# On the whole talking politics thing
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887
**Category:** Society, Government, and Economics
**Created:** [November 4, 2015, 7:39pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887 "2015-11-04T19:39:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 18
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Tom](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tom)
#### Post date: [November 7, 2015, 10:55am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/21 "2015-11-07T10:55:17Z")
Myth:
> [@Arbiter of Change](#):
>
> Yes, the strong dominate the weak.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
Reality:
Who dominates depends on population numbers, economic stability, development of weapons technology and a bunch of other factors additional and exclusive to ‘the strong dominate the weak’.
Furthermore, if you’re being dominated by all these lazy black people having lots of children then they, by definition, must be stronger than you.
> [@](#):
>
> Only genetic filth, weaklings, have issues with that.
So you advocate a fatalistic model of humanity, and then bitch that reality doesn’t conform to it, and you somehow thinks this make YOU the superior one?
Fucking hilarious.
> [@](#):
>
> I only mind this inversion of nature, where degenerates like that negro woman breed more than intelligent, competent people.
Get on with breeding then you lazy fuckwit. All these people who complain that ‘black/brown people are spreading out across the world’ but refuse to leave their own country, or complain that ‘black/brown people have all these children’ but have no children of their own. It’s so, so, so dumb.
---
### Author:  [@AutSider](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/AutSider)
#### Post date: [November 7, 2015, 1:33pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/22 "2015-11-07T13:33:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Who dominates depends on population numbers, economic stability, development of weapons technology and a bunch of other factors additional and exclusive to ‘the strong dominate the weak’.
>
> Furthermore, if you’re being dominated by all these lazy black people having lots of children then they, by definition, must be stronger than you.
You’re attempting to apply the same concept of fitness that applies in a natural environment to artificial, human environments where the environment itself is modified to protect what is naturally unfit. It doesn’t work because, in nature, for one lion to reproduce and not the other, that lion must be superior in some relevant way - it must be stronger, more intelligent, faster, more aggressive, etc. It must have some naturally beneficial advantages and utilize them. In artificial systems what is fit can be completely different than what is fit in natural systems, as my example with that degenerate negro woman proved. In a natural environment, that woman and her children would rightfully perish, nature is merciless to stupidity, incompetence and irresponsibility. And unfortunately for the degenerates, human artificial environment is only a microenvironment WITHIN the larger context of nature, which means that if it starts to preserve and shelter what is naturally unfit, it is only a matter of time before it collapses itself or gets conquered.
This is why nature is the ultimate standard of what is fit and unfit and not some human artifice people pull out of their own arses.
Got it?
> [@](#):
>
> So you advocate a fatalistic model of humanity, and then bitch that reality doesn’t conform to it, and you somehow thinks this make YOU the superior one?
So reality = other humans and their constructs?
Tell me more, oh genius mind.
I always thought reality is what is outside of and independent of any human constructs, aka, reality = nature.
---
### Author:  [@Tom](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tom)
#### Post date: [November 7, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/23 "2015-11-07T18:06:10Z")
> [@Arbiter of Change](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Who dominates depends on population numbers, economic stability, development of weapons technology and a bunch of other factors additional and exclusive to ‘the strong dominate the weak’.
> >
> > Furthermore, if you’re being dominated by all these lazy black people having lots of children then they, by definition, must be stronger than you.
>
> You’re attempting to apply the same concept of fitness that applies in a natural environment to artificial, human environments where the environment itself is modified to protect what is naturally unfit. It doesn’t work because, in nature, for one lion to reproduce and not the other, that lion must be superior in some relevant way - it must be stronger, more intelligent, faster, more aggressive, etc. It must have some naturally beneficial advantages and utilize them. In artificial systems what is fit can be completely different than what is fit in natural systems, as my example with that degenerate negro woman proved. In a natural environment, that woman and her children would rightfully perish, nature is merciless to stupidity, incompetence and irresponsibility. And unfortunately for the degenerates, human artificial environment is only a microenvironment WITHIN the larger context of nature, which means that if it starts to preserve and shelter what is naturally unfit, it is only a matter of time before it collapses itself or gets conquered.
>
> This is why nature is the ultimate standard of what is fit and unfit and not some human artifice people pull out of their own arses.
>
> Got it?
Nope. Humans are just as natural as any other being, just as bound by the laws of nature (if there are such). Your whole argument relies on the tired old lazy assertion that nature = nature but humans = artificial. You and every other punk kid with posters of metal bands on his wall have made this claim. It’s horseshit. Everything that follows from that is also horseshit.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > So you advocate a fatalistic model of humanity, and then bitch that reality doesn’t conform to it, and you somehow thinks this make YOU the superior one?
>
> So reality = other humans and their constructs?
>
> Tell me more, oh genius mind.
>
> I always thought reality is what is outside of and independent of any human constructs, aka, reality = nature.
Do you claim to exist ‘outside of and independent of any human constructs’? Because if you are human, then by definition that claim would be bullshit. If you’re not human then OK, maybe you can access the ‘true reality’ of nature. But before we go further down this road, I need to know the answer to this question.
---
### Author:  [@AutSider](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/AutSider)
#### Post date: [November 7, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/24 "2015-11-07T18:57:33Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Humans are just as natural as any other being, just as bound by the laws of nature (if there are such)
Obviously they are bound by laws of nature, but they are capable of affecting their environment to a much greater extent than other animals - create artifices.
> [@](#):
>
> Your whole argument relies on the tired old lazy assertion that nature = nature but humans = artificial
I don’t divide the world between natural and artificial - artificial exists within the natural.
> [@](#):
>
> Do you claim to exist ‘outside of and independent of any human constructs’? Because if you are human, then by definition that claim would be bullshit.
No, I don’t claim that, and no, it wouldn’t be by definition bullshit. It’s possible for a human to exist independently of human constructs, f.e. if a child is from an early age left in nature, alone.
Human constructs is civilization, from the most primitive forms (African tribes) to the more advanced (Western).
---
### Author:  [@Tom](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tom)
#### Post date: [November 7, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/25 "2015-11-07T19:38:13Z")
Gotta love how you’re claiming that human artificial constructs are bad because they are unnatural, but also that they most pronounced of these (western civilisation) must be vastly preferably to African civilisation because they are black.
You are all over the place.
---
### Author:  [@AutSider](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/AutSider)
#### Post date: [November 7, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/26 "2015-11-07T20:06:52Z")
Predictable complaint.
Artifices that allow people to transcend and dominate nature ironically also allow other artifices, which are unfit and cannot survive in nature, to persist.
The better technology the society has the more it can afford to protect what is genetically unfit such animals that would die out without human intervention, people with handicaps, etc.
It seems that throughout history these 2 have went together.
Whenever a society grew, become powerful and accumulated plenty of resources, the degeneration and decline began because of lack of stimulation to survive, the environment being abundant with resources and permissive of stupidity.
A society’s success therefore seems to also contain the causes of its collapse 😕
The solution I would propose to break this cycle is to continue imposing order on nature and not give in to base instincts, emotions, and pleasures just because the environment allows it immediately because the price will be paid later on, if not by us, then by future generations.
But this would require for people to extend their perceptual event horizon beyond their own life times, which is already too much for most modern people, isn’t it?
Either it pleasures my pee pee or vajayjay, or it does not. Pleasure is good, displeasure bad. What more do you need to guide you in life than this genius principle?
---
### Author:  [@Tom](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tom)
#### Post date: [November 7, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/27 "2015-11-07T20:31:37Z")
Still all over the place.
---
### Author:  [@Jakob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Jakob)
#### Post date: [November 7, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/28 "2015-11-07T21:35:07Z")
> [@Gamer](#):
>
> My role is to point out that to be intellectualy honest is to feel like you’re in a perpetual state of disorientation.
> It’s not a pleasant feeling which is why almost nobody remains there.
Excellent posts , Gamer. Dedication, an admirable quality.
I wonder if you truly can not see the problem with being intellectually honest and free on the one hand, and reducing your intellectual standards to a choice in an artificially dualistic system on the other. It seems to me that Every reduction of people’s political position to ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ is, how shall I put it…
[edit]
> [@](#):
>
> If I vote, I should be able to defend that vote. To really do that, while remaining fully earnest and attentive, is a lot of work.
Are you referring to the work of making up creative justifications for voting for an absolute elitist like Hillary Clinton while moved by a socialist moral drive? Yes, elections have a way of bringing peoples spirits to waste like that.
> [@](#):
>
> You don’t want to be a slave to your own bias. If you are, you’re as bad as your opponent.
>
> I don’t know who’s out there who agrees with this, perhaps they are few in number, but it’s with them I stand.
Is that so? Are you not simply an idealist of the “two moralities” - system? Your OP at least suggests a perfectly unquestioned bias, a childlike conforming to the arch-traditional school of division and conquest which Chomsky identifies as the logos behind the manufacture of consent.
No offense. I am only pointing out a problem standing between your approach and your stated goal.
The terms “left” “right” and “center” are quite arbitrary. I believe Tariq Ali calls blind corporatism " the radical center", whereas by standing standard it could be called “so far-extreme right that it incorporates the extremities of the left”.
Hillary is such a fanatic. Eerie.
Since I see you re trying to have a quiet, thoughtful discourse that does not rattle the cage too much (and to be fair what good is that if you’re not actually determined to let the tiger out), and I am just ruining the atmosphere.
“Over and out, I guess…” - Fargo
---
### Author:  [@AutSider](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/AutSider)
#### Post date: [November 8, 2015, 9:35am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/29 "2015-11-08T09:35:04Z")
> [@Tom](#):
>
> Still all over the place.
I guess that is the extent of the intellectual challenge I can expect from ILP.
Maybe I should switch to PhilosophyNow or PhilosophyForums, maybe there they have somebody who can actually challenge what I’m saying…
All in its good time.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Kropotkin](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Peter_Kropotkin)
#### Post date: [November 8, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/30 "2015-11-08T18:16:38Z")
> [@Arbiter of Change](#):
>
> > [@Tom](#):
> >
> > Still all over the place.
>
> I guess that is the extent of the intellectual challenge I can expect from ILP.
>
> Maybe I should switch to PhilosophyNow or PhilosophyForums, maybe there they have somebody who can actually challenge what I’m saying…
>
> All in its good time.
K: the real problem is you are unable to understand intellectual.
The challenge is never other people, but within.
That is the real battle, within you.
Kropotkin
---
### Author:  [@Gamer](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Gamer)
#### Post date: [November 8, 2015, 11:06pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/31 "2015-11-08T23:06:17Z")
Fargo you don’t get what I’m saying. I didn’t invent or espouse a binary system of right/left. But I’m facing a choice of whether I vote for one of the two, or abstain. The impulse is to come up with an intellectually honest, intellectually consistent way to do this. You make some attempt to comprehend the two choices. If one choice offers an advantage, you look at the counterpoint/rebuttal from the other and bounce back and forth like a ping pong ball.
I’m sorry you felt the need to make this about whether the right and left even exist as a continuum much less a dichotomy. That may all be true but that’s not even a fortnight-by-blimp’s distance from what I’m talking about. Congratulations for being yet another guy to point out the fact that politics are bullshit. Now, back to who I’m voting for, or if I should vote at all, and why, and with what mindset, and how to approach this impending dilemma, which is absolutely a tautology in practice regardless of how much you enjoy pontificating on false dichotomies in theory.
IOW do you have any thoughts on what one might DO in the voting booth, granted they are reasonably informed?
---
### Author:  [@Jakob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Jakob)
#### Post date: [November 9, 2015, 12:44am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/32 "2015-11-09T00:44:12Z")
> [@Gamer](#):
>
> Fargo you don’t get what I’m saying. I didn’t invent or espouse a binary system of right/left. But I’m facing a choice of whether I vote for one of the two, or abstain. The impulse is to come up with an intellectually honest, intellectually consistent way to do this. You make some attempt to comprehend the two choices. If one choice offers an advantage, you look at the counterpoint/rebuttal from the other and bounce back and forth like a ping pong ball.
I was in an unpleasant mood. Later I realized I was assuming things.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m sorry you felt the need to make this about whether the right and left even exist as a continuum much less a dichotomy. That may all be true but that’s not even a fortnight-by-blimp’s distance from what I’m talking about. Congratulations for being yet another guy to point out the fact that politics are bullshit. Now, back to who I’m voting for, or if I should vote at all, and why, and with what mindset, and how to approach this impending dilemma, which is absolutely a tautology in practice regardless of how much you enjoy pontificating on false dichotomies in theory.
>
> IOW do you have any thoughts on what one might DO in the voting booth, granted they are reasonably informed?
I think you should vote for Trump. I believe in businessmen, not in lobbyists.
Basically that’s my stance on capitalism. Small government so that the bureaucracy\<=\>lobbyism business can’t come to dominate the top tier economy, which should be raw, stoic and industrious. My political manifesto is Parkinson’s Law. For economic examples I take Holland, the US and Japan in their heyday, even though that relies on slavery; where they had slaves, we have machines.
So I trust in Trump to know what the hell he is talking about when he says he is going to cut out 50 percent of the middle men. That is exactly what needs to be one and the only thing that can be done, to turn things around; cut bureaucracy.
The ways – that I can’t say. But the US can’t afford to be what Holland and Sweden can afford, because its bureaucracy has a globe spanning military and intelligence technology type nature that costs a lot of money and only brings dividend out of leverage, ‘plunder and extortion’. By now it’s become self-plunder. Trump sees this, it makes him sick. He acts out of a sane instinct, at least for a percent or two.
I admit I look at it in slightly more idealistic terms. I hear Jed Bush when he points out 15 trillion deficit in Trumps plans - I don’t understand it but I hear it. Sure, all promises are too good to be true - but I appreciate Trumps overt knowledge of scheming. He would be a great countermove to Putin. Like Armstrong to Gagarin, - launching the US into the new world, for which you have to be bold, practical and, so the US now finds out, blatantly honest about your will to power. Hillary would be very bad for international relations At least for the relation between international relations to the people, in the US but anywhere in the world.
I hope this was constructive at least. I Ultimately perceive this as existential world politics.
(What interests me personally the most is the appointment of the judges. That seems to be the axis of long term government. If you can make an argument for why Hillary would be more beneficial in this sense, that would sway my hypothetical vote. Right now I have to rely on pragmatism, which affirms many nasty things, but not very much that is unnecessarily obstructive. )
---
### Author:  [@phoneutria](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phoneutria)
#### Post date: [November 10, 2015, 3:34am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/33 "2015-11-10T03:34:52Z")
abstain always
---
### Author:  [@The\_Golden\_Turd](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/The_Golden_Turd)
#### Post date: [November 10, 2015, 8:59am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/34 "2015-11-10T08:59:17Z")
I for a while independently arrived at the idea that Left and Right were meaningless terms on the whole. I backed off from it after a while after becomming involved in reading the writings of the US Founding fathers. I identify as a Paleo-Conservative. Has nothing to do with the republican party, or modern democratic party (though they existed in a much different form in the era).
I more or less take John Adams position on parties… they are traitorous and needlessly devisive, and undemocratic. They tyrannize our ability to explore and seek out new idea, and to form sound government based on the eclectic best ideas existent in a republic. It usually devolves into a parliamentary power sharing clusterfuck, where every idea and yet none find their way foreward.
Why? The Balance of Power, no new ideas can be accepted in unless they are inoffensive to the opposite party, and if inoffensive, have to be demonized and demolished. Very few politicians can operate independently, and the ones who manage to are heavily scrutinized by both sides, followed by the media like hawks, both parties throw massives amounts of campaign funding to boot them in the next election, and in the end… if they make it, it’s only because they either have a ideologically perverse enclave (Communist or KKK electrolyte, such as David Duke or Bernie Sanders) or they receive disproportionate amount of funding to woo them than other senators. Senator Byrd and Rockefeller for West Virginia did this latter for years.
I tend to push against Hillary not because she is a Democrat, but her disaster as Secretary of State. A lot of stuff went to hell under her watch, and she didn’t know how to salvage what she could of it. Libya for example… Qaddafi was our enemy in the 80s, but in the 21st century we started down a long path of reformation. That path was suddenly cut short by a deeply incompetent bombing campaign lead by of all people the US, to suddenly demolish his regiem.
Was Qaddafi a good man? No. He was actively planning assassinations of other African leaders. He favored some tribes, and suppressed others. But he was the dictator we backed, using international instruments such as the UN to push AWAY from terrorism, by saying you do this, and we will loosen sanctions and legitimize you by degrees. Short of outright invading and forcing democracy on them, it was prudent and pragmatic.
In the end, it looks like Hillary alienated him and tossed him out. Why? No one knows, a lot from her state department has been leaked pointing fingers at her in bewilderment, but no one knows exactly why. I just know geopolitically, it was moronic. Qaddafi was a piece of shit, murdered people, but he also was pushing the idea of a African Union Army. Its just now years later coming into play, having just had 5,000 troops from around the continent engadge in war games in South Africa. Problem is, without a string Arab personality, this force will increasingly become a Black Christian/Pagan force verses Arab/ Nomadic Pasturist Islamic Arab League organization. Morocco always has been out given it’s invasion of Southwest Sahara. The Arab League isn’t really doing much in Somali, but the AU has. Mali… Islamic violence… France, then African Union…
In 50 years, where do you think this is going to lead? Turf War between Arab League and African Union. Its not bad enough given the rebellions in the African Great Lakes Regions, we gotta now watch this shit develop over the next few decades. We needed Qaddafi to bridge this one. Absolute piece of shit, but so very useful in this one area. Its a big Snafu for any state department.
Likewise, Qaddafi had discovered massive water reserves under Libya. He was building highly advanced aqeduct systems to water Libya. 5000 years ago, Libya was a thriving Agrarian Civilization. They started the practice of mummification, NOT the Egyptians. Romans imported food from them heavily. I can tolerate a Stalinist Turd if he is in acting large scale projects like this minus the genocides (Stalin killed 30 million in Ukraine, Qaddafi didn’t have the equivelent).
So now, instead of being a repressed country with a booming economy exporting oil and becoming the breadbasket of Africa, it’s a war torn shit hole bombed by various international factions supporting either government as they see fit. Why? The French Socialist wanted Oil and begged us to bomb Libya for them, as they never maintained their military capacity. It was purely imperialistic, not even the hint of argument otherwise. Libya wasn’t threatening us with terrorism, was in fact cooperating. Why we suddenly had to switch from being cautious friends to militant assholes I don’t know.
Furthermore, he approach to Libya itself was absurd. The international coalition was lead by a jackass French Philosopher (Bernard Levi) morally, lukewarmly cobbled together by France under Obama’s reluctant assurances. Its Hillary’s job to be the leader here. I don’t think much of John Kerry currently, but he at least gets out there. Has zero street cred, but makes the motions. Just went to hell under Hillary. You never let the French dictate NATO policy, never.
Likewise, they dragged ass on committing to a bombing raid. It was forever before we actually started, but Libya was using mechanized troops along a single highway to push through East. We had several brigades in Italy and Germany, could of dropped military grade barb wire that get tangled up in tank tracks and armored vehicles, stopping them in their tracks, dropped low level anti tank missiles and rifles… they could of easily held out for months till a political compromised was reached… very easy to entrench desert strongholds. Fuck noooooo… we had to bomb.
Lastly, we didn’t systematically assassinate Qaddafi’s Dynasty. It took months to track them all down. We really should of had Delta Force down on the ground with gangs and factions, bribing everyone left and right to gain access to his sins, and knocked them off as much as possible prior to the air campaign. If there are no successors, there is no Dynasty after Qaddafi dies or flees. If your going to war against a dynasty, you gotta kill all the princes, or you’ll have a Napoleon III scenerio years later. Luckily, we barely managed to fix this one, and by us, I mean of course, NOT the US, but the local factions.
That in and of itself is reason enough not to accept Hillary as Commander and Chief. She apparently botched a gun smuggling operation, resulting in the Bengazi Embassy Attack.
Using just Libya by itself, you can see why I don’t trust her to be commander and chief. We have a presidential system, not a mixed parlimentry system where one leader has war and foreign policy powers, and the other fucks around with the economy. Its united in one person, and she is absolutely anthetical to the position of commander and chief. I don’t trust Bill’s ability to lend insights either… his entire 8 years was a slow impulse continuation of the Gulf War. If he had any sense, he would of ended that fucking war in his first term with a peace treaty. Instead, we were at war with Iraq from 1989 to 2011, and elected a supreme idiot out of war weariness, that lead to ISIS forming.
So I’m not enthusiastic about either Clinton. Wars should be fought competently, pragmatically with for sight and to the greatest advantage of all when actually conducted, but at the same time, should occur seldomly. Department if state should be the protagonist, but rather the diplomatic force. There is a art of diplomacy, it just isn’t around any more. I’ve never encountered a more backwards administration ever in American history than this one.
Going back to Liberal and Conservative, and Pale or conservative. I’m a Paleo-Conservative. I like the era of philosophical debates, having just roses from war to liberate our country from the Canadians, where we openly discussed the great currents of political history with modern ideals, and crafted a great system. Wasn’t flawless, we had to chuck our first constitution, and the second had a glaring flaw both sides could see, slavery… that lead to a civil war. But we used our words for the most part, and had a tradition of electing great statesmen and heroes, intellectuals with a long term philosophical bent, until the present, every president was a philosopher in his own right, whose papers held points of wisdom for later generations to consult and be inspired by. They seemed to care. Now it’s all about catch lines and memes, procrastination and playing to the Dumbest Common Denominator.
We in the US can’t make the case as Europeans do that Conservatism is Fascism. Its not our system, not in our history. Closest we came was NIRA, the National Industrial Recovery Act in the 30s, was the war effort of the 40s of Tatal War (complete mobilization of manpower and economy) to crush Fascism.
My town in Weirton, West Virginia came the closest. We had the largest steel mill on earth then. We had the parades and creepy fascist eagles. Largest unincorporated town in the US, and no local decomcracy… the local government, such as the mayor, was appointed by the mill, as well as the police force. But our parades were multi ethnic, from everywhere, and even the blacks out succeeded mist every other community during segregation. They had one street… Weir Avenue, stuck in a gelkush part of the polluted town, but that one street produced more major league athletes than any other street in America… a fact statistically unshakable. Its a road of champions.
We never really grasped Fascism and Socialism. Its as far we went. We backed off and mellowed out after the war. We had a strong Marxist party for a while… post McCarty. Our steel mill became the largest employee owned corporation in the US. Collapsed under Bill Clinton, WTO. I saw it all crumble. The Marxist here went deranged and started voting Republican purely out of protest.
Economy kept getting worst. We went from a state that was steel and coal to just coal under Clinton. A strong Union history, we got over our racism progressively overtime, towed the line always with the Democratic party. Then coal was attacked. Why? Global Warming, a religion very similar to the Stoic religious concept of universal warming. Very weak demonstrative logic of cause and effect, and it’s solutions come off as rather fanciful and absurd.
Basically, in a nutshell:
Industrial Revolution increased carbon emissions, causing the world to melt, which for unstated reasons is a bad thing (not really, it opens up northern lands to agriculture and settlement, and that’s where most of our unusable land is).
In order to solve it, everyone needs to cut carbon emissions.
Pretty smart, right? But then when you look at history, both within written history and historically, our carbon output was next to nothing, and the climate yo-yoed all over the place. Do we blame blacksmiths in the bronze and iron age for the 3rd century climate change? If they had dome complex carbon juggling scheme in place, would the Germans of continuously pounded the Empire? Would of kept the steppes from drying out, forcing the Huns west?
No. Thats absurd. Likewise, we know very little about the carbon output of volcanoes from the ice ages versus dry seasons. We deal with ice deposits a few hundred thousand years old at best. Our frozen areas we’re warm in the last glacial recession, but suddenly everyone has to freak the Fuck out and scream global warming. Than when it’s showed not to be warming, it was switched to cooling. Then to play it save, just global climate change, and to safely hedge everyone’s bets, our super smart scientists are now swearing up and down the climate is changing both by natural and manmsde causes, and we have to do… exactly what they claimed for their previously very different systems. Agree to a lot of economic mayhem and turning our environmental sciences into a new state religion. Its not much different from the older Stoic religion.
As a result, Coal and the Mills are destroyed in this state. When Obama was running for president, he finally alienated the last of us by saying we’re not the kind of people who would vote for him as a black man… we did more than most parts of the country to eliminate racism here, and had always voted Democratic. It just collapsed.
What was the end result? We trusted the Democratic party, and got severely fucked over. We have existed in this economic depression since Bill Clinton was in office. The older far left parties put more and more emphasis on Gambling, and now my town of less than 30,000 (closer to 20,000 now, was 50,000 when I was a teenager) has over 30 casinos. Casinoes built in abandoned houses. They are called ‘Cafe & Mores’. We have a massive drug epidemic too, didn’t used to exist. Why? The two go together… hopes and dreams squashed, people left destroyed in the gaping crater of Kropotkin liberalism, they latch onto anything. While I was in the Army, by little brother became a heroine addict, then my sister Meth and Heroine. Its why I’ve been obsessed with building a UV camera capable to scanning the frequency Meth shows up at, so neighborhood watches can quickly identify who is running a residential Meth lab.
One neighborhood in my state had over 500 Meth labs raided by cops in one year. Thats just the ones they could identify. Entire generations have been lost, due to the long shadow of liberalism. I fucking hate it with a passion.
But I also lived in California. San Francisco. Was involved in the intellectual scene. Only political party I ever volunteered for was a left Democratic party, a state Senate race for a local black politician (followed LaRouche for some reason, who is mikitantly anti British, but this particular politician had visited Nigeria, and agreed with me the French we’re far more troublesome than the British Commonwealth).
Why did I back him? Because I listened to him, heard him out. I’m West Virginian, it’s what we do. Its what we did with Catholic Kennedy. He convinced us. He convinced me, and given he was running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat didn’t hurt much either.
My biggest complaints about inner city liberalism is that it is race based. In San Francisco, it was Black Democrats vs White, and the blacks seeth in anger at the white enforced apartheid against them. They are shoved into Oakland or Hunters Point (where I lived). People died left and right out there, so much gun violence I thought it was Sweden (yeah, they got it too, I read their news).
I would walk through the projects in hunters point, and would see one block all Hispanics, the next black, next Hispanics, next black. WTF? Divide and conquer.
Years ago, over ten, I started advocating a wall first policy. Why? Cause I thought it up. No one told me, I figured it out myself. Makes sense, build the wall, incorporate the immigrants you want (probably 80-90 percent), and keep the rest out save through legal immigration. Eventually the logic feel on the right, but could of easily been the left. Why? Its a logical compromise. I didn’t think if a national ID card first, but it makes a lot of sense. But remember reading far left magazines rediculing the logistical impossibility of doing national ID Cards. Really? We do state cards everywhere, social security and passports, WTF?
The main reason they are dragging ass is because they must in order to stay relevant. They have to be the opposition. Therefore, they must oppose. Why? In order to exist, gain ‘power’, and effect change. What change? I dunno… they don’t really know either, as a long lasting party, the Anti- Federalists have been around forever and flip flopped all over the place. It exists purely now to exist. Likewise, the Republicans have flipped a few times. What do they do once the have power? Plan to keep it, and undermine the opposition.
So any good idea has to be polarized, however awkward it is to do that.
So we have far less of a range of political discourse than we should. We have no narrow it down to two competing ideas. We have to further degrade those ideas qualitstively due to compromise. What comes out is inefficent and absurd, because our political cabinets are appointed as much on nepotism (cough hillary becomming secretary of state cough cough) and the good old boy system than on merit, efficiency, and foundational grasping of expertise in that field. Take Condaliza Rice… multiple PH.Ds, a expert in foreign policy. She deserved to be in that position as secretary of state by her own merits. She kept the Bush Adminustration confined to teo warfronts. Didnt pick fights with third world despots who got on her nerves, deciding to knock them off on a whim. Bush started them, but she managed her job as a chancellor or sorts well. Kept the wars focused and narrow. They stsrted dying down in 2007, allowing the next president to switch his field force from majority Iraq to Majority Afganistan post Irawi Surge (we all know of course Obama fucked that up, no debate on this matter, ISIS exists because of his direct actions).
If there is something generic and universal about conservatism, its a historical awareness. A Japanese Conservative in the 50s differed dramatically from a American one. One was pro fascist, pro military rule, the other wanted nothing to do with it. But both reflect systems that had been experienced, and could be recalked and debated. In America today, Hillary as a Progressive can point to FDR and rightly state she is a conservative. Likewise President Carson will be able to point back to Reagan, or Kennedy and Martin Luther King as his legacy in restoring the US back to unity, and ending the political imperitive of the left for a race war (absolutely no reason for it other than the left desperate to grab more votes).
The ability to look at history, defining what works and doesnt work is a valid mode of thinking, central to a paleoconservative outlook. But so is studying, carefully considering and embracing new ideas under formulaic conditions, weighing the pros and cons. The English language of “fairness” isnt easily translated into equality, equality is objective, fairness is the subjectivication of objectivication. Its a holdout from chivalry, where a knight was expected to judge impartially independently of his biases for the greater good between parties concened… its never a universal equality like Finland encourages, but rather a case by case, ad hoc consideration of others logical expectations and needs. Fairness works often, equality hardly ever. Fairness seeks the best solution, from both points of views. Equality is antagonistic, we presume violence will solve it if any inequality pops up.
I want the best possible solution. I want what works. Im in the market for solutions, not perpetuating the,problem.
So, as a philosopher, I dont vote. I hold both parties as dangerous and wrongheaded, but given the dialectic dynamic of a two party system, and the way the mind plans, by juxtapositioning principles against historical awareness in its planning cycle, I focus rather on this. Simple, pragmatic ideas. Ideas complex enough that they unite deductive and inductive assumptions of how causality works, designed to work on either side of the divide, because it incorporates both thought processes. Emphasive half, hopefully the other half can follow, or at least be prone to adjustment here unoffensively.
Today, the left is a absolute trainwreck. Obamscare doesnt work (really doesnt, people have very limited medical access to most PAs) we spent a billion dollars to digitalize the green card application forms. Obama fucked up the sign up website, even though a very safe, very useless military website exists that had similar capacity (all soldiers have it, but its fucking retarded info inside, like “get your flu shot” info. All they had to di was redign the front oage, erase the military database, and add a payment plan selection. One week max job. They fucked it up by not switching over to it).
Eventually though, competency will switcg, and Republicals will become to new kropotkins, fucking bumbling everything up. Dems will have better planning skills, republicans will return to veing idealustic liberals ready to uncompromise and start wars like during the civil war era (read Marx’s letters on the American Civil War).
I dislike bith parties, but at this point of time, Republucans are less likely to kill me. They are more likely to resolve Syria, stopping the genocide there. They are anti abortion, so less killing babies. They are more pro capital punishment, so it sours there.
They think through economuc priorities much better. Too much socialusm leads to mass homelessness, misery and suicide from despair. The Bill Clinton Mortgage Sub Prime bubbke was motivated by fairness and empathy… fucked everyone over in the end, and many of those houses were turned into casinoes here. Fuck this thought process. Im very much against equality, Im for fairness. Equality kinda works for Finland, is colkapsing fast in Sweden (several hundred migrant homes burnt down in Nietzschean arson raids. Nietzsche, fascist, same thing). I was a utopua and brotherhood of awareness and forsight, nit the threat of marxist dialectics, with Jack London’s “The Iron Heel” marxists using the homeless and dispossessed as cannon fodder and target practice for the sick glories of a marxist state than never can be. We tried it here. Look up Millsop, ESOP, NIRA. Never works right.
If you recall, during the Gay Marriage Constitutional Crisis, I said I wasnt really that concerned about gay marriage persay. I had lived in San Francisco, gay naked guys would walk around and jerk off in the streets. I was much, much, much more concerned we threw democracy completely out the window. We condoned the very worst crime our society fought for centuries to protect. We completely dropped any pretense the constitution as a independent document exists, or the priority of our republicsl system of electorate govrrnment to legislate our laws, for the people, by the people. We just had 9 supreme court justices pencil in a new, previously non existent clause into our constitution that overrides our law making capacity. Its absurdly dangerous, and cant possibly end here. This great country you, in the OP spoke of, now is terminally ill. That day, we ceased being a soverign republic in the same sense as when Caesar crossed the rubicon. Our law making capacity is no longer judged objectively through the laws, but by the whims of rlitism cliques who will forever this point on increasingly sidestep grass roots campaigns and will instead approach these nine unelected officials to enact superconstitutional clauses over and above what any party in congress or the states ever could.
The whole fucking point of being a decocratic republic is having the meaningful capacity to vote. This is niw being stripped from us, all for a short term, existentislist statement if personhood. I dont kniw if our dichotomy of liberal vs conservative, left vs right matters in a court culture, where despotes can unconstitutionally legislate a superior law above the law that entitles them to rule in the first pkace.
We become merely a bunch if squabbling factions, like during the Nike Revolt during Emperor Justianuan. Tens if thousands of political partisabs murdered within a few hours, clearly having no say. We owe this legacy to Cicero, who started the decline from a democratic republic to a autocratic, divinely lead God Emperor. Yet Im certain Cicero was the optimist, seeing only the best. He didnt see Nero. He didnt see Caligula, he didnt see Thrax. He didnt see the endless bloodly ends of his cursed, bloodsoaked ideas, all stemming from the eish to diefy and worship his dead, beloved daughter, and imagining a means to deify men into gods to rectify the decay of the state.
Innocent ideas can turn so very sour, so very bloody, so aweful with the ceaseless creep of time. So many died so quivkly in the nike revolt, many innocents just watching the circus games. Not until daisy cutters and nukes did we once again achieve such a high kill ratio in duch a short period of time.
Thats compassion. Thats empathy. Unchained, without awareness of consequence. A endless dark night of death and despair, until the inevitable institutional collapse engulfs every population, every people. Lomg before it collapsed, entire cities in the Roman Empire burnt down because the people had been pushed out of representational government… military gave them no say increasingly. So when the fires came, they meekly got out of the way, and watched, to the exasperation of the roman governors.
You take away a peoples sovergnity, thrir sbility to determine their own futures, to knoeingly see themselves and their descendents playing a better role in it, you end up with a defeated and barren people. Take western europe… it has a technologically adanced yet very weak military. It played a very big part in the Iraq War (pullout of Italy and Spain, collapse of the EU borderstates participating in Iraq lead to the current ISIS situation, they had Falluja and Ramadi, and the immigrant crises is via their lands. Military and police forces thought in a utopia but lived in a very different real world that quickly changed beyond their imaginings, and now is very heavily imoacting them. Europe is in a process of soul searching). In its current state, its completely dependent on the US. Why? It lost WW2. We went very, very easy post war years on them. They collapsed into existentialusm, hid their heads up their asses muttering nietzsche and heuddegar. Russoa via Warsaw and the US via NATO ran everything for them. They thought they became some startrek liberal utopua where green energy and global warming mattered most. They spent decades chiding the US, telling us to be more like they are. It works for them after all. Only when the US is looking out for you, cushioning everything.
Now, just as Europe is institutionalizing a guarantee waged if you work or not, in Sweden, a city in the Netherlands, Switzerland, half the third world is party crashing their delusion and busting the gate down. Its just now occuring having a european presudent run the US on European standards really fucked tgem over unlike anything else.
Im guessing many here will parrot the old fortress europe slogans the anarchist would chant in the 90s abd 2000s out of habits, but look at who is being voted in time and time again. Its going to have to snap and eventually change. Eurooe wasnt planning for Europe, the US was planning for Europe. Europe turned hendonist, decadent, athiest, weak. Its ideologically dying.
People need to possess a sense of self ownership if society abd their collective future. The idea of fairness, not equality should trump. It needs to be a intellectual awareness. Emotions like empathy need carefully weighed against good statecraft. Highly intelligent magustrates sought out, very wuse senators elected. Laws ordered, intuitive, and simple. The military needs to be efficient in operations, redundent in placement to mutually support outposts in unexpected cascade movements for strategic needs, our health plans should be based less on utopic standards and more on the dry reason of facts and best practices. I think President Carson having been a neurosurgeon can make order of Obamas chaos, perhaps make parts work, scrap what doesnt, and make effect change.
What we shoukdnt do, is be like PM Trudeau recently in Canada and select 15 male and 15 female ministers to advise him for the sake of having the most sexually liberal consultative cabnet in any western democracy. WTF… you pick the best consults on the basis of merit and experience, ability to perform their tasks… not on their sexual organs. Canada can do this because it only birders the US and Greenland, and already has a treaty with the US allowing us to unilaterally send forces north whenever we think a crisis is occuring. It simply legally capitualated to its one natural political enemy in advance hoping we never would do it (we do regularly send jets over vancouver to intercept suspicioys aircraft). Canada cant retain its population save through mass immigration, been that way for generations. So thdy more or less gave up. The US doesnt have this option as so many other countries depend on us, and if we go, no one will come and prop us up.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Golden\_Turd](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/The_Golden_Turd)
#### Post date: [November 10, 2015, 8:59am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/35 "2015-11-10T08:59:48Z")
Double post
---
### Author:  [@The\_Golden\_Turd](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/The_Golden_Turd)
#### Post date: [November 10, 2015, 9:00am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/36 "2015-11-10T09:00:57Z")
I for a while independently arrived at the idea that Left and Right were meaningless terms on the whole. I backed off from it after a while after becomming involved in reading the writings of the US Founding fathers. I identify as a Paleo-Conservative. Has nothing to do with the republican party, or modern democratic party (though they existed in a much different form in the era).
I more or less take John Adams position on parties… they are traitorous and needlessly devisive, and undemocratic. They tyrannize our ability to explore and seek out new idea, and to form sound government based on the eclectic best ideas existent in a republic. It usually devolves into a parliamentary power sharing clusterfuck, where every idea and yet none find their way foreward.
Why? The Balance of Power, no new ideas can be accepted in unless they are inoffensive to the opposite party, and if inoffensive, have to be demonized and demolished. Very few politicians can operate independently, and the ones who manage to are heavily scrutinized by both sides, followed by the media like hawks, both parties throw massives amounts of campaign funding to boot them in the next election, and in the end… if they make it, it’s only because they either have a ideologically perverse enclave (Communist or KKK electrolyte, such as David Duke or Bernie Sanders) or they receive disproportionate amount of funding to woo them than other senators. Senator Byrd and Rockefeller for West Virginia did this latter for years.
I tend to push against Hillary not because she is a Democrat, but her disaster as Secretary of State. A lot of stuff went to hell under her watch, and she didn’t know how to salvage what she could of it. Libya for example… Qaddafi was our enemy in the 80s, but in the 21st century we started down a long path of reformation. That path was suddenly cut short by a deeply incompetent bombing campaign lead by of all people the US, to suddenly demolish his regiem.
Was Qaddafi a good man? No. He was actively planning assassinations of other African leaders. He favored some tribes, and suppressed others. But he was the dictator we backed, using international instruments such as the UN to push AWAY from terrorism, by saying you do this, and we will loosen sanctions and legitimize you by degrees. Short of outright invading and forcing democracy on them, it was prudent and pragmatic.
In the end, it looks like Hillary alienated him and tossed him out. Why? No one knows, a lot from her state department has been leaked pointing fingers at her in bewilderment, but no one knows exactly why. I just know geopolitically, it was moronic. Qaddafi was a piece of shit, murdered people, but he also was pushing the idea of a African Union Army. Its just now years later coming into play, having just had 5,000 troops from around the continent engadge in war games in South Africa. Problem is, without a string Arab personality, this force will increasingly become a Black Christian/Pagan force verses Arab/ Nomadic Pasturist Islamic Arab League organization. Morocco always has been out given it’s invasion of Southwest Sahara. The Arab League isn’t really doing much in Somali, but the AU has. Mali… Islamic violence… France, then African Union…
In 50 years, where do you think this is going to lead? Turf War between Arab League and African Union. Its not bad enough given the rebellions in the African Great Lakes Regions, we gotta now watch this shit develop over the next few decades. We needed Qaddafi to bridge this one. Absolute piece of shit, but so very useful in this one area. Its a big Snafu for any state department.
Likewise, Qaddafi had discovered massive water reserves under Libya. He was building highly advanced aqeduct systems to water Libya. 5000 years ago, Libya was a thriving Agrarian Civilization. They started the practice of mummification, NOT the Egyptians. Romans imported food from them heavily. I can tolerate a Stalinist Turd if he is in acting large scale projects like this minus the genocides (Stalin killed 30 million in Ukraine, Qaddafi didn’t have the equivelent).
So now, instead of being a repressed country with a booming economy exporting oil and becoming the breadbasket of Africa, it’s a war torn shit hole bombed by various international factions supporting either government as they see fit. Why? The French Socialist wanted Oil and begged us to bomb Libya for them, as they never maintained their military capacity. It was purely imperialistic, not even the hint of argument otherwise. Libya wasn’t threatening us with terrorism, was in fact cooperating. Why we suddenly had to switch from being cautious friends to militant assholes I don’t know.
Furthermore, he approach to Libya itself was absurd. The international coalition was lead by a jackass French Philosopher (Bernard Levi) morally, lukewarmly cobbled together by France under Obama’s reluctant assurances. Its Hillary’s job to be the leader here. I don’t think much of John Kerry currently, but he at least gets out there. Has zero street cred, but makes the motions. Just went to hell under Hillary. You never let the French dictate NATO policy, never.
Likewise, they dragged ass on committing to a bombing raid. It was forever before we actually started, but Libya was using mechanized troops along a single highway to push through East. We had several brigades in Italy and Germany, could of dropped military grade barb wire that get tangled up in tank tracks and armored vehicles, stopping them in their tracks, dropped low level anti tank missiles and rifles… they could of easily held out for months till a political compromised was reached… very easy to entrench desert strongholds. Fuck noooooo… we had to bomb.
Lastly, we didn’t systematically assassinate Qaddafi’s Dynasty. It took months to track them all down. We really should of had Delta Force down on the ground with gangs and factions, bribing everyone left and right to gain access to his sins, and knocked them off as much as possible prior to the air campaign. If there are no successors, there is no Dynasty after Qaddafi dies or flees. If your going to war against a dynasty, you gotta kill all the princes, or you’ll have a Napoleon III scenerio years later. Luckily, we barely managed to fix this one, and by us, I mean of course, NOT the US, but the local factions.
That in and of itself is reason enough not to accept Hillary as Commander and Chief. She apparently botched a gun smuggling operation, resulting in the Bengazi Embassy Attack.
Using just Libya by itself, you can see why I don’t trust her to be commander and chief. We have a presidential system, not a mixed parlimentry system where one leader has war and foreign policy powers, and the other fucks around with the economy. Its united in one person, and she is absolutely anthetical to the position of commander and chief. I don’t trust Bill’s ability to lend insights either… his entire 8 years was a slow impulse continuation of the Gulf War. If he had any sense, he would of ended that fucking war in his first term with a peace treaty. Instead, we were at war with Iraq from 1989 to 2011, and elected a supreme idiot out of war weariness, that lead to ISIS forming.
So I’m not enthusiastic about either Clinton. Wars should be fought competently, pragmatically with for sight and to the greatest advantage of all when actually conducted, but at the same time, should occur seldomly. Department if state should be the protagonist, but rather the diplomatic force. There is a art of diplomacy, it just isn’t around any more. I’ve never encountered a more backwards administration ever in American history than this one.
Going back to Liberal and Conservative, and Pale or conservative. I’m a Paleo-Conservative. I like the era of philosophical debates, having just roses from war to liberate our country from the Canadians, where we openly discussed the great currents of political history with modern ideals, and crafted a great system. Wasn’t flawless, we had to chuck our first constitution, and the second had a glaring flaw both sides could see, slavery… that lead to a civil war. But we used our words for the most part, and had a tradition of electing great statesmen and heroes, intellectuals with a long term philosophical bent, until the present, every president was a philosopher in his own right, whose papers held points of wisdom for later generations to consult and be inspired by. They seemed to care. Now it’s all about catch lines and memes, procrastination and playing to the Dumbest Common Denominator.
We in the US can’t make the case as Europeans do that Conservatism is Fascism. Its not our system, not in our history. Closest we came was NIRA, the National Industrial Recovery Act in the 30s, was the war effort of the 40s of Tatal War (complete mobilization of manpower and economy) to crush Fascism.
My town in Weirton, West Virginia came the closest. We had the largest steel mill on earth then. We had the parades and creepy fascist eagles. Largest unincorporated town in the US, and no local decomcracy… the local government, such as the mayor, was appointed by the mill, as well as the police force. But our parades were multi ethnic, from everywhere, and even the blacks out succeeded mist every other community during segregation. They had one street… Weir Avenue, stuck in a gelkush part of the polluted town, but that one street produced more major league athletes than any other street in America… a fact statistically unshakable. Its a road of champions.
We never really grasped Fascism and Socialism. Its as far we went. We backed off and mellowed out after the war. We had a strong Marxist party for a while… post McCarty. Our steel mill became the largest employee owned corporation in the US. Collapsed under Bill Clinton, WTO. I saw it all crumble. The Marxist here went deranged and started voting Republican purely out of protest.
Economy kept getting worst. We went from a state that was steel and coal to just coal under Clinton. A strong Union history, we got over our racism progressively overtime, towed the line always with the Democratic party. Then coal was attacked. Why? Global Warming, a religion very similar to the Stoic religious concept of universal warming. Very weak demonstrative logic of cause and effect, and it’s solutions come off as rather fanciful and absurd.
Basically, in a nutshell:
Industrial Revolution increased carbon emissions, causing the world to melt, which for unstated reasons is a bad thing (not really, it opens up northern lands to agriculture and settlement, and that’s where most of our unusable land is).
In order to solve it, everyone needs to cut carbon emissions.
Pretty smart, right? But then when you look at history, both within written history and historically, our carbon output was next to nothing, and the climate yo-yoed all over the place. Do we blame blacksmiths in the bronze and iron age for the 3rd century climate change? If they had dome complex carbon juggling scheme in place, would the Germans of continuously pounded the Empire? Would of kept the steppes from drying out, forcing the Huns west?
No. Thats absurd. Likewise, we know very little about the carbon output of volcanoes from the ice ages versus dry seasons. We deal with ice deposits a few hundred thousand years old at best. Our frozen areas we’re warm in the last glacial recession, but suddenly everyone has to freak the Fuck out and scream global warming. Than when it’s showed not to be warming, it was switched to cooling. Then to play it save, just global climate change, and to safely hedge everyone’s bets, our super smart scientists are now swearing up and down the climate is changing both by natural and manmsde causes, and we have to do… exactly what they claimed for their previously very different systems. Agree to a lot of economic mayhem and turning our environmental sciences into a new state religion. Its not much different from the older Stoic religion.
As a result, Coal and the Mills are destroyed in this state. When Obama was running for president, he finally alienated the last of us by saying we’re not the kind of people who would vote for him as a black man… we did more than most parts of the country to eliminate racism here, and had always voted Democratic. It just collapsed.
What was the end result? We trusted the Democratic party, and got severely fucked over. We have existed in this economic depression since Bill Clinton was in office. The older far left parties put more and more emphasis on Gambling, and now my town of less than 30,000 (closer to 20,000 now, was 50,000 when I was a teenager) has over 30 casinos. Casinoes built in abandoned houses. They are called ‘Cafe & Mores’. We have a massive drug epidemic too, didn’t used to exist. Why? The two go together… hopes and dreams squashed, people left destroyed in the gaping crater of Kropotkin liberalism, they latch onto anything. While I was in the Army, by little brother became a heroine addict, then my sister Meth and Heroine. Its why I’ve been obsessed with building a UV camera capable to scanning the frequency Meth shows up at, so neighborhood watches can quickly identify who is running a residential Meth lab.
One neighborhood in my state had over 500 Meth labs raided by cops in one year. Thats just the ones they could identify. Entire generations have been lost, due to the long shadow of liberalism. I fucking hate it with a passion.
But I also lived in California. San Francisco. Was involved in the intellectual scene. Only political party I ever volunteered for was a left Democratic party, a state Senate race for a local black politician (followed LaRouche for some reason, who is mikitantly anti British, but this particular politician had visited Nigeria, and agreed with me the French we’re far more troublesome than the British Commonwealth).
Why did I back him? Because I listened to him, heard him out. I’m West Virginian, it’s what we do. Its what we did with Catholic Kennedy. He convinced us. He convinced me, and given he was running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat didn’t hurt much either.
My biggest complaints about inner city liberalism is that it is race based. In San Francisco, it was Black Democrats vs White, and the blacks seeth in anger at the white enforced apartheid against them. They are shoved into Oakland or Hunters Point (where I lived). People died left and right out there, so much gun violence I thought it was Sweden (yeah, they got it too, I read their news).
I would walk through the projects in hunters point, and would see one block all Hispanics, the next black, next Hispanics, next black. WTF? Divide and conquer.
Years ago, over ten, I started advocating a wall first policy. Why? Cause I thought it up. No one told me, I figured it out myself. Makes sense, build the wall, incorporate the immigrants you want (probably 80-90 percent), and keep the rest out save through legal immigration. Eventually the logic feel on the right, but could of easily been the left. Why? Its a logical compromise. I didn’t think if a national ID card first, but it makes a lot of sense. But remember reading far left magazines rediculing the logistical impossibility of doing national ID Cards. Really? We do state cards everywhere, social security and passports, WTF?
The main reason they are dragging ass is because they must in order to stay relevant. They have to be the opposition. Therefore, they must oppose. Why? In order to exist, gain ‘power’, and effect change. What change? I dunno… they don’t really know either, as a long lasting party, the Anti- Federalists have been around forever and flip flopped all over the place. It exists purely now to exist. Likewise, the Republicans have flipped a few times. What do they do once the have power? Plan to keep it, and undermine the opposition.
So any good idea has to be polarized, however awkward it is to do that.
So we have far less of a range of political discourse than we should. We have no narrow it down to two competing ideas. We have to further degrade those ideas qualitstively due to compromise. What comes out is inefficent and absurd, because our political cabinets are appointed as much on nepotism (cough hillary becomming secretary of state cough cough) and the good old boy system than on merit, efficiency, and foundational grasping of expertise in that field. Take Condaliza Rice… multiple PH.Ds, a expert in foreign policy. She deserved to be in that position as secretary of state by her own merits. She kept the Bush Adminustration confined to teo warfronts. Didnt pick fights with third world despots who got on her nerves, deciding to knock them off on a whim. Bush started them, but she managed her job as a chancellor or sorts well. Kept the wars focused and narrow. They stsrted dying down in 2007, allowing the next president to switch his field force from majority Iraq to Majority Afganistan post Irawi Surge (we all know of course Obama fucked that up, no debate on this matter, ISIS exists because of his direct actions).
If there is something generic and universal about conservatism, its a historical awareness. A Japanese Conservative in the 50s differed dramatically from a American one. One was pro fascist, pro military rule, the other wanted nothing to do with it. But both reflect systems that had been experienced, and could be recalked and debated. In America today, Hillary as a Progressive can point to FDR and rightly state she is a conservative. Likewise President Carson will be able to point back to Reagan, or Kennedy and Martin Luther King as his legacy in restoring the US back to unity, and ending the political imperitive of the left for a race war (absolutely no reason for it other than the left desperate to grab more votes).
The ability to look at history, defining what works and doesnt work is a valid mode of thinking, central to a paleoconservative outlook. But so is studying, carefully considering and embracing new ideas under formulaic conditions, weighing the pros and cons. The English language of “fairness” isnt easily translated into equality, equality is objective, fairness is the subjectivication of objectivication. Its a holdout from chivalry, where a knight was expected to judge impartially independently of his biases for the greater good between parties concened… its never a universal equality like Finland encourages, but rather a case by case, ad hoc consideration of others logical expectations and needs. Fairness works often, equality hardly ever. Fairness seeks the best solution, from both points of views. Equality is antagonistic, we presume violence will solve it if any inequality pops up.
I want the best possible solution. I want what works. Im in the market for solutions, not perpetuating the,problem.
So, as a philosopher, I dont vote. I hold both parties as dangerous and wrongheaded, but given the dialectic dynamic of a two party system, and the way the mind plans, by juxtapositioning principles against historical awareness in its planning cycle, I focus rather on this. Simple, pragmatic ideas. Ideas complex enough that they unite deductive and inductive assumptions of how causality works, designed to work on either side of the divide, because it incorporates both thought processes. Emphasive half, hopefully the other half can follow, or at least be prone to adjustment here unoffensively.
Today, the left is a absolute trainwreck. Obamscare doesnt work (really doesnt, people have very limited medical access to most PAs) we spent a billion dollars to digitalize the green card application forms. Obama fucked up the sign up website, even though a very safe, very useless military website exists that had similar capacity (all soldiers have it, but its fucking retarded info inside, like “get your flu shot” info. All they had to di was redign the front oage, erase the military database, and add a payment plan selection. One week max job. They fucked it up by not switching over to it).
Eventually though, competency will switcg, and Republicals will become to new kropotkins, fucking bumbling everything up. Dems will have better planning skills, republicans will return to veing idealustic liberals ready to uncompromise and start wars like during the civil war era (read Marx’s letters on the American Civil War).
I dislike bith parties, but at this point of time, Republucans are less likely to kill me. They are more likely to resolve Syria, stopping the genocide there. They are anti abortion, so less killing babies. They are more pro capital punishment, so it sours there.
They think through economuc priorities much better. Too much socialusm leads to mass homelessness, misery and suicide from despair. The Bill Clinton Mortgage Sub Prime bubbke was motivated by fairness and empathy… fucked everyone over in the end, and many of those houses were turned into casinoes here. Fuck this thought process. Im very much against equality, Im for fairness. Equality kinda works for Finland, is colkapsing fast in Sweden (several hundred migrant homes burnt down in Nietzschean arson raids. Nietzsche, fascist, same thing). I was a utopua and brotherhood of awareness and forsight, nit the threat of marxist dialectics, with Jack London’s “The Iron Heel” marxists using the homeless and dispossessed as cannon fodder and target practice for the sick glories of a marxist state than never can be. We tried it here. Look up Millsop, ESOP, NIRA. Never works right.
If you recall, during the Gay Marriage Constitutional Crisis, I said I wasnt really that concerned about gay marriage persay. I had lived in San Francisco, gay naked guys would walk around and jerk off in the streets. I was much, much, much more concerned we threw democracy completely out the window. We condoned the very worst crime our society fought for centuries to protect. We completely dropped any pretense the constitution as a independent document exists, or the priority of our republicsl system of electorate govrrnment to legislate our laws, for the people, by the people. We just had 9 supreme court justices pencil in a new, previously non existent clause into our constitution that overrides our law making capacity. Its absurdly dangerous, and cant possibly end here. This great country you, in the OP spoke of, now is terminally ill. That day, we ceased being a soverign republic in the same sense as when Caesar crossed the rubicon. Our law making capacity is no longer judged objectively through the laws, but by the whims of rlitism cliques who will forever this point on increasingly sidestep grass roots campaigns and will instead approach these nine unelected officials to enact superconstitutional clauses over and above what any party in congress or the states ever could.
The whole fucking point of being a decocratic republic is having the meaningful capacity to vote. This is niw being stripped from us, all for a short term, existentislist statement if personhood. I dont kniw if our dichotomy of liberal vs conservative, left vs right matters in a court culture, where despotes can unconstitutionally legislate a superior law above the law that entitles them to rule in the first pkace.
We become merely a bunch if squabbling factions, like during the Nike Revolt during Emperor Justianuan. Tens if thousands of political partisabs murdered within a few hours, clearly having no say. We owe this legacy to Cicero, who started the decline from a democratic republic to a autocratic, divinely lead God Emperor. Yet Im certain Cicero was the optimist, seeing only the best. He didnt see Nero. He didnt see Caligula, he didnt see Thrax. He didnt see the endless bloodly ends of his cursed, bloodsoaked ideas, all stemming from the eish to diefy and worship his dead, beloved daughter, and imagining a means to deify men into gods to rectify the decay of the state.
Innocent ideas can turn so very sour, so very bloody, so aweful with the ceaseless creep of time. So many died so quivkly in the nike revolt, many innocents just watching the circus games. Not until daisy cutters and nukes did we once again achieve such a high kill ratio in duch a short period of time.
Thats compassion. Thats empathy. Unchained, without awareness of consequence. A endless dark night of death and despair, until the inevitable institutional collapse engulfs every population, every people. Lomg before it collapsed, entire cities in the Roman Empire burnt down because the people had been pushed out of representational government… military gave them no say increasingly. So when the fires came, they meekly got out of the way, and watched, to the exasperation of the roman governors.
You take away a peoples sovergnity, thrir sbility to determine their own futures, to knoeingly see themselves and their descendents playing a better role in it, you end up with a defeated and barren people. Take western europe… it has a technologically adanced yet very weak military. It played a very big part in the Iraq War (pullout of Italy and Spain, collapse of the EU borderstates participating in Iraq lead to the current ISIS situation, they had Falluja and Ramadi, and the immigrant crises is via their lands. Military and police forces thought in a utopia but lived in a very different real world that quickly changed beyond their imaginings, and now is very heavily imoacting them. Europe is in a process of soul searching). In its current state, its completely dependent on the US. Why? It lost WW2. We went very, very easy post war years on them. They collapsed into existentialusm, hid their heads up their asses muttering nietzsche and heuddegar. Russoa via Warsaw and the US via NATO ran everything for them. They thought they became some startrek liberal utopua where green energy and global warming mattered most. They spent decades chiding the US, telling us to be more like they are. It works for them after all. Only when the US is looking out for you, cushioning everything.
Now, just as Europe is institutionalizing a guarantee waged if you work or not, in Sweden, a city in the Netherlands, Switzerland, half the third world is party crashing their delusion and busting the gate down. Its just now occuring having a european presudent run the US on European standards really fucked tgem over unlike anything else.
Im guessing many here will parrot the old fortress europe slogans the anarchist would chant in the 90s abd 2000s out of habits, but look at who is being voted in time and time again. Its going to have to snap and eventually change. Eurooe wasnt planning for Europe, the US was planning for Europe. Europe turned hendonist, decadent, athiest, weak. Its ideologically dying.
People need to possess a sense of self ownership if society abd their collective future. The idea of fairness, not equality should trump. It needs to be a intellectual awareness. Emotions like empathy need carefully weighed against good statecraft. Highly intelligent magustrates sought out, very wuse senators elected. Laws ordered, intuitive, and simple. The military needs to be efficient in operations, redundent in placement to mutually support outposts in unexpected cascade movements for strategic needs, our health plans should be based less on utopic standards and more on the dry reason of facts and best practices. I think President Carson having been a neurosurgeon can make order of Obamas chaos, perhaps make parts work, scrap what doesnt, and make effect change.
What we shoukdnt do, is be like PM Trudeau recently in Canada and select 15 male and 15 female ministers to advise him for the sake of having the most sexually liberal consultative cabnet in any western democracy. WTF… you pick the best consults on the basis of merit and experience, ability to perform their tasks… not on their sexual organs. Canada can do this because it only birders the US and Greenland, and already has a treaty with the US allowing us to unilaterally send forces north whenever we think a crisis is occuring. It simply legally capitualated to its one natural political enemy in advance hoping we never would do it (we do regularly send jets over vancouver to intercept suspicioys aircraft). Canada cant retain its population save through mass immigration, been that way for generations. So thdy more or less gave up. The US doesnt have this option as so many other countries depend on us, and if we go, no one will come and prop us up.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Golden\_Turd](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/The_Golden_Turd)
#### Post date: [November 10, 2015, 9:01am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/37 "2015-11-10T09:01:29Z")
I for a while independently arrived at the idea that Left and Right were meaningless terms on the whole. I backed off from it after a while after becomming involved in reading the writings of the US Founding fathers. I identify as a Paleo-Conservative. Has nothing to do with the republican party, or modern democratic party (though they existed in a much different form in the era).
I more or less take John Adams position on parties… they are traitorous and needlessly devisive, and undemocratic. They tyrannize our ability to explore and seek out new idea, and to form sound government based on the eclectic best ideas existent in a republic. It usually devolves into a parliamentary power sharing clusterfuck, where every idea and yet none find their way foreward.
Why? The Balance of Power, no new ideas can be accepted in unless they are inoffensive to the opposite party, and if inoffensive, have to be demonized and demolished. Very few politicians can operate independently, and the ones who manage to are heavily scrutinized by both sides, followed by the media like hawks, both parties throw massives amounts of campaign funding to boot them in the next election, and in the end… if they make it, it’s only because they either have a ideologically perverse enclave (Communist or KKK electrolyte, such as David Duke or Bernie Sanders) or they receive disproportionate amount of funding to woo them than other senators. Senator Byrd and Rockefeller for West Virginia did this latter for years.
I tend to push against Hillary not because she is a Democrat, but her disaster as Secretary of State. A lot of stuff went to hell under her watch, and she didn’t know how to salvage what she could of it. Libya for example… Qaddafi was our enemy in the 80s, but in the 21st century we started down a long path of reformation. That path was suddenly cut short by a deeply incompetent bombing campaign lead by of all people the US, to suddenly demolish his regiem.
Was Qaddafi a good man? No. He was actively planning assassinations of other African leaders. He favored some tribes, and suppressed others. But he was the dictator we backed, using international instruments such as the UN to push AWAY from terrorism, by saying you do this, and we will loosen sanctions and legitimize you by degrees. Short of outright invading and forcing democracy on them, it was prudent and pragmatic.
In the end, it looks like Hillary alienated him and tossed him out. Why? No one knows, a lot from her state department has been leaked pointing fingers at her in bewilderment, but no one knows exactly why. I just know geopolitically, it was moronic. Qaddafi was a piece of shit, murdered people, but he also was pushing the idea of a African Union Army. Its just now years later coming into play, having just had 5,000 troops from around the continent engadge in war games in South Africa. Problem is, without a string Arab personality, this force will increasingly become a Black Christian/Pagan force verses Arab/ Nomadic Pasturist Islamic Arab League organization. Morocco always has been out given it’s invasion of Southwest Sahara. The Arab League isn’t really doing much in Somali, but the AU has. Mali… Islamic violence… France, then African Union…
In 50 years, where do you think this is going to lead? Turf War between Arab League and African Union. Its not bad enough given the rebellions in the African Great Lakes Regions, we gotta now watch this shit develop over the next few decades. We needed Qaddafi to bridge this one. Absolute piece of shit, but so very useful in this one area. Its a big Snafu for any state department.
Likewise, Qaddafi had discovered massive water reserves under Libya. He was building highly advanced aqeduct systems to water Libya. 5000 years ago, Libya was a thriving Agrarian Civilization. They started the practice of mummification, NOT the Egyptians. Romans imported food from them heavily. I can tolerate a Stalinist Turd if he is in acting large scale projects like this minus the genocides (Stalin killed 30 million in Ukraine, Qaddafi didn’t have the equivelent).
So now, instead of being a repressed country with a booming economy exporting oil and becoming the breadbasket of Africa, it’s a war torn shit hole bombed by various international factions supporting either government as they see fit. Why? The French Socialist wanted Oil and begged us to bomb Libya for them, as they never maintained their military capacity. It was purely imperialistic, not even the hint of argument otherwise. Libya wasn’t threatening us with terrorism, was in fact cooperating. Why we suddenly had to switch from being cautious friends to militant assholes I don’t know.
Furthermore, he approach to Libya itself was absurd. The international coalition was lead by a jackass French Philosopher (Bernard Levi) morally, lukewarmly cobbled together by France under Obama’s reluctant assurances. Its Hillary’s job to be the leader here. I don’t think much of John Kerry currently, but he at least gets out there. Has zero street cred, but makes the motions. Just went to hell under Hillary. You never let the French dictate NATO policy, never.
Likewise, they dragged ass on committing to a bombing raid. It was forever before we actually started, but Libya was using mechanized troops along a single highway to push through East. We had several brigades in Italy and Germany, could of dropped military grade barb wire that get tangled up in tank tracks and armored vehicles, stopping them in their tracks, dropped low level anti tank missiles and rifles… they could of easily held out for months till a political compromised was reached… very easy to entrench desert strongholds. Fuck noooooo… we had to bomb.
Lastly, we didn’t systematically assassinate Qaddafi’s Dynasty. It took months to track them all down. We really should of had Delta Force down on the ground with gangs and factions, bribing everyone left and right to gain access to his sins, and knocked them off as much as possible prior to the air campaign. If there are no successors, there is no Dynasty after Qaddafi dies or flees. If your going to war against a dynasty, you gotta kill all the princes, or you’ll have a Napoleon III scenerio years later. Luckily, we barely managed to fix this one, and by us, I mean of course, NOT the US, but the local factions.
That in and of itself is reason enough not to accept Hillary as Commander and Chief. She apparently botched a gun smuggling operation, resulting in the Bengazi Embassy Attack.
Using just Libya by itself, you can see why I don’t trust her to be commander and chief. We have a presidential system, not a mixed parlimentry system where one leader has war and foreign policy powers, and the other fucks around with the economy. Its united in one person, and she is absolutely anthetical to the position of commander and chief. I don’t trust Bill’s ability to lend insights either… his entire 8 years was a slow impulse continuation of the Gulf War. If he had any sense, he would of ended that fucking war in his first term with a peace treaty. Instead, we were at war with Iraq from 1989 to 2011, and elected a supreme idiot out of war weariness, that lead to ISIS forming.
So I’m not enthusiastic about either Clinton. Wars should be fought competently, pragmatically with for sight and to the greatest advantage of all when actually conducted, but at the same time, should occur seldomly. Department if state should be the protagonist, but rather the diplomatic force. There is a art of diplomacy, it just isn’t around any more. I’ve never encountered a more backwards administration ever in American history than this one.
Going back to Liberal and Conservative, and Pale or conservative. I’m a Paleo-Conservative. I like the era of philosophical debates, having just roses from war to liberate our country from the Canadians, where we openly discussed the great currents of political history with modern ideals, and crafted a great system. Wasn’t flawless, we had to chuck our first constitution, and the second had a glaring flaw both sides could see, slavery… that lead to a civil war. But we used our words for the most part, and had a tradition of electing great statesmen and heroes, intellectuals with a long term philosophical bent, until the present, every president was a philosopher in his own right, whose papers held points of wisdom for later generations to consult and be inspired by. They seemed to care. Now it’s all about catch lines and memes, procrastination and playing to the Dumbest Common Denominator.
We in the US can’t make the case as Europeans do that Conservatism is Fascism. Its not our system, not in our history. Closest we came was NIRA, the National Industrial Recovery Act in the 30s, was the war effort of the 40s of Tatal War (complete mobilization of manpower and economy) to crush Fascism.
My town in Weirton, West Virginia came the closest. We had the largest steel mill on earth then. We had the parades and creepy fascist eagles. Largest unincorporated town in the US, and no local decomcracy… the local government, such as the mayor, was appointed by the mill, as well as the police force. But our parades were multi ethnic, from everywhere, and even the blacks out succeeded mist every other community during segregation. They had one street… Weir Avenue, stuck in a gelkush part of the polluted town, but that one street produced more major league athletes than any other street in America… a fact statistically unshakable. Its a road of champions.
We never really grasped Fascism and Socialism. Its as far we went. We backed off and mellowed out after the war. We had a strong Marxist party for a while… post McCarty. Our steel mill became the largest employee owned corporation in the US. Collapsed under Bill Clinton, WTO. I saw it all crumble. The Marxist here went deranged and started voting Republican purely out of protest.
Economy kept getting worst. We went from a state that was steel and coal to just coal under Clinton. A strong Union history, we got over our racism progressively overtime, towed the line always with the Democratic party. Then coal was attacked. Why? Global Warming, a religion very similar to the Stoic religious concept of universal warming. Very weak demonstrative logic of cause and effect, and it’s solutions come off as rather fanciful and absurd.
Basically, in a nutshell:
Industrial Revolution increased carbon emissions, causing the world to melt, which for unstated reasons is a bad thing (not really, it opens up northern lands to agriculture and settlement, and that’s where most of our unusable land is).
In order to solve it, everyone needs to cut carbon emissions.
Pretty smart, right? But then when you look at history, both within written history and historically, our carbon output was next to nothing, and the climate yo-yoed all over the place. Do we blame blacksmiths in the bronze and iron age for the 3rd century climate change? If they had dome complex carbon juggling scheme in place, would the Germans of continuously pounded the Empire? Would of kept the steppes from drying out, forcing the Huns west?
No. Thats absurd. Likewise, we know very little about the carbon output of volcanoes from the ice ages versus dry seasons. We deal with ice deposits a few hundred thousand years old at best. Our frozen areas we’re warm in the last glacial recession, but suddenly everyone has to freak the Fuck out and scream global warming. Than when it’s showed not to be warming, it was switched to cooling. Then to play it save, just global climate change, and to safely hedge everyone’s bets, our super smart scientists are now swearing up and down the climate is changing both by natural and manmsde causes, and we have to do… exactly what they claimed for their previously very different systems. Agree to a lot of economic mayhem and turning our environmental sciences into a new state religion. Its not much different from the older Stoic religion.
As a result, Coal and the Mills are destroyed in this state. When Obama was running for president, he finally alienated the last of us by saying we’re not the kind of people who would vote for him as a black man… we did more than most parts of the country to eliminate racism here, and had always voted Democratic. It just collapsed.
What was the end result? We trusted the Democratic party, and got severely fucked over. We have existed in this economic depression since Bill Clinton was in office. The older far left parties put more and more emphasis on Gambling, and now my town of less than 30,000 (closer to 20,000 now, was 50,000 when I was a teenager) has over 30 casinos. Casinoes built in abandoned houses. They are called ‘Cafe & Mores’. We have a massive drug epidemic too, didn’t used to exist. Why? The two go together… hopes and dreams squashed, people left destroyed in the gaping crater of Kropotkin liberalism, they latch onto anything. While I was in the Army, by little brother became a heroine addict, then my sister Meth and Heroine. Its why I’ve been obsessed with building a UV camera capable to scanning the frequency Meth shows up at, so neighborhood watches can quickly identify who is running a residential Meth lab.
One neighborhood in my state had over 500 Meth labs raided by cops in one year. Thats just the ones they could identify. Entire generations have been lost, due to the long shadow of liberalism. I fucking hate it with a passion.
But I also lived in California. San Francisco. Was involved in the intellectual scene. Only political party I ever volunteered for was a left Democratic party, a state Senate race for a local black politician (followed LaRouche for some reason, who is mikitantly anti British, but this particular politician had visited Nigeria, and agreed with me the French we’re far more troublesome than the British Commonwealth).
Why did I back him? Because I listened to him, heard him out. I’m West Virginian, it’s what we do. Its what we did with Catholic Kennedy. He convinced us. He convinced me, and given he was running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat didn’t hurt much either.
My biggest complaints about inner city liberalism is that it is race based. In San Francisco, it was Black Democrats vs White, and the blacks seeth in anger at the white enforced apartheid against them. They are shoved into Oakland or Hunters Point (where I lived). People died left and right out there, so much gun violence I thought it was Sweden (yeah, they got it too, I read their news).
I would walk through the projects in hunters point, and would see one block all Hispanics, the next black, next Hispanics, next black. WTF? Divide and conquer.
Years ago, over ten, I started advocating a wall first policy. Why? Cause I thought it up. No one told me, I figured it out myself. Makes sense, build the wall, incorporate the immigrants you want (probably 80-90 percent), and keep the rest out save through legal immigration. Eventually the logic feel on the right, but could of easily been the left. Why? Its a logical compromise. I didn’t think if a national ID card first, but it makes a lot of sense. But remember reading far left magazines rediculing the logistical impossibility of doing national ID Cards. Really? We do state cards everywhere, social security and passports, WTF?
The main reason they are dragging ass is because they must in order to stay relevant. They have to be the opposition. Therefore, they must oppose. Why? In order to exist, gain ‘power’, and effect change. What change? I dunno… they don’t really know either, as a long lasting party, the Anti- Federalists have been around forever and flip flopped all over the place. It exists purely now to exist. Likewise, the Republicans have flipped a few times. What do they do once the have power? Plan to keep it, and undermine the opposition.
So any good idea has to be polarized, however awkward it is to do that.
So we have far less of a range of political discourse than we should. We have no narrow it down to two competing ideas. We have to further degrade those ideas qualitstively due to compromise. What comes out is inefficent and absurd, because our political cabinets are appointed as much on nepotism (cough hillary becomming secretary of state cough cough) and the good old boy system than on merit, efficiency, and foundational grasping of expertise in that field. Take Condaliza Rice… multiple PH.Ds, a expert in foreign policy. She deserved to be in that position as secretary of state by her own merits. She kept the Bush Adminustration confined to teo warfronts. Didnt pick fights with third world despots who got on her nerves, deciding to knock them off on a whim. Bush started them, but she managed her job as a chancellor or sorts well. Kept the wars focused and narrow. They stsrted dying down in 2007, allowing the next president to switch his field force from majority Iraq to Majority Afganistan post Irawi Surge (we all know of course Obama fucked that up, no debate on this matter, ISIS exists because of his direct actions).
If there is something generic and universal about conservatism, its a historical awareness. A Japanese Conservative in the 50s differed dramatically from a American one. One was pro fascist, pro military rule, the other wanted nothing to do with it. But both reflect systems that had been experienced, and could be recalked and debated. In America today, Hillary as a Progressive can point to FDR and rightly state she is a conservative. Likewise President Carson will be able to point back to Reagan, or Kennedy and Martin Luther King as his legacy in restoring the US back to unity, and ending the political imperitive of the left for a race war (absolutely no reason for it other than the left desperate to grab more votes).
The ability to look at history, defining what works and doesnt work is a valid mode of thinking, central to a paleoconservative outlook. But so is studying, carefully considering and embracing new ideas under formulaic conditions, weighing the pros and cons. The English language of “fairness” isnt easily translated into equality, equality is objective, fairness is the subjectivication of objectivication. Its a holdout from chivalry, where a knight was expected to judge impartially independently of his biases for the greater good between parties concened… its never a universal equality like Finland encourages, but rather a case by case, ad hoc consideration of others logical expectations and needs. Fairness works often, equality hardly ever. Fairness seeks the best solution, from both points of views. Equality is antagonistic, we presume violence will solve it if any inequality pops up.
I want the best possible solution. I want what works. Im in the market for solutions, not perpetuating the,problem.
So, as a philosopher, I dont vote. I hold both parties as dangerous and wrongheaded, but given the dialectic dynamic of a two party system, and the way the mind plans, by juxtapositioning principles against historical awareness in its planning cycle, I focus rather on this. Simple, pragmatic ideas. Ideas complex enough that they unite deductive and inductive assumptions of how causality works, designed to work on either side of the divide, because it incorporates both thought processes. Emphasive half, hopefully the other half can follow, or at least be prone to adjustment here unoffensively.
Today, the left is a absolute trainwreck. Obamscare doesnt work (really doesnt, people have very limited medical access to most PAs) we spent a billion dollars to digitalize the green card application forms. Obama fucked up the sign up website, even though a very safe, very useless military website exists that had similar capacity (all soldiers have it, but its fucking retarded info inside, like “get your flu shot” info. All they had to di was redign the front oage, erase the military database, and add a payment plan selection. One week max job. They fucked it up by not switching over to it).
Eventually though, competency will switcg, and Republicals will become to new kropotkins, fucking bumbling everything up. Dems will have better planning skills, republicans will return to veing idealustic liberals ready to uncompromise and start wars like during the civil war era (read Marx’s letters on the American Civil War).
I dislike bith parties, but at this point of time, Republucans are less likely to kill me. They are more likely to resolve Syria, stopping the genocide there. They are anti abortion, so less killing babies. They are more pro capital punishment, so it sours there.
They think through economuc priorities much better. Too much socialusm leads to mass homelessness, misery and suicide from despair. The Bill Clinton Mortgage Sub Prime bubbke was motivated by fairness and empathy… fucked everyone over in the end, and many of those houses were turned into casinoes here. Fuck this thought process. Im very much against equality, Im for fairness. Equality kinda works for Finland, is colkapsing fast in Sweden (several hundred migrant homes burnt down in Nietzschean arson raids. Nietzsche, fascist, same thing). I was a utopua and brotherhood of awareness and forsight, nit the threat of marxist dialectics, with Jack London’s “The Iron Heel” marxists using the homeless and dispossessed as cannon fodder and target practice for the sick glories of a marxist state than never can be. We tried it here. Look up Millsop, ESOP, NIRA. Never works right.
If you recall, during the Gay Marriage Constitutional Crisis, I said I wasnt really that concerned about gay marriage persay. I had lived in San Francisco, gay naked guys would walk around and jerk off in the streets. I was much, much, much more concerned we threw democracy completely out the window. We condoned the very worst crime our society fought for centuries to protect. We completely dropped any pretense the constitution as a independent document exists, or the priority of our republicsl system of electorate govrrnment to legislate our laws, for the people, by the people. We just had 9 supreme court justices pencil in a new, previously non existent clause into our constitution that overrides our law making capacity. Its absurdly dangerous, and cant possibly end here. This great country you, in the OP spoke of, now is terminally ill. That day, we ceased being a soverign republic in the same sense as when Caesar crossed the rubicon. Our law making capacity is no longer judged objectively through the laws, but by the whims of rlitism cliques who will forever this point on increasingly sidestep grass roots campaigns and will instead approach these nine unelected officials to enact superconstitutional clauses over and above what any party in congress or the states ever could.
The whole fucking point of being a decocratic republic is having the meaningful capacity to vote. This is niw being stripped from us, all for a short term, existentislist statement if personhood. I dont kniw if our dichotomy of liberal vs conservative, left vs right matters in a court culture, where despotes can unconstitutionally legislate a superior law above the law that entitles them to rule in the first pkace.
We become merely a bunch if squabbling factions, like during the Nike Revolt during Emperor Justianuan. Tens if thousands of political partisabs murdered within a few hours, clearly having no say. We owe this legacy to Cicero, who started the decline from a democratic republic to a autocratic, divinely lead God Emperor. Yet Im certain Cicero was the optimist, seeing only the best. He didnt see Nero. He didnt see Caligula, he didnt see Thrax. He didnt see the endless bloodly ends of his cursed, bloodsoaked ideas, all stemming from the eish to diefy and worship his dead, beloved daughter, and imagining a means to deify men into gods to rectify the decay of the state.
Innocent ideas can turn so very sour, so very bloody, so aweful with the ceaseless creep of time. So many died so quivkly in the nike revolt, many innocents just watching the circus games. Not until daisy cutters and nukes did we once again achieve such a high kill ratio in duch a short period of time.
Thats compassion. Thats empathy. Unchained, without awareness of consequence. A endless dark night of death and despair, until the inevitable institutional collapse engulfs every population, every people. Lomg before it collapsed, entire cities in the Roman Empire burnt down because the people had been pushed out of representational government… military gave them no say increasingly. So when the fires came, they meekly got out of the way, and watched, to the exasperation of the roman governors.
You take away a peoples sovergnity, thrir sbility to determine their own futures, to knoeingly see themselves and their descendents playing a better role in it, you end up with a defeated and barren people. Take western europe… it has a technologically adanced yet very weak military. It played a very big part in the Iraq War (pullout of Italy and Spain, collapse of the EU borderstates participating in Iraq lead to the current ISIS situation, they had Falluja and Ramadi, and the immigrant crises is via their lands. Military and police forces thought in a utopia but lived in a very different real world that quickly changed beyond their imaginings, and now is very heavily imoacting them. Europe is in a process of soul searching). In its current state, its completely dependent on the US. Why? It lost WW2. We went very, very easy post war years on them. They collapsed into existentialusm, hid their heads up their asses muttering nietzsche and heuddegar. Russoa via Warsaw and the US via NATO ran everything for them. They thought they became some startrek liberal utopua where green energy and global warming mattered most. They spent decades chiding the US, telling us to be more like they are. It works for them after all. Only when the US is looking out for you, cushioning everything.
Now, just as Europe is institutionalizing a guarantee waged if you work or not, in Sweden, a city in the Netherlands, Switzerland, half the third world is party crashing their delusion and busting the gate down. Its just now occuring having a european presudent run the US on European standards really fucked tgem over unlike anything else.
Im guessing many here will parrot the old fortress europe slogans the anarchist would chant in the 90s abd 2000s out of habits, but look at who is being voted in time and time again. Its going to have to snap and eventually change. Eurooe wasnt planning for Europe, the US was planning for Europe. Europe turned hendonist, decadent, athiest, weak. Its ideologically dying.
People need to possess a sense of self ownership if society abd their collective future. The idea of fairness, not equality should trump. It needs to be a intellectual awareness. Emotions like empathy need carefully weighed against good statecraft. Highly intelligent magustrates sought out, very wuse senators elected. Laws ordered, intuitive, and simple. The military needs to be efficient in operations, redundent in placement to mutually support outposts in unexpected cascade movements for strategic needs, our health plans should be based less on utopic standards and more on the dry reason of facts and best practices. I think President Carson having been a neurosurgeon can make order of Obamas chaos, perhaps make parts work, scrap what doesnt, and make effect change.
What we shoukdnt do, is be like PM Trudeau recently in Canada and select 15 male and 15 female ministers to advise him for the sake of having the most sexually liberal consultative cabnet in any western democracy. WTF… you pick the best consults on the basis of merit and experience, ability to perform their tasks… not on their sexual organs. Canada can do this because it only birders the US and Greenland, and already has a treaty with the US allowing us to unilaterally send forces north whenever we think a crisis is occuring. It simply legally capitualated to its one natural political enemy in advance hoping we never would do it (we do regularly send jets over vancouver to intercept suspicioys aircraft). Canada cant retain its population save through mass immigration, been that way for generations. So thdy more or less gave up. The US doesnt have this option as so many other countries depend on us, and if we go, no one will come and prop us up.
---
### Author:  [@Arcturus\_Descending](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Arcturus_Descending)
#### Post date: [November 10, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887/38 "2015-11-10T14:18:39Z")
Well, Contra, you seem to have had some kind of rebirth.
The Phoenix has arisen out of the ashes.
Welcome back.
[tab][size=85]oh how i wish that i had the intellect of some in here. But I guess i get by.[/size][/tab]
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-whole-talking-politics-thing/40887.md?page=1)