I rarely hear anyone calling for more left or right social authoritarianism here (at least in the strictest sense of the word social, I do hear people calling for more gun and immigration control).
I think the same is mostly true of Joe and Jane average, but TPTB don’t care what they think.
Many if not most of this forum’s disagreements are over economics and more recently over Covid.
I know you, Promethean and Peter Kropotkin aren’t interested in identity politics.
I’m sure SJWs would tend to shy away from forums like this.
Besides they have mainstream (social) media to turn to, whereas forums like this are all we have.
I think we have some common ground.
While I’m not a communist, I am a social democrat.
It’s very dangerous and stifling to give the state near absolute control over the economy or any domain.
Right, you’re a communist, but in favor of constitutional, democratic and peaceful transition, rather than trying to bring it about at gunpoint.
Right I get that, Marx wasn’t an SJW, it’s not something central to communism, it’s something peripheral that developed later in the mid-late 20th century and really took off in the early 21st.
There are some contemporary libertarian socialists and Marxists like Chomsky and Zizek who believe it’s more of a hinderance to Marx’s original aims.
I know there are many schools of thought on the left just as there are many on the right.
I don’t consider myself left or right, I prefer the term populist.
There are aspects of both left and right populism that appeal to me.
Can’t argue with that, that’s a great starting point, the vast majority left and right want to see things improve, but we disagree on what that’d look like exactly and how to get there.
And of course that’s exactly what TPTB want to see, the middle and lower classes fighting with each other over our differences, which’re insignificant compared to the difference between us and the ruling class.
Centrism is a misnomer.
Centrism is liberal fascism.
Because that’s the establishment, the system that’s in place today.
I agree with liberal fascists on next to nothing.
There are social democrats on the peripheral-left I agree with and libertarians and nationalists on the peripheral-right I agree with.
I don’t think Sanders and Trump are opposites.
They’re both against starting more wars.
They’re both protectionists.
They’re both against hiring illegals.
Trump tried to solve the problem by building more wall and getting tougher on illegals whereas Sanders would’ve tried to grant illegals amnesty and a quick path to citizenship.
Two different paths, similar goal in some ways.
Socially I think they’re both moderates, but the far left had some success in pushing Sanders further left socially.
The main disagreements they had were over taxation/spending and national sovereignty, Trump wanted to lower taxes and cut spending in general whereas Sanders wanted to raise taxes on the upper classes and increase spending on the lower classes.
I think it’s in the interests of liberal fascists to make it seem like they’re in the middle between the radical left and radical right.
They’re not, they’re radical liberal fascists, and often the so called radical left and radical right have a lot in common.
Social democrats who’re anti-war have more in common with libertarians who’re anti-war than they do with corporatists who’re pro-war, especially if the social democrats are culturally and socially libertarian or moderate.
In practice, neolibs and neocons are liberal fascists.
Fiscally and militarily they resemble Mussolini, culturally, socially and now medically they’re hyper-progressive, and they love cheap labor, they exploit illegal workers at home, foreign workers abroad and they let foreigners buy our housing and land, inflating prices, making it difficult for us to buy and rent.
I would agree with you that I “lean left,” were it not for sweeping generalizations such as this:
I am an individual who DOES care about fraud and lies, who DOES try to live a lawful and moral life. If you are conflating other Americans on the left with the policy makers, then you are doing a disservice to your fellow countryman.
This can only be true if I accept your initial assertion, that the right happens to align with all that is moral and lawful. Which I do not. I believe once you’ve categorized one side as right and the other as wrong, you’ve already faltered. Once you’ve created the lenses through which you view only one side as capable of generating morally righteous positions, and the other completely incapable, you will inevitably sacrifice objectivity.
I’ll answer the lightning round questions without amending my position, but it would be all too easy to answer in a way that would appease you and others who believe most folks have it wrong about Trump.
Difficult to say. The founding fathers created a convoluted system of voting to safeguard the U.S. from the whims and tyranny of the majority, as they believed the majority of the U.S. population was too uneducated and unrefined to best determine what policies would lead to the best outcomes. I think a popular vote would run the risk of even further isolating, neglecting, and infuriating Americans who live in the rural parts of the country…
We already have a missing-chromosome form of socialist U.S. government, i.e. social security, medicaid, etc. Should social programs be expanded? That would require a level of trust in competency of government that we (rightfully) do not have right now. Also, one would need to define “socialism” more clearly than the buzzword thrown around to mean, “Bad.”
No, the Constitution is fine. We need to get back to using amendments if we want to change it, vs. all this backdoor and subversive bullshit i.e. drug schedules, unauthorized wars, etc.
Individuals should be allowed to own firearms to protect themselves; however, the idea that the U.S. population could somehow amass arms that would be able to fight off a tyrannical government overthrow is absurd. There is an arbitrary line drawn for what civilians are allowed to own for defense, and I am content continuing the debate of where that line should be drawn.
I feel pretty good about it, although a distinction should be drawn between independence and isolationism. In addition, due to our geography, I think it’d be pretty tough for us to be part of any world order unless it was North America vs. all.
That’s not what nationalism means to me.
It means we like who we are, our values and way of life, and we don’t want anyone to come here unless they share our core values (liberty, equality, fraternity).
It means we want to protect our national sovereignty, housing, resources and workers from being infringed upon and exploited by foreigners and foreign governments, internationalists and multinationals, and in turn, allow other countries to protect theirs.
They do tag team us.
Also, I think libertarians are more inclined to believe in conspiracy theories than authoritarians.
In the mid-late 20th century Anglosphere, with the exception of some aspects of the economy (while the left were more in favor of socialism than the right, they were also more critical of corporatism), the left tended to be more libertarian than the right.
In the early 21st century Anglosphere there’s been a shift.
In my view, the new left tend to be more authoritarian across the board and the new right more libertarian across the board.
Some old-school leftists are having trouble adapting to the new left, and some of them are even finding they have more in common with the new right, some are even becoming libertarians or realizing really they always were.
There are several concerns I have about your post -
Except for the word “cannot”, I am one of those. I have expressed that it is difficult and too difficult for most people. It is not impossible. It is just that most people don’t have the experience, time, or inclination to analyze and research what they are seeing as “news”.
It is not true of those who have the experience, time, and inclination concerning the issues. You appear to have the time and inclination. But I am sensing a lack of experience that would help deter what appears to me to be an inclination to follow suspicion confirmation bias (as reflected below).
That falls into the category of Fake News
I have very often explained exactly why their narrative is off track with the truth concerning Mr Trump. And that appears to be the part being ignored. When it gets ignored too often by someone, I begin to ignore that someone as disingenuous. I am NOT merely dismissing their argument.
But also as I explained (although apparently ignored) I and everybody must speak in generalized labels in order to communicate. So in order to make a quick point, I might say - “Leftist lie about Mr Trump” or “Leftists favor fraud”. Those Leftists who don’t do those things are much like the Arab Muslims who don’t get into terrorism. They are innocent of the accusation but guilty of not cleaning out their own party. They are falling into the “guilt by association” thing merely due to the language limitsnot from any intent to accuse the innocent or dismiss their existence.
Now that is directly insulting accusative. And from that post as well as the general tone of your prior posts, I think you are victim of that afore mentioned “suspicion confirmation bias”. And that very subject was addressed by me on my thread - How to reduce suspicion?. Note how much discussion there was about it.
I would guess that your life is strongly being shaped by your temptation to be suspicious - “they only say that to feed their agenda” - as if everyone on the planet is always only plotting and planning how to accomplish their hidden agenda. How do you make the decision that someone has an agenda? Them disagreeing with you? Them favoring Mr Trump? Is this just another TDS thing? What is your scale, compass, and measure? Do you even consider the possibility of merely misunderstanding and over suspicion?
And to help reduce the negative effects of that I propose first to recognize it and then to suspect that maybe the one incident you are witnessing actually had a hidden good intent. And that is was only hidden because the person didn’t see the need to point it out, not because they were trying to hide anything. Give a little credence to unexposed innocent intent. Balance your suspicion and be smarter than the devil between your mind and their true intent.
People who are not suspicious and do not manipulate or accuse are often not aware of what they look like to those who are suspicious and do manipulate or accuse because it is a different mind. People too often see themselves in others - both their own guilt and innocence. So they can easily look guilty merely because they didn’t know that had to make an effort to explain their innocence. They expected the other person to be less suspicious.
Mr Trump is very plagued by that very problem. He had no idea that so many people were being hypnotized into seeing him as a malignant monster (TDS). He doesn’t think like they do. He doesn’t even consier such strategies. He wasn’t aware of the extreme degree of corruption and methods that were all around him. That is why he speaks as he does and then gets slammed in a negative light. Then millions of people hate him and he doesn’t understand why. I happen to understand how he thinks. So I can easily see his intent very clearly. And I can tell you there is damn little malicious intent involved in anything he does. But the hypnotized will see everything he does as a hidden malicious intent. They are not good observers and MSM knows it. Those people who spew vitriol expose their hypnotized state. And they have to search for some invented justification when asked about it.
To accurately observe someone you really have to be of similar mind, not necessarily similar beliefs. And when you recognize that you are not of similar mind type, accept that you don’t fully understand what is being said. Any judgements you make can easily be false and condemning of you as much as of the other. So ASK before you step off the cliff that you thought was merely a crack in the sidewalk. Recognize how blind you might be at any one moment. It’s cloudy and foggy out there.
To the same place I moved the others to. Don’t make me go copy an paste the address again. It is noted and linked just above my last post on that thread.
And speaking of how to help close the gap, even though it will rarely be done, examining oneself for suspicion confirmation bias or vitriol (which inspires confirmation bias) would help a great deal. Examine yourself for possible inner temptation and misguidance.
Hypnosis is influencing the mind without the person’s conscious awareness. The only way I can think of to detect if it has happened to you is for you to reflect on whether you can explicitly point to something that simply cannot be denied as anything other than directly witnessed malicious intent.
An experienced investigator gets used to having many false suspicions so he knows to not conclude with judgement until he carefully examines the possible innocence.
Be a GOOD investigator. Not a good AGITATOR. Before you conclude, examine your own suspicion confirmation bias and expect to usually be wrong so that you won’t be.
One of the main reasons that this is an interesting thread, is that it’s successfully brought to surface a distinct attitude of anti-democracy in some.
The inevitable consequences of democracy are that sometimes your preferences won’t win out, and you’ll have to “endure” the views of others being more represented than your own views for a while. Because it’s not about you. You’re not pro-democracy only when it suits you and only when you’re being represented. You have to have the capacity to accomodate and deal with others who think differently. You have to be able to bridge the gap. You have to be able to see that political finalists aren’t extreme polar opposites, that they can and do often have much in common, and that in many ways they’re not even that far apart from one another.
Sure, the First Past The Post system requires parties to emphasise their differences in order to define and distinguish why they’re the better party compared to the other - but if that’s all you’re able to see, then you’re not using your brain. You’re just succumbing to the superficial aesthetics of a bad voting system, and thus exhibiting a weak mind. This Winner Takes All voting system leads to people being more focused on what they’re against rather than what they’re for, just to keep out the relatively less desirable main party, the total number of which always tend to towards the number 2 in line with Game Theory. Acting outside of this inevitable duopoly (inevitable for this voting system) doesn’t do anything to negate the relatively less desirable party from getting in, and is mathematically a wasted vote.
This is from where this “gap” originates.
In reality, the parties aren’t that different, and they dance just either side of a perceived middle ground, with the pendulum swinging from one side to the other periodically in an effort to satisfy the most number of people to the least possible degree, so as to create the impression of maximal representation when in fact there is minimal possible change over time. It is thus that the establishment continues down the socially authoritarian and economically neo-liberal road to China. It’s not the fault of one party over the other, and a neo-liberal wildcard isn’t the solution.
Anyone not entrenched in their hypnosis from this swinging pendulum really should see little issue with the above.
But clearly here we see those devoted to division, and intolerant of any others getting their way.
This love for Authoritarianism is as pro-establishment as can be - so long as the establishment is their kind of establishment. For them, only one political stance is acceptable, that political stance must be that authority, and everyone who thinks differently must comply.
Of course, it’s naturally hilarious when these types claim to be in favour of freedom - because all they really mean is what they think will be their own freedom. And to venerate one particular figurehead as the be-all and end-all of this struggle is nothing short of the kind of idol worship found in North Korea, or monotheistic religion. It’s obsequious, it’s antisocial, it’s divisive, it’s belligerent, it’s hypocritical and it’s exactly the way to achieve what they claim to be against, and this path of theirs is exactly what they accuse their enemies of paving.
What can be done to bridge the gap between people who want to bridge the gap and those who don’t/won’t?
Obviously, that dispenses the cut of the essential from the material, as needed for proof of any confirmation bias.
Me a Culpa ! - with the authority becoming at once revered and despised.
Some call it a convenient memory lapse above the cut. ( Those who will not , or can not accept facts on principle, based on gaps created thereof - attributing it to the accurred sins of philosophy.)
Although I agree with most of what you are saying I think you missed the critical element concerning this voting season.
Even in a democracy, actually especially in a democracy, fraudulent voting is a serious attack on democracy and a criminal act.
The Trumpers are very mostly concerned that not only is a criminal being chosen, but a voter fraudulent criminal - someone who intentionally violated the rules of democracy. The result ushers in Anti-democracy - Socialism - never to be able to freely vote again.
It is a pure bias fantasy and distraction that Trumpers are upset merely because their candidate wasn’t chosen.
But what’s enuff evidence for justifying the end of the game is the issue and , before it is even spelled out, can there be no need for such, just ride the wave?
? I guess it is becoming an increasing part of the game, to appear as an intractible return to an ex-post facto unity, perhaps…just guessing.
Maybe the difference is likely to become part of it’s intended ‘objective’ unity, and the proof is in the pudding.
There is more than enough evidence to stop it from concluding.
Would you go into a pistol duel knowing that your opponent has an uzi while you have only a derringer?
Complaining after the match would be a fit fantasy don’t you think?
If Mr Hiden, Lyin Biden gets into office, there is no correcting the damage. He will grant immunity to his criminal family and all associates (as Mr Obama did with Hillary and associates), revoke all Trump EOs, appoint globalist dups into official offices, and allow the US republic to be lost to a socialist regime controlled by China.
There is no complaining after the duel. No voice will heard. The USA will be dead - never to come to life again. And history rewritten.
I agree that fraudulent voting is unacceptable.
With this point in your mind being “the critical one” to this voting season, I ask whether you have any respect for the legal system? Do you think the law itself is corrupt, or that practitioners are corrupt to the core, or just particular ones - including those who according to Mr R were even appointed by Trump himself in his 10s and 10s of hearings to date. I suppose it’s possible that by extreme bad luck, all this critical evidence that internet randomers can supply in spades got missed every time they didn’t get a corrupt hearing?
Either the law isn’t functioning in general, or specifically in all of these many different particular cases unanimously, or maybe… just maybe a narcissist is being a narcissist and can’t mentally accept the reality of a very public loss??
And all these endless youtube videos don’t actually constitute legitimate evidence in actual law involving professional lawyers and judges with experience and education far beyond anybody buying into these videos?
I dunno, is it really that crazy that maybe, just maybe the last of these possibilities is at least a little possible?
I’m just trying to be objective and reasonable here, and weighing up what I see with a grain of salt, and placing it all within the context of all the relative education levels and biases of everyone involved to the fairest degree that I can. I could be mistaken, sure, so could you, so could lots of people. Is it really impossible that there’s a lot of people out there who really didn’t want any more to do with Trump, for better or worse? The dems won the last popular vote too, but all the gerrymandering seems to be able to sway the actual result any which way regardless. I think the only honest stance here is to say “I don’t know” and to admit that the law is pretty damn good at determining what is and isn’t legal, and that it probably isn’t anywhere near perfect - but in the interests of steering away from Authoritarianism, the law can be as much of an ally as an enemy depending on what we find acceptable of it. Insisting it’s corrupt and that only one outcome is acceptable is a sure way to bias it, which is a slippery slope towards partisan law and oppression. I want law to be at least as fair as it is, and I’m not willing to support suggestions that it needs to be amended in favour of one guy - even regardless of the fact that I find him utterly repugnant and detestable as a person, and that I can’t stand how people are feeding into his mental illness.
I too wish to avoid Authoritarianism - “never to be able to freely vote again”. We can bridge the gap here if you’ll kindly stop misusing “Socialism” as if it isn’t by definition run by the working class and not this political elite of whom we are both very warey. Any anti-democracy headed by those already in power is Authoritarianism. And this is also the case for any coup to replace one minority political elite with another, and it is not the case for replacing a political elite with the working class REGARDLESS of whether you think such a thing is possible. If you think Socialism necessarily leads to Authoritarianism in practice then go ahead, that doesn’t make them the same. Kindly admit the logical distinction at play here and refrain from misusing the terminology moving forward, and if nothing else, win a huge reduction in animosity from me. I’d prefer not to feel it, so it’d be a win-win for us both and probably others too.
