81–90 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s even weirder I think? Because the people in power are clearly incompetent AND making the average persons life shitty, they clearly can’t be in power due to a conspiracy. When if anything, that seems to support it being the result of shenanigans?
They can be effective at acquiring power and bad at wielding it. But it seems to me like they're enriching themselves just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logic is that the world we see is chaotic in a way that’s difficult to reconcile with the idea that it’s all being masterminded behind the scenes. There does not seem to be any one group of people who always win every political dispute they engage in.
Yet there is a group that reliably loses in the United States: average citizens. From "Testing Theories of American Politics" ( Gilens & Page 2014)[1]: "These results suggest that reality is best captured by mixed theories in which both individual economic elites and organized interest groups (including corporations, largely owned and controlled by wealthy elites) play a substantial part in affecting public policy, b…
Anyone check in on Ezra?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was he trying to seed unrest or was he sabotaging organic right wing movements that have less dumb shit in their program? EDIT: Keep in mind that the right wing movements on which you have trained your impressions are almost always by definition the popular ones. Do people typically dig into niche groups that don't get traction for ideologies they already disagree with? Probably not, right?
The less dumb shit gave him a platform for his dumber shit. Which is why sane people try to stop the right wing shit at the less-dumb-shit level, before it gets out of hand. It's the clearly marked path to hell on earth. An inch in that direction is the WRONG WAY.
Think about the political policies of Britain immediately prior to WW2. If a party today advocated just rolling back to those policies verbatim, they would be called Nazis immediately.
Just stop for a second before reacting - that's pretty weird, right? The policies of the heroes of the story who literally fought the Nazis, would today be put in the same bucket as the Nazis. Huh?
Same with American policies immediately prior to WW2. If a party wanted to roll back to that, literally Hitler! But that America fought Hitler. But that America would be lumped in with Hitler. Weird, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're getting hung up on the idea of a "cabal" being some kind of formal thing that has explicit membership rules. But what we're talking about is simply the collusion of hyper-wealthy people in their various schemes. That's the cabal.
The concept of wealth is predicated upon the idea that one may "play at the table in the Casino and win". In reality entry to this system is barred but it only exists in such a way because people believe in the promise/concept that they will be allowed to succeed if they continue to try. What you're defining as a "Cabal of Wealth" is an allowance by the people because they believe in the concept of joining it. If thi…
That said, the crimes of "the cabal of wealth" are still on those responsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The less dumb shit gave him a platform for his dumber shit. Which is why sane people try to stop the right wing shit at the less-dumb-shit level, before it gets out of hand. It's the clearly marked path to hell on earth. An inch in that direction is the WRONG WAY.
Everyone is pretty clearly paranoid about "the right wing shit" due to being inculcated with the story of WW2 in school. Think about the political policies of Britain immediately prior to WW2. If a party today advocated just rolling back to those policies verbatim, they would be called Nazis immediately. Just stop for a second before reacting - that's pretty weird, right? The policies of the heroes of the story who l…
They went to war to fight Germany's, Japan's, and Russia's attempts at geostrategic hegemony. If Germany, USSR, and Japan had stayed in their geostrategic lanes, they wouldn't have invited a war on them.
Anyone check in on Ezra?
"Enough people have asked me about the Peter Thiel-Dialog story that I think it's worth saying what it is, or at least what I saw it to be. So: –Dialog is a conference. I went once in 2018 and once in 2022. No one ever asked me to keep it or my presence a secret. –My understanding was Thiel was one of its founders but no longer involved by the time I went. I never saw or talked to him in connection with Dialog. –Nor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone is pretty clearly paranoid about "the right wing shit" due to being inculcated with the story of WW2 in school. Think about the political policies of Britain immediately prior to WW2. If a party today advocated just rolling back to those policies verbatim, they would be called Nazis immediately. Just stop for a second before reacting - that's pretty weird, right? The policies of the heroes of the story who l…
IMO, neither the UK not the US went to war over moral objections to Nazi or other imperialist ideologies. They themselves were imperialists. They went to war to fight Germany's, Japan's, and Russia's attempts at geostrategic hegemony. If Germany, USSR, and Japan had stayed in their geostrategic lanes, they wouldn't have invited a war on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO, neither the UK not the US went to war over moral objections to Nazi or other imperialist ideologies. They themselves were imperialists. They went to war to fight Germany's, Japan's, and Russia's attempts at geostrategic hegemony. If Germany, USSR, and Japan had stayed in their geostrategic lanes, they wouldn't have invited a war on them.
Sorry can you point out where I said the thing you’re disagreeing with? I didn’t say anything about the reason they fought the Nazis.
This seems to imply a social ideology rather than a geostrategic one. The term "Nazi" is used for a specific brand of social ideology, not a general term for imperialist policy.
Which policy rollbacks were you talking about?
