Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Political compass for the21st century
(03-01-2019, 11:12 PM)
Quote:pbrower2a Wrote:
It could be the next Idealist generation that has some recognition of X for leaving behind a better world than they inherited, and for not demanding too much to make the world good for the new Idealists. 

Xers haven't done much yet to clean up the problems of this saeculum. The problems of this saeculum are not due to silents and boomers who neglected them as children. The problems are due to all the generations who neglected the heritage of the New Deal and threw it over to embrace the neo-liberalism of Ronald Reagan. The Xers grew up under this and embraced it, and did not work to stop it. That is up to the millennials now. Xers failed, and Boomers failed too, although at least many boomers in youth caught a vision of a better day. And recently, a certain millennial sang about it.

Some of the boomers and Xers can still get up and help lead the millennials in this task; the saeculum still has 10 rocky years to run yet. The Crisis climax still ahead may yet bring out the best in all 3 generations.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
Now it occurred to me that collapsing it to three basic types (individualists, leftists and traditionalists) plus centre is a better idea.

Counterculture is not a valid political orientation, because it comprises 3 different types:
-non-Abrahamic traditionalists, whose ideal society is something like Avatar. Most New Age types perhaps like our own Eric the Green.
-individualists who aren't obsessed with money. Like Jefferson and most anarchists.
-communists who don't have a thing for class struggle. Like Marcuse and Rousseau.

Nationalism is also not a valid sector, by itself. It should be split into 2 areas:
-leftists for whom national liberation is also more important than class struggle. From Saddam to Che on the extreme side, while Mandela and Polish Solidarity leaders would be the gentlemen of this subsector.
-traditionalists who care for identity and martial values more than for religion. Like Franco and Gaddafi.

So, there should be 3 basic sectors with some subsectors
*Individualists
-libertarians
-anarchists

*Traditionalists
-religious right
-identitarian right

*Leftists
-New Leftists
-Marxists
-progressive nationalists
Reply
(03-18-2019, 08:03 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Now it occurred to me that collapsing it to three basic types (individualists, leftists and traditionalists) plus centre is a better idea.

Counterculture is not a valid political orientation, because it comprises 3 different types:
-non-Abrahamic traditionalists, whose ideal society is something like Avatar. Most New Age types perhaps like our own Eric the Green.
-individualists who aren't obsessed with money. Like Jefferson and most anarchists.
-communists who don't have a thing for class struggle. Like Marcuse and Rousseau.

Non-Abrahamic traditionalists (Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and Shinto followers) would seem fully conformist within their cultures, and even conservative. Fusions -- lt us say a Jewish-Buddhist fusion or a Christian-Confucian fusion -- would definitely be counter-cultural. Neopagans, anyone?

Individualists not obsessed with money? That is simply healthy.


Quote:Nationalism is also not a valid sector, by itself. It should be split into 2 areas:
-leftists for whom national liberation is also more important than class struggle. From Saddam to Che on the extreme side, while Mandela and Polish Solidarity leaders would be the gentlemen of this subsector.
-traditionalists who care for identity and martial values more than for religion. Like Franco and Gaddafi.

Like Mussolini, Quisling, and Laval, Satan Hussein moved from being a socialist to being a fascist. Franco is clearly a clerico-fascist. Qaddafi was quite unorthodox in his treatment of Islam. Putting extremists on the periphery still makes sense.

Quote:So, there should be 3 basic sectors with some subsectors
*Individualists
-libertarians
-anarchists

*Traditionalists
-religious right
-identitarian right

*Leftists
-New Leftists
-Marxists
-progressive nationalists

There's always room for more and new interpretations.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(03-18-2019, 11:27 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Non-Abrahamic traditionalists (Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and Shinto followers) would seem fully conformist within their cultures, and even conservative.

Still Shinto, Taoism and some ethnic religions contain a kind of reverence for nature and non-patriarchal attitude to sex and gender, which hippies admired.

Quote:Neopagans, anyone?

Avatar-style feminist-environmentalist society seems to be a neopagan ideal. I'm sure there were plenty of neopagans in the Transcendental generation, Evelyn de Morgan (Progressive) was one too, such it's not a boomer invention. How much does this have in common with actual Indo-European religion? Zeus and Indra were big muscular guys who liked to rape nymphs. Odin? I don't know. Abraham never raped anyone, so he was more feminist despite being often considered a symbol of patriarchy. Jesus never did anything which could be interpreted as sexist. The whole counterculture thing seems to owe more to Christianity than it wants to admit.

Quote:There's always room for more and new interpretations.

Always. But they will always be variants of one of three fundamental systems. Now I have 7 sub-sectors and the centre which is still white.

Quote:Like Mussolini, Quisling, and Laval, Satan Hussein moved from being a socialist to being a fascist. Franco is clearly a clerico-fascist.

Fascism, which means paramilitary organisation of everything, is a tool, which could be utilized by clerical traditionalists (Franco), identitarian traditionalists (Hitler) and even some socialists (Satan Hussein).

As for core principles: Liberty for Individualists, Equality for Leftists, Righteousness for traditionalists. You can have environmentalist-feminist code of righteousness too.
Reply
(03-18-2019, 08:03 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Now it occurred to me that collapsing it to three basic types (individualists, leftists and traditionalists) plus centre is a better idea.

Counterculture is not a valid political orientation, because it comprises 3 different types:
-non-Abrahamic traditionalists, whose ideal society is something like Avatar. Most New Age types perhaps like our own Eric the Green.
-individualists who aren't obsessed with money. Like Jefferson and most anarchists.
-communists who don't have a thing for class struggle. Like Marcuse and Rousseau.

Nationalism is also not a valid sector, by itself. It should be split into 2 areas:
-leftists for whom national liberation is also more important than class struggle. From Saddam to Che on the extreme side, while Mandela and Polish Solidarity leaders would be the gentlemen of this subsector.
-traditionalists who care for identity and martial values more than for religion. Like Franco and Gaddafi.

So, there should be 3 basic sectors with some subsectors
*Individualists
-libertarians
-anarchists

*Traditionalists
-religious right
-identitarian right

*Leftists
-New Leftists
-Marxists
-progressive nationalists

That seems the right track.

I still think the libertarians have it right by identifying themselves as economic conservatives and cultural liberals. The neo-liberal economic libertarians are quite different from other "individualists who don't care about money". The neo-liberal free-market fundamentalists seem opposite to the socialists and the liberal social-democrats and to some of the Marxists who aren't totalitarians. The neo-liberals turn out to be staunch defenders of the status quo, because they support the corporate and big business wealthy domination of society. They have that in common with the fascists.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(03-18-2019, 12:19 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(03-18-2019, 11:27 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Non-Abrahamic traditionalists (Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and Shinto followers) would seem fully conformist within their cultures, and even conservative.

Still Shinto, Taoism and some ethnic religions contain a kind of reverence for nature and non-patriarchal attitude to sex and gender, which hippies admired.

The Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) heritage includes a contempt for 'little' gods of nature to be found in every tree, rivulet, and petty hill due to a monotheism that connects all things together. It also allows people to see a Douglas fir and recognize it as boards for tract houses in a subdivision and nothing more -- and livestock as meat.

Christendom could never quite suppress the classical heritage, and once it could accept that people saw a beautiful mountains and did not see nymphs and satyrs or a beautiful woman and not be full of 'pagan' (and hence uncontrolled) lust for the simple reason that the artists painting those were clearly not worshiping Nature instead of God. Literary allusions to Greco-Roman gods? Such were useful metaphors at times if a writer such as Dante used them to promote Christian virtues. Knowing the classical past was not the same as worshiping its gods. It was the unsophisticated gods of elderly female 'witches' that inspired the persecution of sorcerers.


Quote: 
Quote:Neopagans, anyone?


Avatar-style feminist-environmentalist society seems to be a neopagan ideal. I'm sure there were plenty of neopagans in the Transcendental generation, Evelyn de Morgan (Progressive) was one too, such it's not a boomer invention. How much does this have in common with actual Indo-European religion? Zeus and Indra were big muscular guys who liked to rape nymphs. Odin? I don't know. Abraham never raped anyone, so he was more feminist despite being often considered a symbol of patriarchy. Jesus never did anything which could be interpreted as sexist. The whole counterculture thing seems to owe more to Christianity than it wants to admit.

The one God of Hebraic tradition was originally the one dominant god of an ever-shrinking pantheon. That god is parallel in association with lightning (always a scary phenomenon) with Thor/Jupiter/Zeus. Jehovah (it is tempting to assume that Jove is a cognate, but such is wrong) became associated with ethical values due to Moses. 

Patriarchal societies protect women by punishing rape with nearly the same vehemence as they treat murder. The same societies that had gods  who raped nymphs and goddesses prohibited such among men. Remember: the Gods are above human law, in contrast to the one God of Abrahamic religions that gives Law to men and expects Man to enforce it. Opposition to rape is at once patriarchal and at once feminist, if for very different reasons.

Quote:
Quote:There's always room for more and new interpretations.

Always. But they will always be variants of one of three fundamental systems. Now I have 7 sub-sectors and the centre which is still white.

...with the center as the zone of flexibility, tolerance, and a rejection of violence, and the ability to synthesize workable compromises. 

Quote:
Quote:Like Mussolini, Quisling, and Laval, Satan Hussein moved from being a socialist to being a fascist. Franco is clearly a clerico-fascist.

Fascism, which means paramilitary organisation of everything, is a tool, which could be utilized by clerical traditionalists (Franco), identitarian traditionalists (Hitler) and even some socialists (Satan Hussein).

As for core principles: Liberty for Individualists, Equality for Leftists, Righteousness for traditionalists. You can have environmentalist-feminist code of righteousness too.

Paramilitary organization of all things as much marks Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Kim il-Sung, and Castro as it does Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Satan Hussein, and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Military-style regimentation is good for establishing standardization and social conformity. It is destructive of creativity, individuality, and freedom.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(03-22-2019, 06:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I still think the libertarians have it right by identifying themselves as economic conservatives and cultural liberals. The neo-liberal economic libertarians are quite different from other "individualists who don't care about money".

Libertarians are not that different from individualist anarchists like Max Stirner or Ted Kaczynski. And except for Randians, libertarians typically don't like Big Business much. Their argument is that Big Business co-operates with government and likes it when the state weeds out competitors.

Quote:The neo-liberal free-market fundamentalists seem opposite to the socialists and the liberal social-democrats and to some of the Marxists who aren't totalitarians. The neo-liberals turn out to be staunch defenders of the status quo, because they support the corporate and big business wealthy domination of society. They have that in common with the fascists.

Who do you exactly have in mind? People like Bush are very far away from fascism. I'd argue authoritarian socialists like Corbyn, who BTW supports both Hamas and Putin, are closer to the Brown Scourge.

The bottom of the diagram, the place where authoritarian leftism and authoritarian traditionalism meet, is indeed the worst place for individuality and creativity. And it's also not a good place for business. On our level of evolution, I cannot imagine a free society without markets.
Reply
(03-08-2019, 04:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-01-2019, 11:12 PM)
Quote:pbrower2a Wrote:
It could be the next Idealist generation that has some recognition of X for leaving behind a better world than they inherited, and for not demanding too much to make the world good for the new Idealists. 

Xers haven't done much yet to clean up the problems of this saeculum.

Because the older generations still have the money and the power to prevent that. Especially the Silents wouldn't like it if the Xers threw their elaborated rules (and loopholes) on the garbage dump of history. - Many prominent Boomers are idiots, narcissists and fanatics, but if they could do what they wanted, they would rip apart everything, even if they're warned that they'll hurt themselves. - Silents don't want to hurt anyone, especially not themselves, and they have the knowledge to push the right buttons.
Reply
(03-23-2019, 11:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(03-22-2019, 06:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I still think the libertarians have it right by identifying themselves as economic conservatives and cultural liberals. The neo-liberal economic libertarians are quite different from other "individualists who don't care about money".

Libertarians are not that different from individualist anarchists like Max Stirner or Ted Kaczynski. And except for Randians, libertarians typically don't like Big Business much. Their argument is that Big Business co-operates with government and likes it when the state weeds out competitors.

Quote:The neo-liberal free-market fundamentalists seem opposite to the socialists and the liberal social-democrats and to some of the Marxists who aren't totalitarians. The neo-liberals turn out to be staunch defenders of the status quo, because they support the corporate and big business wealthy domination of society. They have that in common with the fascists.

Who do you exactly have in mind? People like Bush are very far away from fascism. I'd argue authoritarian socialists like Corbyn, who BTW supports both Hamas and Putin, are closer to the Brown Scourge.

The bottom of the diagram, the place where authoritarian leftism and authoritarian traditionalism meet, is indeed the worst place for individuality and creativity. And it's also not a good place for business. On our level of evolution, I cannot imagine a free society without markets.

I can't see that. Most libertarians cannot see that big business is a problem if left to itself. It and not the state puts competitors out of business, as the most greedy boss corners the market. The state alone can protect competition, and end collusion, with anti-trust laws. Libertarians are against the taxes and regulations that keep business from doing wrong, which they do if left to their "free" own devices. Money-grubbing bosses should not be trusted, but libertarians trust them. They can only see the government as a problem; not business.

As I explained, the free market fundamentalists, which rule the Republican Party today, and have ever since Reagan at least, are very close to fascism, because they enable the corporate elite to rule without any oversight or regulation from the people through their government. Government by the people protects liberty. Government is not necessarily a problem, as the Reaganoids have falsely claimed and still claim. Free markets are not freedom; left to themselves, they are just bosses and tyrants, and they squelch competition and rip off consumers, workers, the environment and the economy with their financial games. Free enterprise without regulation is an oxymoron; it doesn't exist, despite libertarian slogans and ideals. That doesn't mean that a state-owned and run economy is any better. But the fascists like Hitler and Mussolini allowed big business to stay in business and flourish, and that boosted their war machine, as it still boosts ours in the USA. There's where state and business come together; the fascist corporate state which libertarians want. And the fascists permitted lots of gun ownership by citizens too, contrary to the nonsense perpetrated by the gun fanatics today who say they took guns away from people.

But this is the chief argument in politics today. The Reaganoids and the Trumpists continue to put forward the false meme that liberty means free enterprise and guns, and that businessmen are job creaters. They are not; they are job destroyers. But lots of people who like Reagan, Bush and our fake president of today are only interested in dismantling the administrative state, so that they can continue to allow mass shootings and the pollution of our world in the name of freedom. No, neo-liberalism is false freedom. Today the authority and the elite are the wealthy oligarchs in corporate board rooms and at the Republican red-stater conventions who listen to Steve Bannon and racists like Yaronopolis or whatever the fuck his name is. Today the Republican neo-liberals have bowed down before and aligned themselves with the fascist slogans of racism emanating from the Trumpists and their fanatical, violent followers shouting Nazi slogans. Just like industrial Germany acquiesed in Hitler's regime because of all the money they made manufacturing the tools of conquest.

If you say Corbyn supports Putin and Hamas, I need to see actual quotes from him. BTW, people who oppose the genocide being committed by Israel against its neighbors today do not necessarily support Muslim terrorists either. Democratic socialism which still allows a balance of free enterprise and state regulation and ownership is not anywhere near the bottom of the political circle, or anywhere near communism or fascism.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(03-23-2019, 08:59 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(03-08-2019, 04:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-01-2019, 11:12 PM)
Quote:pbrower2a Wrote:
It could be the next Idealist generation that has some recognition of X for leaving behind a better world than they inherited, and for not demanding too much to make the world good for the new Idealists. 

Xers haven't done much yet to clean up the problems of this saeculum.

Because the older generations still have the money and the power to prevent that. Especially the Silents wouldn't like it if the Xers threw their elaborated rules (and loopholes) on the garbage dump of history. - Many prominent Boomers are idiots, narcissists and fanatics, but if they could do what they wanted, they would rip apart everything, even if they're warned that they'll hurt themselves. - Silents don't want to hurt anyone, especially not themselves, and they have the knowledge to push the right buttons.

Xers have enabled the problems of this saeculum to continue too, and are part of the group with the money and power to prevent their solution. They are by and large the managers of the dominant corporate system today, and do nothing to curtail its abuses. Much more than Boomers did at their age, they have bowed down to the neo-liberal Reaganoids and support free market fundamentalism, which is the leading source of our saeculum's problems. Some Boomers at least remain vigilant idealists and activists, while other Boomers do continue to uphold their own wealth and position and resist change and succumb to fanaticism. But Boomers overall are certainly no more idiots and fanatics than Xers are, and what Xers lack in Boomer narcissism, they make up for in their own cynicism and their "oh whatever" lack of vision.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(03-23-2019, 08:59 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(03-08-2019, 04:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-01-2019, 11:12 PM)
Quote:pbrower2a Wrote:
It could be the next Idealist generation that has some recognition of X for leaving behind a better world than they inherited, and for not demanding too much to make the world good for the new Idealists. 

Xers haven't done much yet to clean up the problems of this saeculum.

Because the older generations still have the money and the power to prevent that. Especially the Silents wouldn't like it if the Xers threw their elaborated rules (and loopholes) on the garbage dump of history. - Many prominent Boomers are idiots, narcissists and fanatics, but if they could do what they wanted, they would rip apart everything, even if they're warned that they'll hurt themselves. - Silents don't want to hurt anyone, especially not themselves, and they have the knowledge to push the right buttons.

X, like the Lost, generally makes the argument that attempts to impose radical changes in life from conventional norms have been tried, and have been found lacking. Some truths outlast generational cycles.

Reactive generations are most likely to experience the consequences of their mistakes, blunders, and simple bad luck than other generations. Reality does not catch up with Civic generations until they are in midlife. Adaptive generations make incremental changes of any kind unlikely to ever blow up on them singly, but instead can do subtle harm difficult to detect at the time. Idealists at their worst are capable of compelling others to cover for their misdeeds. X gets fewer resources with which to work, and is less likely to get a second chance.

We have yet to see whether X will follow the pattern that the GI Generation established and that the Silent generation follows late in life, and that Boomers already show signs of following: of remaining physically and intellectually fit if they were so before getting old, and remaining active in public life as long as possible. X has already seen the pattern, but they are also the last to see the Lost Generation shoved aside because they are 'inconvenient'. We will not know what X expectations of old age are like until at least 2026, when the Obama cohort starts reaching 'retirement age'.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(03-23-2019, 11:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As I explained, the free market fundamentalists, which rule the Republican Party today, and have ever since Reagan at least, are very close to fascism, because they enable the corporate elite to rule without any oversight or regulation from the people through their government. Government by the people protects liberty. Government is not necessarily a problem, as the Reaganoids have falsely claimed and still claim.

Reagan could be somewhere between pro-market Individualism and some form of Traditionalism, he called himself a conservative for some reason.

Actual libertarians are not really fond of Reagan, though they might prefer him to someone like Obama.
https://mises.org/library/myths-reaganomics
https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0

I'm not a libertarian, since I prefer "compassionate capitalism" to both market fundamentalism and socialism. I'm more with Obama on economic policy, but more with Bush on culture and war on terror. I don't like Reagan as a man, and I don't agree with his worship of money, but still he deserves some credit for defeating the USSR. I wouldn't call him a fascist, after all he didn't send his opponents to concentration camps. Left-wing activism was quite popular in the US in the 80s.

Quote:If you say Corbyn supports Putin and Hamas, I need to see actual quotes from him. BTW, people who oppose the genocide being committed by Israel against its neighbors today do not necessarily support Muslim terrorists either.

According to Mr Corbyn, Hamas works for peace and social justice. An actual quote:
The idea that an organisation that is dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people, and bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region, should be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the British government, is really a big, big historical mistake.
https://ukmediawatch.org/2015/06/16/guar...eftwinger/

As for Russia, it seems he wants to be neutral in the struggle between Putin and Russia's western neighbours. He believes Putin's actions in the Ukraine were provoked by the Ukrainian government wanting to join NATO. I'd argue it count as supporting the tyrant in practice.

What genocide in Israel??? It's a lie spread by Arab nationalists and islamists. Look at the facts:
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/...ry559.html
(scroll to Table 1. Palestinian population is steadily growing)

More recent data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi...statistics

Where are the deaths caused by alleged genocide?

Quote:Democratic socialism which still allows a balance of free enterprise and state regulation and ownership is not anywhere near the bottom of the political circle, or anywhere near communism or fascism.

Are there any real-life examples of such democratic socialism? A balance of free enterprise and state-run enterprise is found in most democracies all over the world. What do you think is missing?
Reply
Social democracy is achievable within the American constitution. It implies a good climate for business including a consumer economy with high taxes that facilitate high incomes and universal opportunity. Such would be a difficult achievement to the extent that mass racism gets in the way -- loser whites being concerned that they would be elevated some, but would reach parity with minorities raised from lower positions. Some people think white privilege worth defending even if such implies their poverty. That reflects the concern "I don't want any mulatto grandchildren" that many white Americans still harbor.

Democratic socialism requires a massive restructuring of ownership of productive capital. It is Marxist-Leninist economics with democracy (as the Communist party of the United States advocates) and, I assume, checks and balances. Full-blown fascism, complete with torture chambers, concentration camps, Apartheid-like mistreatment of ethnic minorities, and aggressive warfare, is more likely in America than is democratic socialism.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(03-24-2019, 10:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Social democracy is achievable within the American constitution. It implies a good climate for business including a consumer economy with high taxes that facilitate high incomes and universal opportunity. Such would be a difficult achievement to the extent that mass racism gets in the way -- loser whites being concerned that they would be elevated some, but would reach parity with minorities raised from lower positions. Some people think white privilege worth defending even if such implies their poverty. That reflects the  concern "I don't want any mulatto grandchildren"  that many white Americans still harbor.

If they don't want mulatto grandchildren they could move to a place like Belarus where there are virtually no non-whites, apart from a few Mongolians or Tatars who came there during Genghis Khan's invasions, and few Turkic citizens of former USSR's republics. Also, Belarus has an autocratic government and no independent central bank. Seems like an identitarian or neoreactionary wet dream.

Iceland is another all-white nation, but it's ruled by SJWs so I don't think American racists think much of it.

Do you think social democracy has been achieved in Europe or Canada?
Reply
(03-25-2019, 07:24 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
(03-24-2019, 10:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Social democracy is achievable within the American constitution. It implies a good climate for business including a consumer economy with high taxes that facilitate high incomes and universal opportunity. Such would be a difficult achievement to the extent that mass racism gets in the way -- loser whites being concerned that they would be elevated some, but would reach parity with minorities raised from lower positions. Some people think white privilege worth defending even if such implies their poverty. That reflects the  concern "I don't want any mulatto grandchildren"  that many white Americans still harbor.

If they don't want mulatto grandchildren they could move to a place like Belarus where there are virtually no non-whites, apart from a few Mongolians or Tatars who came there during Genghis Khan's invasions, and few Turkic citizens of former USSR's republics. Also, Belarus has an autocratic government and no independent central bank. Seems like an identitarian or neoreactionary wet dream.

Iceland is another all-white nation, but it's ruled by SJWs so I don't think American racists think much of it.

Do you think social democracy has been achieved in Europe or Canada?


Iceland would be a poor fit for those ignoramuses. Icelanders read (book consumption per capita is the highest in the world, and one would expect that in a country with long winter nights and a short, chilly summer) something that such people would find unsatisfying. The language, practically the language of the Vikings who settled Iceland, is the most difficult of Germanic languages to learn. The Armed Services have assessed practically all modern languages for difficulty of learning, and while Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish are in the same category as Dutch, Afrikaans, and the Romance languages for being suited for easy learning (German is tricky because Martin Luther successfully imposed a Latin-style declension on nouns and adjectives, so it is not quite in that category), Icelandic is more difficult than German because the language does not fit cultural norms of most Western languages. Belorussian? As with other Slavic languages, it has a tricky grammar.

Those ignoramuses show little sign of competence in learning non-native languages; they often have enough difficulties with English, as one would expect from people with cognitive limitations. They are dim-witted enough to believe that nobody could possibly disagree with them unless stupid or evil. These people are proud to be Americans, and their idea of being American means being much like themselves in behavior and appearance.

Social democracy is a political tendency and not a fixed object of political achievement as is Marxism-Leninism. It requires a well-developed economy capable of creating plenty. It does not repress alternatives, including conservatism. It has an excellent record of human rights, more so than the libertarian pipe dream. It is good at ensuring that practically everyone can have a well-paying job... but it is also a good environment for starting a business because it creates plenty of paying customers.

I look at Donald Trump and I see not only hostility toward economic equality but also some despotic and dictatorial tendencies. He is by far the most authoritarian President that we have ever had, and the most ideologically-firm one ever.  FDR's New Deal was pragmatic by necessity, and he had to win the support of Congress. Trump acts as if Congress must obey him because he is the Big Boss. He acts on the assumption "I won, you're done!", with one election deciding everything indefinitely -- which describes Belarus fairly well.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Comprehensive Political Cycle Theory jleagans 15 795 03-19-2019, 09:57 AM
Last Post: Marypoza
  How Birth Year Influences Political Views Dan '82 12 5,393 05-21-2016, 09:27 AM
Last Post: Mikebert
  Where to post political topics Webmaster 0 1,797 05-06-2016, 01:15 PM
Last Post: Webmaster

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)