Jump to content
The Corroboree
ThunderIdeal

trump minus bannon

Recommended Posts

 

Wealth redistribution is precisely what I oppose ^

 

We differ on that. Robin Hood that shit, I say.

 

 

Sagi Maybe YOUR countrymen could have taken more of an interest in international affairs.  I dont know, maybe you wouldnt be in that mess?

 

The economic situation in Greece was out of the hands of the average citizen. They couldn't have even known about the misuse of funds until it was too late, not like it was disclosed or leaked.

 

 

Knowledge is power and im not so interested in the clash of ideologies as 

A.  How is this going to go down

B.  How to defy the enemy

 

Would be good to know, for sure. Who's the enemy in your eyes?

 

 

Any ideology can be co-opted and twisted 

 

Agreed, and dogmatically following this that or the other is dangerous imo.

 

 

Look at the wonderful leftist agenda George Soros has been implementing around the world for decades and the wonderful results

 

 

How is he a leftist? Being anti-Trump is not nearly enough. If someone with Soros' wealth was a dedicated leftist, politically and economically, the Western world would look differently. He's a liberal, and liberals are neither leftists in the US nor here. When we talk about leftists, lets talk about syndicalists/anarchists/communists/Marxists/Leninists and what you like in that vein, not people who think taxes should cover healthcare and are mad about student debt. Let's at least talk about the left that is ideologically distinct from the right on ecnomics, social policy, international relations, in their philosophical and moral ideals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love reading your guys political postings, i came here knowing hardly anything about politics..  now i feel like i have a clue

but..

what is this left right thing and is there a middle or is that the beer table?

is there a spectrum chart of this bipolitic swing?

 

if my rainforest box is on my left and my cacties on my right what does that make their status? :3 ;)

 

hey i love america and russia as much as everywhere else on this beautiful planet , ... where does that make me politically situated on the spectrum?  or do i get a special space made off the chart ... :3 like god n stuffs /

 

should i feel bad that hitllery lost as hard as i wanted her to?

am i right wing if i hate feminism (or what it has become) even tho i hate conservatives despite seeing they have at least some positive (in my opinion) traits ?

 

where do i go to find this shit out without getting old first?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marxist communism is left wing, Hitler and Mussolini were right wing. It's a choice between two evils at the extremes. 

 

The left is full of revolitionists while the right is full of fascists -unable to tolerate any opinions or beliefs other than their own.

 

Left often wants to try help everybody where possible, while the right only wants to help themselves...

 

So yeah, Trump is strongly right wing and is basically a textbook fascist dictator who has to put up with a democratic system,  -he just put a media ban on the EPA, and announced he won't be releasing his tax returns.

 

It's actually hard to believe such a staunchly democratic country could be led by such a dangerous megalomaniac fruitloop.

 

I'm expecting his administration to be an epic failure.

Edited by Halcyon Daze
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much to cover - seeing as I'm so late to this little corner of the worldwide party that's carved out a territory, even here. 

 

Knowledge: People throw that word around, but rarely think hard about what it means to say that you 'know' something. What counts as evidence for your belief? If you have an idea of what counts as evidence, do you apply this rule equally well to all things, or do you move the bar to suit your political agenda? If you know that information and opinion can be used to manipulate people, why do you trust some sources more than others? In this community, we don't even take always 'seeing as believing' for granted, so why accept what your chosen news source tells you? 

 

Here's a real kicker: What would it take for you to change a particular, deeply held, belief? Do you struggle to think of something, or do you have an excuse for any conceivable evidence? If this is the case, then your belief is based on faith, not facts. This is fine, but don't pretend - to others, and to yourself, that you made an evidence-based or rational choice. (For example, I think the truth is an inherent good, but can't muster much of an argument to defend this idea). 

 

Are you aware of how much identity-signals - the signs we send to others, and that we read in others - can influence your preferences? 

 

 

A.  How is this going to go down

B.  How to defy the enemy

 

Take the above phrases. What if I said that they could have come straight from the mouth of a stridently anti-capitalist anti-fascist (I'm not kidding, they really could), would you feel better or worse about them? Hold that thought. If it changed you opinion, can you say why?

 

We emulate the behaviours and attitudes of individuals/groups we identify with, or groups we aspire to be like. But we can't emulate what we can't see or hear. This is why left groups try so hard to no-platform & shut down right groups and their speakers. It's also why the alt-right was so into accusing people of virtue-signalling: it aimed to re-frame opposing signals, and to have a chilling effect on people sending those signals. (Ironically, accusing someone of virtue signalling is itself an identity signal). If your opposition can't be heard, or it's members can't signal their identity, you control social normative influence. Most people want to fit in, but they can only fit in with what they are aware of.

 

Importantly, people will deliberately diverge in behaviour and identity signalling from groups that they do not approve of, or do not wish to be identified with. The way that these signals are bundled together, IMHO, leads to a great deal of the identity-driven bullshit on all sides of politics. For example, a person may disapprove of religious fundamentalism, but so does a political group that they wish to differentiate themselves from - so they find themselves defending behaviours that they would otherwise actually oppose. Or maybe someone can't stand hippies, and this leads them to argue against protecting the environment. Most people don't often realise they are being influenced by these techniques. If you really hate an idea, is it because you rationally disagree with it, or do you just hate the group that promotes it? If you do hate that group, why is that? Did one of them just rub you the wrong way? Or does the group you identify with oppose them, so you've uncritically gone along with the vitriol to be part of the crowd, and them made up some excuses later, (so that you don't have to confront that nagging doubt that occasionally makes you think you've fucked up, but that you have to double down, lest your whole existence be confirmed as pointless - honour that sunk cost!)

 

Politicians, and those leading political pressure-groups/cheer-squads know how all of this works though. This is why they try to package things a particular way - to try to make choosing the other side seem unreasonable or immoral. (For the record, I'm no relativist, so I do think some choices are actually irrational, unethical and/or immoral etc.) 

 

(And yes, most, if not all, ideologies can be used to support one elite or another. But everyone says this with someone else's ideology/elite in mind.)

 

As for wealth redistribution, that depends on what you mean, and why you are doing it. Yes, it seems confronting to have a bit of your money taken away and given to someone else who didn't work for it. But there's a number of ways to look at this. 

 

Do you think what level of wealth or poverty a person is born into is a relevant moral consideration when deciding what their level of wealth or poverty should be throughout their life, particularly if an upward change in wealth allows them better access to basic liberties? If you answer 'no', then you are either committed to some wealth re-distribution, or you are an economic wizard whose managed to overcome the idea that modern economies rely on a certain amount of unemployment in order to function. If one person does not deserve to be born into a lower socioeconomic situation, along with all of it’s disadvantages, then there is a sense in which another person who is born into relative privilege does not deserve the advantages they have access to. This is not a popular idea, and the difficulty some people have in accepting this is probably related to our attachment to preserving our way of life, albeit at the expense of the vulnerable and less fortunate. This sort of thinking is associated with the idea that inequality is not morally neutral - that it requires some justification. Typically, this justification has been that inequality is allowable, so long as it raises the standard of living of the most vulnerable, and the benefits are potentially accessible by all. For example, it's OK to pay brain surgeons way more than average, because it's hard work, so long as even poor people with brain tumours can get an operation if they need it. Importantly, you don't get to be as rich as fuck without contributing to the society that has made you (or, more likely, your family) as rich as fuck.These ideas are hardly Stalinist, and yet are criticised by the right for being too socialist, but also by the left for not being socialist enough - go figure.

 

From a different angle, you could take a small-government or even 'night-watchman state' justification for wealth re-distribution. Say we want government to tax us the minimum, and do the minimum that allows for us to exercise our liberties. Basically, the state is there to stop us from committing rape, physical assault, theft and murder etc., as well as protect contractual obligations - and that's about it. If it's the case that inequality above a certain level leads to societal problems - civil unrest, outbreaks of socialism, and so on, then you have to keep a lid on things one way or another. A range of options would be available, but small government will chose the one that is cheapest (too minimise tax) with the minimum interference in people's lives. The more concentrated wealth becomes, the more expensive keeping things under control will become, especially if the people at the bottom start to get a bit hungry. Keeping people housed, fed and entertained might be an expensive proposition, but it's cheaper than putting down a revolution. If you aren't going to limit inequality, tax becomes the price you pay to stop the ordinary folk from breaking out the guillotine. 

 

And that's without even considering what you might do if automation reduced the number of available jobs. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hashslingr, that's just the point. Those ideals that historically the left has stood for are no longer the core values that are proselytised by the lefts loudest voices & therefor the voices that have come to represent the left publicly as a whole.

 

To even call oneself a 'leftist' infers identification with a rigid ideology & rigid ideologies are always dangerous in the long run.

 

we need to educate ourselves better on the nature of duality in every aspect of the phenomenal world.  This psychotic pendulum swing of histerical retardation going on in 'the left' (whatever these things even mean anymore) is the inevitable polarity to counter the opposite polarity which is the extreme carnage the 'right' has wrought upon the world. Trump is an anomaly & I'm not even sure if right & left & remotely useful term to use in the world any more but him being in power is the inevitable dualistic lash back from the madness of the previous polar swing..

 

all of these processes are simple human delusion playing itself out en masse. The same process of deep unconsciousness that has been playing out for millennia, it's just now reached an unprecedented level simply cause there's so many of us & our societies have become so bazaar.

 

to strongly identify with any side of these issues is a huge mistake based on delusion & is entirely the means by which these processes are perpetuated & will continue to be for ever until we destroy ourselves or wake up to the fact that we ourselves are creating our own worst nightmares.

Edited by paradox
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

hashslingr, that's just the point. Those ideals that historically the left has stood for are no longer the core values that are proselytised by the lefts loudest voices & therefor the voices that have come to represent the left publicly as a whole.

 

I agree that the left seems to be largely represented by whiny individualists who are more concerned with the langauge we use than the material conditions we live in. But the loudest voices are not uncommonly wielded by the least active, unless you count stuff like online rants and clicktivism. There does exist a left that is still interested in syndicalism, unionisation and other collective action, and the like. These people are often busier working on causes than ranting about whatever (full disclosure: I'm not one of them, and I don't identify as one. I'm just an occasional ranter).

 

 

To even call oneself a 'leftist' infers identification with a rigid ideology & rigid ideologies are always dangerous in the long run.

 

we need to educate ourselves better on the nature of duality in every aspect of the phenomenal world.  This psychotic pendulum swing of histerical retardation going on in 'the left' (whatever these things even mean anymore) is the inevitable polarity to counter the opposite polarity which is the extreme carnage the 'right' has wrought upon the world. Trump is an anomaly & I'm not even sure if right & left & remotely useful term to use in the world any more but him being in power is the inevitable dualistic lash back from the madness of the previous polar swing..

 

There's certainly a truth to this, and I think it's a point well made. The other side of the coin is, when people who identify strongly with leftist politics in a society where power is wielded mostly by elites who tend to side to the right (it's far easier to get and maintain power as an individualist within capitalism, since you're working with rather than against the status quo, and representing and working for yourself rather than enormous numbers of often disenfranchised people), some leftists see it as necessary to counterbalance very radically. I agree that left v right is an unnuanced way of generalising and won't capture the complexities that inflect many people's political beliefs. You can be economically conservative (right wing) and leftist in other ways, etc.

 

 

to strongly identify with any side of these issues is a huge mistake based on delusion & is entirely the means by which these processes are perpetuated & will continue to be for ever until we destroy ourselves or wake up to the fact that we ourselves are creating our own worst nightmares.

 

I do think the terms left v right are useful in generalising about the tendency towards individualism or collectivism, self interest and community interest, and various other things, but when we want to get down to brass tacks we need a more sophisticated language, and even then hardly anyone will organically fit the models laid out by various thinkers. On the other hand, effacing the idea of an antagonistic left versus right wing is useful to right wingers, since it makes collective action (a powerful basis for left-leaning social change) difficult, because it makes us all a bunch of individuals with our own ideas and preoccupations. That model works well for self-interested "if you scratch my back i'll scratch yours" people, but not so well for those who are willing to compromise with each other for the greater good. I do agree that too strong identification with either leads to a dogmatism which, historically, I can't see as having been desireable or robust. It's a fraught issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points you make there.  I know plenty of hardworking truly active people like you mentioned whom I respect very much..

 

It's probably not very helpful to form opinions based on social media noise that's for sure.  But that's part of the problem too. A large part of peoples realities are now informed by click bait & deeply shallow one liner interpretations of information.  

 

My concern is that a lot of the ignorant behaviour of these people will be & is used to discredit the left & justify ever more extreme backlash on the far right.

Edited by paradox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Some good points you make there.  I know plenty of hardworking truly active people like you mentioned whom I respect very much..

Me too, which is why I get started on a rant when they seem to be tarred with the same brush as the other types we're talking about.

 

 

 

It's probably not very helpful to form opinions based on social media noise that's for sure.  But that's part of the problem too. A large part of peoples realities are now informed by click bait & deeply shallow one liner interpretations of information.  

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sagix I know you can't help yourself but i think you're being way too hard on TI.  I think he's been making some extremely interesting points in this thread & I've found it to be a pretty helpful bit of perspective on the global echo chamber of trump hating, a lot of which has been pretty irrational thus far..  

 

I find it impossible to form an opinion yet cause there is so much dis information about something we've hardly seen the reality of whatsoever.

 

Let's just wait to see.  All this hysteria is nauseating 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President the Donald is proving to be epic beyond what most had hoped for. 

 

After today im signing this

 

https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-put-donald-trump-s-face-on-mount-rushmore

 

 FyrwgcecjtAMfdu-800x450-noPad.jpg?145644

 

 

You neednt actually be American to have your say.  Obama says so

 

 

Edited by ThunderIdeal
Embed you fuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Sagix I know you can't help yourself but i think you're being way too hard on TI.  I think he's been making some extremely interesting points in this thread & I've found it to be a pretty helpful bit of perspective on the global echo chamber of trump hating, a lot of which has been pretty irrational thus far..  

 

I find it impossible to form an opinion yet cause there is so much dis information about something we've hardly seen the reality of whatsoever.

 

Let's just wait to see.  All this hysteria is nauseating 

I have to agree.  I not sure how on board I am with a lot of the ideas put forward but it has been interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I did not read the whole thread or check out links. I even say its interesting , not necessarily bad that trump is president.. 

 

but I read the newspapers and all pretty regularly... 

 

dont know if I am being too hard on him, but I quoted something he said and made me furious.. 

 

not because I am some left wing person... its because of the principles that make the left different than the right , as Halcyon very well said.. 

 

I am not really sad Trump is president, but dont you fucking tell me that shit about how leftism is pro-elitism...  dont care how many ex-leftists are now part of the system..  

 

I believe in ideas not idealogies, and when TI is telling me my left-inclination of basically humanism is something evil, then I am to shout : FUCK YOU... no remorse... 

 

PS: I am a democrat, autonomist and cooperativist, kind of,  not a marxist and not an anarchist... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Leftism co-opted by elites...  Libtards merely unthinking pawns of the elite because the appeal of free government shit makes them excited to vote for monstrous leaders.  

 

It is too hard, especially using a phone, and pointless anyway, for me to argue about wealth distribution.  there are bound to be excellent comparisons online if somebody cant decide whether the government sticking its big fucking nose in everything is a good or bad thing.  I point to history and there are current examples too; Venezuela is nice, lots of money there (it isnt worth anything though).  "basic income" is coming into vogue in Europe, it was just introduced in Finland though I gather only to simplify existing welfare arrangements.  

 

From my perspective discarding the pc "snowflakes" means fewer lols but it doesnt redeem that side of the spectrum and unfortunately for Australia what I took from the last election was that the ALP has moved further towards Bernie Sanders-esque extreme end of the spectrumm which nearly succeeded in raising an army of voters, a so-called free-shit arm

 

 

 

Fake picture

 

C20IFNZWQAAfmsx.jpg

 

Edit.  I will leave it but found out this is confirmed fake image.  Looks real!

 

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theyre muzzling many agencies as part of the transition

 

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15822X

 

This includes freezes on hiring, contracts, grants etc as well as communication

 

Anyway the EPA was tweeting fake news about inauguration crowd sizes last weekend which wasnt very apolitical.  Some idiot should and will be sacked for using government social media as a partisan pulpit (echoing fake news to boot).  

 

Edit: That said the Trump position on climate change will be very different than the obama position, no doubt there whatsoever.

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

world's bi-polar  and TI is the manic state.

 

what am I you ask?? I am the cunt sitting in the middle drinking beer and calling you names like an ignorant idiot or a conscious neo-fascist. 

More like drinking beer and "autistic screeching"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

there is so much dis information about something we've hardly seen the reality of whatsoever.

 

Let's just wait to see.  All this hysteria is nauseating 

 

Well if the recent news i'snt more dis info, it's not looking too pretty so far is it?  Is there any positive news they aren't telling us?

 

sagi I wasn't having a go at you, I enjoy your opinions too, just sticking up for TI a bit cause he's not really on the most popular side of this discussion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To what do you refer?  

 

As in my last response to hashslingr, bring the latest hysterical offering to the thread preferably with cautious neutrality and I will counterbalance or at least offer some commentary/shit-talk

 

I am balls deep anyway.  Its not hard to throw a few extra details that the mainstream shills intentionally gloss over

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to think I'm generally pretty cautiously neutral..

 

mostly abortions & pipelines.  A bit about silencing scientific bodies (which is actually more complex than it might appear as so much science seems to be becoming grotesquely politicised) & a bunch of other things but which mostly its yet to be seen whether any hysteria is warranted so I won't mention them quite yet

Edited by paradox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember I requested info on John keys resignation?

 

His daughter models in rather pornographic "art" shoots, google cherry Lazar, images are NSFW and I cant help but think along the lines of pizzagate.  

 

There is more to it than just his groomed daughter and Clinton connection.  I wont be digging further.

 

Suggest this asa starting point

 

http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/12/is-this-really-why-new-zealands-prime-minister-john-key-just-resigned/

 

I only skimmed the text and im not standing by the content.  somebody else probably understands the context better

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shameless  for my drunk  name-calling >> 

"   More like drinking beer and "autistic screeching"   "

 

oh what a devastating crush on my self-esteem. especially from someone whose interests include gemstones and gold , lol 

 

TI , show us the conspiracy, I am struggling to make sense of this fucked up world! 

 

putin and trump are good and the left is bad?  what about philipines Zoro, Duterte? Do you admire him to?? 

 

PS: Greece is supposed to have a leftist government.. is this the left you are talking about? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

TI , show us the conspiracy, I am struggling to make sense of this fucked up world! 

 

 

You and me both

 

I choose not to respond to requests like "ok so what is the grand conspiracy" or "who do you consider the enemy".  Ive laid plenty of breadcrumbs in this and other threads, if you dont find any value in those then im sorry.  I dont want to endlessly repeat the same stuff. 

 

Duterte recently lashed out at the catholic Church.  He is independent minded which can be a great quality, he became a nice thorn in the side of US belligerence by downgrading their alliance but US belligerence is no longer the urgent concern it was before Trump took office.

 

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, the issue with all this BS is that for democracy to be even remotely successful it absolutely requires an adequately informed public.

 

Just about every form the media takes has been so grossly biased & full of crap for basically always & the public has been so misinformed for so long now that every side of every argument about every issue is so warped & charged with fear that even the most well meaning campaigns for positive revolution on various issues seem to have just about as much chance as causing as much damage as good.  

 

It's this reason that i find it hard to really get behind many of these large scale group-think movements that are going on.  Though in principal I whole heartedly agree with many very serious issues people are attempting to fight, the movements as a whole tend to display as much sinister irrationality as the sinister group-think mentality they are apparently fighting against.. 

 

I tend to not feel Trump is bad in the way a lot of people do & not think he's good in the way a lot do..  He's just the result of a system that has been broken & tragically failing for way too long & for all his absurdity his being where he is has exposed that for what it is.  He's part of a process of carnage that is bringing about the end of a long outdated system & I don't think he represents in any way what will come next.

 

being hysterical & irrational isn't the best way to come to terms with that fact imo.  Like hashslingr mentioned.. I would prefer to take heart in the real positive manifestations of passionate people who are doing real work to create the realities they want to see without retarded & misinformed tantrums.. & to simply focus on manifesting my own positive reality in these times where the human universe is in the process of being changed forever.

 

its not easy cause the noise of irrationality on every side is so loud

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa May says the days of interventionist wars fought by Britain are behind them now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×