patrick.net

Again, the huge myth that Europe only came back in the 70s is being promulgated. This is a falsehood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder

1950 was the year West Germany exceed pre-WW2 economic numbers. By 1954 they were importing foreign workers due to a labor shortage. The mistake is that US preferential treatment continued regardless, and then neoliberals extended it to the entire world after 1989, which put American Industry and Workers at a disadvantage in one-sided trade. We still subsidize the Defense of Wealthy Europe and Japan, although Trump is fixing this.

Also, the thread is about how the Left and their control of pop culture lies about 1950s, not how we idolize the 1950s. For example, according to modern Woke Culture, every single man in the 1950s was a raging alcoholic, every wife popped pills to cope, etc.

That some in this thread have claimed "Madman" is a true and accurate depiction of the 1950s is no different than insisting that "A Christmas Story" is a completely accurate view of the same time period

marcus says

Nobody denies that there were racist democrats in the south in 1964. But some very dishonest republicans try to turn those facts in to something that's simply false.

Did those racist democrats STAY democrats or become Republicans?

Simple question.



We both know the answer, but you (and others) keep falsely parroting the "big switch" lie. It's pathetic.

Reality says

The stagnation of American living standards is entirely the result of the growth of government and its hangers-on. Just look at the typical middle-class household budget, the biggest items nowadays are housing, kids' education and medical insurance . . . none of them have anything to do with Europe/Japan/Korea/China, but all of them are monsters created by government regulations.

Btw, taxes were much higher in the 50s.

NoCoupForYou says

the thread is about how the Left and their control of pop culture lies about 1950s, not how we idolize the 1950s.

The only reason the left talks about the 50s is because the right thinks of it as 'great'. Almost every aspect of the republican social agenda is baselined on the 50s: religion, family, abortion, regulation of pollution, etc...

When I talk of resources, I mostly think about space. If you look at the Bay Area or LA for example, huge sprawls were built in the 50s and 60s to accommodate the boomers, leading to cheap housing, a sense of freedom, and higher buying power on other things. This is something that couldn't be replicated with today's population. The same is true in other countries. People could create a business in their garages. Today many live in the garages.

Here's a counter intuitive observation:

Birth Control was supposed to lead to liberated sex lives and free love without any complications of Pregnancy.
Additionally, it was to empower women economically.

What actually happened when we did away with sex shaming?

The illegitimate birthrate skyrocketed - the liberation happened but the birth control was often forgotten (sometimes accidentally on purpose)
The population on welfare also exploded.

Not just in the USA, but everywhere slutshaming disappeared. The places that avoided it were mostly Eastern Med countries where it's still acceptable to call promiscuous women sluts, like Turkey, Greece, and Israel.

Goran_K says

We both know the answer, but you (and others) keep falsely parroting the "big switch" lie. It's pathetic.

I actually think you might believe that. I know you want to believe it. Same thing for you people.

When you say something that even all intelligent republicans know is a fact, is a lie, it says more than you realize.

NoCoupForYou says

The illegitimate birthrate skyrocketed -

Yeah, but no one can undo the pill. You can't put back the djinn in the bottle.

Heraclitusstudent says

NoCoupForYou says

The illegitimate birthrate skyrocketed -

Yeah, but no one can undo the pill. You can't put back the djinn in the bottle.

The "pill" did not cause the illegitimate birthrate to skyrocket. The "pill" allowed promiscuity because the threat of pregnancy was severely lessened. The skyrocketing illegitimate birthrate was caused by welfare, paying women to stay at home merely for having a fatherless baby. True here and in England.

Goran_K says

Did those racist democrats STAY democrats or become Republicans?

No it's not simple. The transition of the South to dominate Republican took place over many years. The racist Dems were often economically populist. So supported the Dem economic agenda going back to FDR. Eventually those Dems either died off or after Johnson passed civil rights legislation followed Wallace and Nixon. The Viet Nam war and the 1960s counter culture also played apart and so on. The transition was not all racially driven. There are still vestiges of white working class Dems in the south, ancestral Dems. Probably tipped the gov. race in Eastern Kentucky the Dem.

But clearly today the whites in the south gravitate toward the Republicans not because of Lincoln but in spite of Lincoln. The African Americans to the Dems in spite of Lincoln and because they feel the Dems best represent their interests. It's a nearly complete realignment. In States like Virginia the realignment is going the other direction due to demographic changes. This is the coming challenge for the Republicans. While the Dems have their own issues in the rust belt.

HeadSet says

Heraclitusstudent says

NoCoupForYou says

The illegitimate birthrate skyrocketed -

Yeah, but no one can undo the pill. You can't put back the djinn in the bottle.

The "pill" did not cause the illegitimate birthrate to skyrocket. The "pill" allowed promiscuity because the threat of pregnancy was severely lessened. The skyrocketing illegitimate birthrate was caused by welfare, paying women to stay at home merely for having a fatherless baby. True here and in England.

Both. The pill promised the end of unwanted pregnancy which changed social mores. The cloward pliven strategy ended the economic hazard.

Everywhere illegit births went up, not just USA out UK

Either would have increased illegit births, but together it was a double whammy.

Chiromancer says

Goran_K says

Did those racist democrats STAY democrats or become Republicans?

No it's not simple.

In other words, virtually no racist Dem changed parties.

HeadSet says

In other words, virtually no racist Dem changed parties.

Some did some didnt. Those that didnt are mostly dead. But today the "David Dukes" support Republicans.

Chiromancer says

HeadSet says

In other words, virtually no racist Dem changed parties.

Some did some didnt. Those that didnt are mostly dead. But today the "David Dukes" support Republicans.

I suspect that the "David Dukes" are so rare they are far outnumbered by black Republicans.