facts”.
For the record, I yearn for those “bucolic” days, too, but for reasons different than yours.
Back then, we were mostly having disagreements between the center- left and the center-right (plus a few “hardcore” right economic opinions coming from the classical liberals/libertarians that happen to be my crowd).
Today, the agenda on the left is largely driven by hardcore socialists and cultural Marxists spewing il-liberal oppressor-oppressed woke crap and seeking authoritarian solutions, including the suppression of free speech, to achieve their aims.
Meanwhile on the right *some* (and I emphasize only some) of the agenda is authoritarian populism seeking to impose their will - much of which is bad economics - via authoritarian means.
Social media is no doubt a factor in the vitriol, of course. But at least as big a reason is that the policy differences between the left and the right are MASSIVELY different than they used to be (as the Dem Party has moved way left on economic issues, and way to the left on identity politics crap) and authoritarianism is more and more seen as acceptable on both sides (again to be clear, it has MUCH greater acceptance on the left than on the right, but I can’t deny that it exists as a meaningful factor on the right, too).