LowIQTrash » 26 Jun 2024, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑
Remember when, back in 2008-2010, the retarded conjobs fell for the (((THFC))) - Tiny Hat Foreskin Chomper - talking points on TEE VEE, about “wasteful GUBMINT spending?”

Throughout history, it was generally assumed that if you care about your citizens you give them some sort of social welfare. This was less so in the early middle ages when the legitimacy of government stemmed from the church...but the economy was centrally planned and the monarchy basically decided the price of goods and the wages for various occupations.
the beginning of serious social welfare programs started with the change in attitude, championed by philosophers such as Hugo grotius, that the state receives legitimacy for following the will of the people rather than the will of the church. That attitude gave birth to nationalism and was largely behind the motivations of the people involved in the French revolution and the bolshevik revolution (these movements did not perform as advertised, however...they were clearly just meant to destroy an old elite and replace them with a new elite who carried on the same policy of exploitation). The first welfare state occurred under otto von Bismark.
well into the 60s, the 'right wing' in the usa was fine with what they currently condemn as 'socialism'.. and it was predictably tied to nationalism. George wallace was scolded by rothbard largely for his welfare programs...not so much his segregationist ideas.
'Anti socialist' movements were predictably led by jews. The sane people who managed to make communism fail to inprove the quality of life for the soviet proletariat. Miseses, who was jewish, who wrecked the Austrian economy, was a huge champion of 'free market ideals' and had to flee Austria when the people elected to become part of the far more prosperous (and socialist) Germany under Hitler.
It was around the 60s and 70s that the ideology of 'free markets' somehow captured what is called the 'right wing' in the usa. (At about the same rate and same rapidity that everyone suddenly embraced transgenderism and same sex marriage). The first attempt at 'Reagan republicanism' happened with Barry goldwater, who of course was jewish.
the ideology of Reagan was of course incoherent. Like Trump, he liked to dog whistle to people who opposed the Civil rights bills...but also like Trump he did nothing for them. But those people are so desperate that dog whistles are good enough for them. In fact he did quite the opposite...he gave the us the biggest amnesty bill in our history by far, making california into a brown state for eternity. The whole pretense of 'small government' was also ridiculous next to our military spending, which also happens to violate the libertarian concept of the 'nap'. So there was no consistency or sincerity behind 'Reagan republicanism'...but it did just happen to be very useful for jews. The low taxes was pleasant for wealthy jews, and the military focus was against communism which had become somewhat anti semitic and anti Israel under Stalin.
In fact, all of the weird and contradictory policies of Reagan and neo conservatives suddenly make sense when you realize that they simply support the economy and foreign policy that jews want. The 'left' meanwhile supports the domestic policy that jews want. The two sides always 'compromise' in whatever way benefits jews. Every election the Democrat voters think "gosh darn those naughty Republicans won't let us have universal Healthcare or an end to constant war" while the republican voters think "gosh darnit the democrats keep pushing this diversity and gay stuff on us". The 'compromise' NEVER goes the opposite way...which would of course be approaching national socialism.