1. Race Relations. These used to be bad. But by the 1980s and 1990s, things were improving fast (ghettos aside) and by 2000 people were much more color blind than they used to be. So they pivoted to group identity and redefined “racism” in a way that would pit black and white against each other into eternity. Racism has been re-defined as always existing. A solvable problem becomes unsolvable.

2. Poverty. There used to be a lot of poverty. But economic growth for decades (and maybe also dem programs) means that there is no more absolute poverty in the Western world, and much of the poor world is on the way out of poverty now too. So they pivoted to a different definition of poverty that defines it as *relative* to the average, so that the poverty line is always the lowest X% of incomes. Even if we all get 10x richer, there will always be a lowest X%. Poverty has been re-defined as always existing. A solvable problem becomes unsolvable.

3. The Environment. In the 1960s and 1970s, the issue was actual pollution, deforestation, running out of resources. But by the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of these were starting to be solved – the air and water are much cleaner, there are more forests than since the 1700s, and increased efficiency & exploration means that there isn’t the resources crunch many feared 50 years ago. So they changed the problem to too much of something we all breathe out every minute, carbon dioxide, and called that “pollution” instead. A solvable problem becomes unsolvable.

They don’t want to solve problems. They need the problems to exist forever. A stroke of genius really.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4778033&forum_id=2#42033537)

I have a print copy of Uncle Ted's manifesto, must read again

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4778033&forum_id=2#42033543)

i've thought about buying them and shipping them to him to sign.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4778033&forum_id=2#42033578)

I'm saying that the Left has redefined those other problems in a way that they are inherently unsolvable -- and if income inequality was improved, they would do that to this issue too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4778033&forum_id=2#42033557)

(he said it much better than that obviously, but you get the point)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4778033&forum_id=2#42033585)

if 90% of the population has a helicopter and 10% only has a Ferrari, the Ferrari-owners are "poor" on this definition

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4778033&forum_id=2#42033589)

I have an extra twist that they posed a lot of problems, which we solved or made progress towards solving, which horrified libs so they pivoted to unsolvable problems

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4778033&forum_id=2#42034118)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4778033&forum_id=2#42034598)

The fact that there's some middle ground of reasonable disagreement on economic policy between people with different perspectives doesn't automatically justify race war.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4778033&forum_id=2#42831329)