## Traitorous Trump

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

### Traitorous Trump

I thought Trump was mostly a fraud shortly after he was elected, but with the assassination of one of Iran's most senior officials, now I know he's a complete, total and absolute fraud.
Trump was elected for one reason, to put America first.
Instead, he's put Israel, the military industrial complex, the banking, oil and opium cartels first.
In other words, business as usual in the USA.

What would putting America first look like?
It'd look like ending the fraudulent wars on terror and drugs, weening America off the fractional reserve banking, oil and opioid teats and either putting the trillions of dollars you used to spend on these fictitious wars back in Americans pockets, or spending it on affordable housing, infrastructure, transportation, health centers, hospitals and schools.

America is not an embassy in Iraq that should've never been built in the first place.
America is its citizens, its declining middle and working classes.

Trump is not a capitalist, nor a socialist, he's a Zio-fascist, he supports bailing out Israel and wall street while cutting spending on America's poorest and neediest.
He does absolutely nothing to secure the border to protect American jobs and housing.
He supports the expansion of Israel, its genocide of Palestinians, and Saudi Arabia, an Islamic totaliterrorist state (America has close financial and political ties with the Saudis. Unlike Iran, Saudi Arabia is in large part an artificial construct of the British empire).

Regime change has only lead and will only lead to millions of dead middle eastern women and children, thousands of dead young American men and the further radicalization of the middle east, including Iran, which, before the American invasion in the 70s, was a moderate democracy.

Iran has absolutely every right to arm itself with nuclear weapons, especially after America's betrayals of it, Iraq and the Islamic world at large.

Of course it's not about ideology, that should be obvious by now, what passes for the left and right nowadays are mere pretexts, it's about Israel, and America's overclass vs us.
Ordinary Americans are alright, but their government is shit, especially when it comes to foreign policy and the previous 5 administrations, all of them Neocons or rather Ziocons (which's not to say Canada's much better, in fact it's a little worse in some ways, it's just we don't have the resources to bomb the shit out of the middle east quite like you do, otherwise our government would, happily).

I hope Israel and the American admin lose the war with Iran, Russia and Turkey.
All praise be to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, may Iran prosper for the next 1000 years!
Assuming your elections aren't a complete fraud, you should elect Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul or a 3rd party or independent.
Nearly if not all divisive dems and republicans are shills.
Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Traitorous Trump

this dude... pretending to care about humans...

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

BTL

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 9808
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: Traitorous Trump

Regardless of allegiance, it was, in practical terms, a terrible move. Unless one wants more terrorism, more liklihood of ww3, more chaos.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2837
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Traitorous Trump

right, right... this guy spends weeks filling political threads with well thought out posts full of practical ideas for reforming society for the vast majority of working people... just to be ironic. he's really a misanthrop, see, and he does this stuff for shits and giggles.

fuckouttahere.

i got your back, glooms. let freedom ring, brother. you keep doing you and we'll worry about your transition into internationalism later. baby steps, bro. rome wasn't built in a day.
promethean75
Philosopher

Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

### Re: Traitorous Trump

Lolz
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

The Lions Anger is Noble

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 19477
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Nobilis Est Ira Leonis

### Re: Traitorous Trump

promethean75 wrote:right, right... this guy spends weeks filling political threads with well thought out posts full of practical ideas for reforming society for the vast majority of working people... just to be ironic. he's really a misanthrop, see, and he does this stuff for shits and giggles.

fuckouttahere.

i got your back, glooms. let freedom ring, brother. you keep doing you and we'll worry about your transition into internationalism later. baby steps, bro. rome wasn't built in a day.

Marxism didn't work, whereas national social democracy in mid 20th century north America and western European did, which's what we ought to get back to.
That is real working class social democracy, economically center-left, and socially center-right, as opposed to totalitarian dictatorship on the one hand, or bourgeois, anti-conservative, anti-nationalist, anti-free speech, anti-gun and anti-white, feminist, transsexual, transhumanist, vegan and pro-vaccine/population reduction pseudosocial democracy on the other.

These aren't the values of the working class, they're anathema.
Ask the working class what they think about all that, and most will tell you it's a bunch of shit, they just want affordable housing, a living wage, education and healthcare, and offshoring and opening borders for cheap labor, and so on doesn't help.
Unfortunately social democrats got taken over by neofeudalists several decades ago, but more people are waking up to it.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

zuckerberg 'earns' an average of 6 million dollars a day, glooms, because he invented an internet social platform with which people all over the world can share pictures of themselves and their dogs (in cute little sweaters). there is probably not a word in the english language sufficient enough to describe what this is. to call it obscene would be too generous. what we're going to do is implement yang's 'basic income' plan and draw the funds directly from zuckerberg's and bezos's accounts; 1,000 dollars per month will be given to american wage earners below a certain income level (which our team of economists will determine). the daily profits of these two insidious wankers will be distributed such that what is left to them (per eight hours of work) will be the equivalent of the average daily wage an administrative worker receives. when i discovered what these two assholes make in a day i was so disturbed i got the runs. i hadn't shat a solid poo in like five days. this is what offends me the most; not that capitalism is a grotesque system of exploitation, but that it interferes with my gastrointestinal processes. promethean75 Philosopher Posts: 2678 Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm ### Re: Traitorous Trump Gloominary wrote:Marxism didn't work, whereas national social democracy in mid 20th century north America and western European did, which's what we ought to get back to. That is real working class social democracy, economically center-left, and socially center-right, as opposed to totalitarian dictatorship on the one hand, or bourgeois, anti-conservative, anti-nationalist, anti-free speech, anti-gun and anti-white, feminist, transsexual, transhumanist, vegan and pro-vaccine/population reduction pseudosocial democracy on the other. These aren't the values of the working class, they're anathema. Ask the working class what they think about all that, and most will tell you it's a bunch of shit, they just want affordable housing, a living wage, education and healthcare, and offshoring and opening borders for cheap labor, and so on doesn't help. Unfortunately social democrats got taken over by neofeudalists several decades ago, but more people are waking up to it. With all due respect, I would suggest that you are not appreciating the necessary result of the two-party political system that we effectively have in America. You speak of, "The values of the working class," and then provide examples. In general, I do not disagree with your examples. You then give examples of what it is to be center-right socially, and attribute those as examples of values consistent with those who you term, "The working class." Interestingly, I cannot even think of a clear party that would describe such a position, at least, not in America. One would surmise that they would simply term themselves either, "Democrats," (due to their labor values) or, "Independents," because they don't really fit in anywhere else. If I had to create a term to describe them, it would either be, "Socialistically Conservative," or, "Contra-Libertarian." I say, "Contra-Libertarian," simply because Libertarians (for the most part) are economically conservative (or varying degrees of moderate) to some degree while being extremely progressive on social issues. Anyway, anthemic coalitions are going to be frequent under a de facto two-party system. Not only is it usually the case that not every individual political view of a person fits neatly into an individual political label, (though the radical left is working on such assimilation strenuously) but it becomes even less likely when there are only three real labels with..."Independent," not actually describing anything. Granted, "Politically Independent," is descriptive, but it really more describes a negative, a lack, rather than actual possession of something. We see this with Bernie Sanders. Anyone paying attention, including Bernie himself, would arrive at the conclusion that he is an Authoritarian Socialist, or at least, a Socialist. However, he is running for the Democratic nomination as opposed to the nomination of any of the various Socialist parties in this country and I think the reason why is obvious enough that I can save my fingers the effort of typing it. And, so the same thing happens with these, "Working Class Democrats," for lack of a better term. They essentially have to align with the radical and socially progressive left who advocates so strongly for things that they do not care about (or are actively opposed to) because that is the party (of the two) who is most likely to support their primary motivator, which is workers' rights. Of course, "Workers Rights," are Populistic, to a certain degree, so these people are liable to vote for whichever candidate they see as doing what is best for the workers. When concentrated, these voters can make up the, "Swing voters," in swing states. We see this primarily in the Rust Belt, which coincidentally, is where I am from. They emphasize the need for labor unions, workers rights, worker safety, job creation and a certain degree of economic protectionism...though many of them wouldn't know the term for the last one. In the case of the 2016 Election, we arrived at the result, perhaps mostly, because they felt that they were being ignored by the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. In my opinion, those feelings were not without justification. Trump's stated policies were more directly related to their primary desires, as well, particularly as relates reduced environmental regulation (good for their job prospects, particularly in the Rust Belt) and the economic protectionism that comes from eliminating undocumented foreigners. That's not to say that the Republicans have failed to emphasize job creation before, as they so often do, but most of the time it is the Democratic candidate who is seen as the champion of the Working Class. For one thing, minimum wage laws indirectly benefit the Labor Unions because it increases their base negotiating point. There's more than that I won't get into for the purposes of this thread because it gets into the weeds. And, while they may be moderately-substantially Conservative on Social Issues, it is often irrelevant to the outcome of their votes, because as you succinctly pointed out...they are pragmatists first and are rational enough to understand that most social issues don't directly affect them very much. They're more concerned with the ability, or continued ability, to put food on the table. Hell, you listed education as chief amongst their concerns, and quite honestly, I'm not even sure that is particularly true. In my view, which could be flawed, replacing their laborious jobs with increased access to training and education for new jobs is not a terribly popular idea amongst them...they just want to keep doing what they're doing. Needless to say, they are swing voters who should be appealed to by the candidate who actually wishes to win. The Democratic message will usually be guaranteed Workers' Rights whilst the Republican message will generally be job creation, and so they may find themselves torn between the two. I think it's fair to say that entire Presidential Elections can hinge on appealing to the group with no name. "Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P PavlovianModel146 Ringing The Bell Posts: 7137 Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am Location: Ohio ### Re: Traitorous Trump PavlovianModel146 wrote: Gloominary wrote:Marxism didn't work, whereas national social democracy in mid 20th century north America and western European did, which's what we ought to get back to. That is real working class social democracy, economically center-left, and socially center-right, as opposed to totalitarian dictatorship on the one hand, or bourgeois, anti-conservative, anti-nationalist, anti-free speech, anti-gun and anti-white, feminist, transsexual, transhumanist, vegan and pro-vaccine/population reduction pseudosocial democracy on the other. These aren't the values of the working class, they're anathema. Ask the working class what they think about all that, and most will tell you it's a bunch of shit, they just want affordable housing, a living wage, education and healthcare, and offshoring and opening borders for cheap labor, and so on doesn't help. Unfortunately social democrats got taken over by neofeudalists several decades ago, but more people are waking up to it. With all due respect, I would suggest that you are not appreciating the necessary result of the two-party political system that we effectively have in America. You speak of, "The values of the working class," and then provide examples. In general, I do not disagree with your examples. You then give examples of what it is to be center-right socially, and attribute those as examples of values consistent with those who you term, "The working class." Interestingly, I cannot even think of a clear party that would describe such a position, at least, not in America. One would surmise that they would simply term themselves either, "Democrats," (due to their labor values) or, "Independents," because they don't really fit in anywhere else. If I had to create a term to describe them, it would either be, "Socialistically Conservative," or, "Contra-Libertarian." I say, "Contra-Libertarian," simply because Libertarians (for the most part) are economically conservative (or varying degrees of moderate) to some degree while being extremely progressive on social issues. Anyway, anthemic coalitions are going to be frequent under a de facto two-party system. Not only is it usually the case that not every individual political view of a person fits neatly into an individual political label, (though the radical left is working on such assimilation strenuously) but it becomes even less likely when there are only three real labels with..."Independent," not actually describing anything. Granted, "Politically Independent," is descriptive, but it really more describes a negative, a lack, rather than actual possession of something. We see this with Bernie Sanders. Anyone paying attention, including Bernie himself, would arrive at the conclusion that he is an Authoritarian Socialist, or at least, a Socialist. However, he is running for the Democratic nomination as opposed to the nomination of any of the various Socialist parties in this country and I think the reason why is obvious enough that I can save my fingers the effort of typing it. And, so the same thing happens with these, "Working Class Democrats," for lack of a better term. They essentially have to align with the radical and socially progressive left who advocates so strongly for things that they do not care about (or are actively opposed to) because that is the party (of the two) who is most likely to support their primary motivator, which is workers' rights. Of course, "Workers Rights," are Populistic, to a certain degree, so these people are liable to vote for whichever candidate they see as doing what is best for the workers. When concentrated, these voters can make up the, "Swing voters," in swing states. We see this primarily in the Rust Belt, which coincidentally, is where I am from. They emphasize the need for labor unions, workers rights, worker safety, job creation and a certain degree of economic protectionism...though many of them wouldn't know the term for the last one. In the case of the 2016 Election, we arrived at the result, perhaps mostly, because they felt that they were being ignored by the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. In my opinion, those feelings were not without justification. Trump's stated policies were more directly related to their primary desires, as well, particularly as relates reduced environmental regulation (good for their job prospects, particularly in the Rust Belt) and the economic protectionism that comes from eliminating undocumented foreigners. That's not to say that the Republicans have failed to emphasize job creation before, as they so often do, but most of the time it is the Democratic candidate who is seen as the champion of the Working Class. For one thing, minimum wage laws indirectly benefit the Labor Unions because it increases their base negotiating point. There's more than that I won't get into for the purposes of this thread because it gets into the weeds. And, while they may be moderately-substantially Conservative on Social Issues, it is often irrelevant to the outcome of their votes, because as you succinctly pointed out...they are pragmatists first and are rational enough to understand that most social issues don't directly affect them very much. They're more concerned with the ability, or continued ability, to put food on the table. Hell, you listed education as chief amongst their concerns, and quite honestly, I'm not even sure that is particularly true. In my view, which could be flawed, replacing their laborious jobs with increased access to training and education for new jobs is not a terribly popular idea amongst them...they just want to keep doing what they're doing. Needless to say, they are swing voters who should be appealed to by the candidate who actually wishes to win. The Democratic message will usually be guaranteed Workers' Rights whilst the Republican message will generally be job creation, and so they may find themselves torn between the two. I think it's fair to say that entire Presidential Elections can hinge on appealing to the group with no name. Yes , You are right , they can, but what is a fringe group, if not a minority, and there are too many of them, and they are defined by those whom the majority excludes. Usually only in tight races are they considered at all, in order not to alianate the platform that suggests majority interests. Trump had no platform. but that is not surprising given the cunning run that had to cater to his base. Meno_ ILP Legend Posts: 6237 Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am Location: Mysterium Tremendum ### Re: Traitorous Trump Meno_ wrote: Yes , You are right , they can, but what is a fringe group, if not a minority, and there are too many of them, and they are defined by those whom the majority excludes. Usually only in tight races are they considered at all, in order not to alianate the platform that suggests majority interests. Trump had no platform. but that is not surprising given the cunning run that had to cater to his base. I have a few observations to make about these statements that I generally agree with: 1.) I believe that Hillary Clinton did not perceive, and certainly the polling failed to perceive, that the popular vote would be as tight as it was. If nothing else, it was at least a mild outlier in the possible range of results. Hillary went as far as to make plays for states that Democrats would generally not even consider. 2.) Donald Trump almost doubtlessly saw it as necessary to appeal to the people in question, precisely because his best hope was that the race (from a popular vote standpoint) would be tight. 3.) Your middle sentence, in my opinion, was most likely the case on Clinton's side in terms of strategy. The goal, at least in my view, was more to excite the base itself to turn out rather than to appeal to those who do not fit the base. This mistake will likely be repeated depending on who the 2020 candidate ends up being, but I don't think Biden would repeat it...and he also kind of appeals to the people in question anyway. 4.) I also agree that Trump had no platform, only positions that aligned more directly with these voters in question or other voters that focus on one or a handful of specific positions. For everyone else, it was either the, "R," that appeared before his name on the ballot or the fact that Donald Trump is not Hillary Clinton. "Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P PavlovianModel146 Ringing The Bell Posts: 7137 Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am Location: Ohio ### Re: Traitorous Trump He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529 Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 iambiguous ILP Legend Posts: 35084 Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm Location: baltimore maryland ### Re: Traitorous Trump promethean75 wrote:zuckerberg 'earns' an average of 6 million dollars a day, glooms, because he invented an internet social platform with which people all over the world can share pictures of themselves and their dogs (in cute little sweaters). there is probably not a word in the english language sufficient enough to describe what this is. to call it obscene would be too generous. what we're going to do is implement yang's 'basic income' plan and draw the funds directly from zuckerberg's and bezos's accounts;1,000 dollars per month will be given to american wage earners below a certain income level (which our team of economists will determine). the daily profits of these two insidious wankers will be distributed such that what is left to them (per eight hours of work) will be the equivalent of the average daily wage an administrative worker receives.

when i discovered what these two assholes make in a day i was so disturbed i got the runs. i hadn't shat a solid poo in like five days. this is what offends me the most; not that capitalism is a grotesque system of exploitation, but that it interferes with my gastrointestinal processes.

UBI has never been tried before on a large scale.
It may or mayn't work.
Or it may only work in countries where the vast majority of people are fairly honest, and don't take too much advantage of it (I mean don't get me wrong, it's good if a lot of people work less, but it's not good if a lot of people don't work at all).
As you know I'm a proponent of Supplementary income, additional income for all lower income (say under 250 000) earners from government paid for solely by all upper income earners, rather than universal.
Supplementary income is my idea, no politician that I know of has proposed anything like it.

UBI seems like it's being pushed by the same elite who swindled us in the first place.
They'd have us relinquish our negative rights (free speech/thought, guns, privacy, agenda 21, tax the lower classes (as you know, the upper classes often can get around paying taxes) and so on) in exchange for positive ones, so I'm not keen on that either.
Only the upper classes should have to relinquish their negative rights, not the lower classes.

It seems like a trojan horse, but don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what the republicans are pushing is any better.
For the US, I still think Tulsi and Rand may be the best options right now, the right combination of both their policies would be even better, more positive rights for workers without them relinquishing any of their negative rights, less positive and negative rights for the overclass, and less positive and negative rights for noncitizens.
To me, that's the essence of a real working class revolution.
Unsurprisingly no politician is proposing what I propose.
They want us to trade one thing for another, and of course they think they can get the better of the exchange, whereas what we ought to do is take more of everything.

More liberty, and financial security for us, and less for them.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Traitorous Trump

6 million dollars a day is an absolutely insane sum.
I agree the income of their ilk should be taxed at, at least 99%, if not 99.9%, but I don't think I agree with how it should be redistributed.
What else is in Yang's platform?
I should do more research on him.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Traitorous Trump

Pav

Gloominary wrote:Marxism didn't work, whereas national social democracy in mid 20th century north America and western European did, which's what we ought to get back to.
That is real working class social democracy, economically center-left, and socially center-right, as opposed to totalitarian dictatorship on the one hand, or bourgeois, anti-conservative, anti-nationalist, anti-free speech, anti-gun and anti-white, feminist, transsexual, transhumanist, vegan and pro-vaccine/population reduction pseudosocial democracy on the other.

These aren't the values of the working class, they're anathema.
Ask the working class what they think about all that, and most will tell you it's a bunch of shit, they just want affordable housing, a living wage, education and healthcare, and offshoring and opening borders for cheap labor, and so on doesn't help.
Unfortunately social democrats got taken over by neofeudalists several decades ago, but more people are waking up to it.

PavlovianModel146 wrote:With all due respect, I would suggest that you are not appreciating the necessary result of the two-party political system that we effectively have in America.

You speak of, "The values of the working class," and then provide examples. In general, I do not disagree with your examples. You then give examples of what it is to be center-right socially, and attribute those as examples of values consistent with those who you term, "The working class."

Interestingly, I cannot even think of a clear party that would describe such a position, at least, not in America. One would surmise that they would simply term themselves either, "Democrats," (due to their labor values) or, "Independents," because they don't really fit in anywhere else. If I had to create a term to describe them, it would either be, "Socialistically Conservative," or, "Contra-Libertarian." I say, "Contra-Libertarian," simply because Libertarians (for the most part) are economically conservative (or varying degrees of moderate) to some degree while being extremely progressive on social issues.

I term them populists.
Economically they're social democrats, not democratic socialists or Marxists, and socially they're moderately conservative, not radically.
Contra-libertarian eh?
That doesn't work for me because 1, they're moderate fiscal socialists and social conservatives, not radical, they're centrists, and 2, they're no more contra-libertarian or authoritarian than progressives.

Progressives aren't just economically authoritarian, they're socially authoritarian, they're racially, religiously and sexually authoritarian, they want to increase the social, political and economic positive and negative rights of minorities and women at the expense of the majority (meaning whites and Christians in North America) and men.
Additionally they're anti-free speech/thought and anti-gun.
They're ecologically, educationally and medically authoritarian (carbon taxes, compulsory education and inoculations).

It's erroneous to associate conservatives with economic libertarianism and social authoritarianism and progressives with economic authoritarianism and social libertarianism, they can both be both economically and socially authoritarian.
Conservative economic authoritarianism is corporatism, conservative social authoritarianism is majoritarian and patriarchal (in theory).
Progressive economic authoritarianism is socialism (in theory), progressive social authoritarianism is minoritarian and matriarchal.

The old political spectrum is overly simplistic because there's overemphasis on the quantitative, how much governing, and underemphasis on the qualitative, what kind of governing.

Anyway, anthemic coalitions are going to be frequent under a de facto two-party system. Not only is it usually the case that not every individual political view of a person fits neatly into an individual political label, (though the radical left is working on such assimilation strenuously) but it becomes even less likely when there are only three real labels with..."Independent," not actually describing anything. Granted, "Politically Independent," is descriptive, but it really more describes a negative, a lack, rather than actual possession of something.

Yea, it's overly simplistic labeling.

We see this with Bernie Sanders. Anyone paying attention, including Bernie himself, would arrive at the conclusion that he is an Authoritarian Socialist, or at least, a Socialist. However, he is running for the Democratic nomination as opposed to the nomination of any of the various Socialist parties in this country and I think the reason why is obvious enough that I can save my fingers the effort of typing it.

Socialism itself is a form of authoritarianism.
Socialists can be culturally or socially authoritarian or libertarian, just as corporatists and capitalists can be either.
Most progressives are both economically and socially moderately authoritarian, just as most conservatives are.

And, so the same thing happens with these, "Working Class Democrats," for lack of a better term.

I don't think what I term populists are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, particularly nowadays.
Immigration has become a central issue for them, because it has both economic, and social implications, and it's getting out of hand.
In practice, both parties were, and still are in favor of the cheap labor that comes from mass immigration, in spite of Trump's rhetoric.
Over half a century of unrelenting (illegal) immigration from the 3rd world, and all the ills they bring with them (alienation, isolation, cheap jobs, expensive rents, crime, disease, overpopulation, pollution, poverty, white replacement) has caused white blue collar workers who progressives used to count on for their vote to vote for conservatives, particularly nationalists who promise to put a stop to immigration and outsourcing.

This isn't just an American phenomenon, it's happening all over the western world, even in Brazil (insofar as it's part of it) with Jair Bolsanro, Brexit in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France, Matteo Salvini in Italy, Law & Justice in Poland and Viktor Orban in Hungary.
I myself used to vote for the New Democratic Party of Canada (never voted for the Liberal or Conservative party of Canada), but now that there's a conservative party that promises to reduce immigration if elected, the People's Party of Canada, I jumped ship, voted for and donated to them instead.

Some Democrats like Bernie used to occasionally express anti-immigration and protectionist sentiments, but these positions are now verboten in the Democratic party.
The parties are becoming more racialized, as white people are becoming minoritized and marginalized in our own countries, more white blue collar workers are voting conservative but there's more minorities than ever to compensate by voting progressive.
This is changing the nature of the parties, the left is becoming increasingly pro-immigrant and minority, and the right pro-citizen and majority.
The right is also becoming increasingly blue collar.
Not so much in the Anglosphere, but in continental Europe we're even seeing right leaning parties adopt some socialist policies (but then reducing (blue collar and illegal) immigration and protectionism are forms of socialism, specifically national socialism).

When it comes to immigration, the establishment isn't centrist or even center-left, they're far left.
Centrist would be no immigration and far right would be mass deportation.
In practice, both Democrats and Republicans (Liberals and Conservatives in Canada) are by and large globalists, economically corporatist and socially progressive, what I've termed antipopulists or unpopulists.
Bureaucrats and the bourgeoisie have allied and aligned with immigrants for their cheap labor, among other things, and with minorities against citizens and the majority.

Once you understand the Jewish connection, it makes even more sense, why our government and media would serve both the bourgeoisie on the one hand, and immigrants and minorities on the other.
The establishment is both globalist, and Zionist, globalism for white people, nationalism for everyone else, especially, particularly or specifically for Israel.
For me, the real social, political and economic dichotomy is between populists and unpopulists, not between liberals and conservatives.

When concentrated, these voters can make up the, "Swing voters," in swing states. We see this primarily in the Rust Belt, which coincidentally, is where I am from.

In Canada we see this in the Rockies and in the Prairies.

Trump's stated policies were more directly related to their primary desires, as well, particularly as relates reduced environmental regulation (good for their job prospects, particularly in the Rust Belt) and the economic protectionism that comes from eliminating undocumented foreigners.

Good point.

And, while they may be moderately-substantially Conservative on Social Issues, it is often irrelevant to the outcome of their votes, because as you succinctly pointed out...they are pragmatists first and are rational enough to understand that most social issues don't directly affect them very much. They're more concerned with the ability, or continued ability, to put food on the table.

Social issues can sometimes have practical consequences.
Some cultures, ethnicities and races are more socially compatible with ours than others.
The left is wrong about this, cultures, ethnicities and races have meaningful differences, and people are awakening to them.

Hell, you listed education as chief amongst their concerns, and quite honestly, I'm not even sure that is particularly true. In my view, which could be flawed, replacing their laborious jobs with increased access to training and education for new jobs is not a terribly popular idea amongst them...they just want to keep doing what they're doing.

Interesting point.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Traitorous Trump

Gloominary,

Can I call you Gloomy? You can call me Pav, either way. I like you, I like the way that you frame your positions and I also like your writing style. I also hope that you're having a wonderful day today. I hope you have something that you really enjoy for dinner tonight. I think I'm having my favorite food, pizza. Don't worry, my tastes are sometimes finer. I'm not one to immediately reject the base or the sophisticated.

Gloominary wrote:I term them populists.
Economically they're social democrats, not democratic socialists or Marxists, and socially they're moderately conservative, not radically.
Contra-libertarian eh?
That doesn't work for me because 1, they're moderate fiscal socialists and social conservatives, not radical, they're centrists, and 2, they're no more contra-libertarian or authoritarian than progressives.

Progressives aren't just economically authoritarian, they're socially authoritarian, they're racially, religiously and sexually authoritarian, they want to increase the social, political and economic positive and negative rights of minorities and women at the expense of the majority (meaning whites and Christians in North America) and men.
Additionally they're anti-free speech/thought and anti-gun.
They're ecologically, educationally and medically authoritarian (carbon taxes, compulsory education and inoculations).

It's erroneous to associate conservatives with economic libertarianism and social authoritarianism and progressives with economic authoritarianism and social libertarianism, they can both be both economically and socially authoritarian.
Conservative economic authoritarianism is corporatism, conservative social authoritarianism is majoritarian and patriarchal (in theory).
Progressive economic authoritarianism is socialism (in theory), progressive social authoritarianism is minoritarian and matriarchal.

The old political spectrum is overly simplistic because there's overemphasis on the quantitative, how much governing, and underemphasis on the qualitative, what kind of governing.

I think that, "Populists," is a better catch-all term than the ones that I proposed as long as I can correct to indicate that a, "Populist," need not be moderately socially conservative. The Populist is also permitted to be moderately socially liberal, as well. I think that the main characteristic of what one should term a, "Populist," be that the person is primarily concerned with the needs of the working class...but that's a positive trait...it doesn't necessarily mean that the Populist must be opposed to those things that concern the other classes, such that those things don't negatively impact the working class.

For example, gay marriage. Many Conservatives would say no. Almost all Progressive Democrats would say yes. I don't think a Populist really cares about this very much as the yes/no binary doesn't really have a meaningful impact on the working class from an economical standpoint. I'm not saying a Populist would not have a position on this issue, or would not give an answer (if pressed) just that I don't think the answer is any more likely to be no than it is to be yes.

For instance, you have stipulated already that they are moderate social conservatives. So, even if we assume that to be always true (I don't, except under your defined terms), it would still mean that they could come down on the liberal side of a particular issue.

Contra-Libertarian, however, remains a very bad term to describe them for the reasons that you have pointed out.

Socialism itself is a form of authoritarianism.
Socialists can be culturally or socially authoritarian or libertarian, just as corporatists and capitalists can be either.
Most progressives are both economically and socially moderately authoritarian, just as most conservatives are.

No major objection. A minor objection would be that Socialism usually manifests by some way of Authoritarianism, but it doesn't necessarily have to.

I don't think what I term populists are more likely to vote democrat than republican, particularly nowadays.
Immigration has become a central issue for them, because it has both economic, and social implications, and its getting out of hand.
In practice, both parties were, and still are in favor of the cheap labor that comes from mass immigration, in spite of Trump's rhetoric.
Over half a century of unrelenting (illegal) immigration from the 3rd world, and all the ills they bring with them (alienation, isolation, cheap jobs, expensive rents, crime, disease, overpopulation, pollution, poverty, white replacement) has caused white blue collar workers who progressives used to count on for their vote to vote for conservatives, particularly nationalists who promise to put a stop to immigration and outsourcing.

Again, you're right, "Working class Democrats," was also an ineffective term to describe this particular subset of people, though it might apply to some of them.

Shit, Trump is in favor of the cheap labor that comes from it in spite of Trump's rhetoric, or at least was. If not in favor, per se, he was in favor of not going to great lengths to ensure that his employees were not.

I'm not going to get into a protracted immigration debate for the purposes of this thread other than to say that cheap labor costs also keep other costs down. There's really a ton that goes into the whole immigration thing if you want to boil it down to, "Is it good or is it bad," but I will give my position on it here in a second.

Some democrats like Bernie used to occasionally express anti-immigration and protectionist sentiments, but these positions are now verboten in the democratic party.
Increasingly there's a racial divide forming between the parties that didn't exist before, as white people are becoming minoritized and marginalized in our own countries, more blue collar whites are voting right but there's more minorities than ever to compensate by voting left.
This is changing the nature of the parties, the left is becoming increasingly pro-immigrant and anti-white, and the right pro-citizen and pro-white.
The right is also becoming increasingly blue collar.
Not so much in the Anglosphere, but in continental Europe we're even seeing right leaning parties adopt some socialist policies.

I definitely don't think anyone should be marginalized, but why would white people becoming, 'Minoritized' be a negative unto itself? That seems like an inherently tribalistic stance to take. The fact that you have this notion of, "White people," to begin with is sort of a strength in numbers thing. If I say that I am an American Caucasian of primarily Germanic and Irish descent, that would almost certainly put me in a minority if I refuse to identify as simply, "White."

I also don't know what qualities would make a political philosophy, "Anti-White," though I agree that many people act in a fashion that seems, "Anti-White." Some people currently act in a fashion that I would call, "Anti-Male." Can you be, "Pro-White," without inherently being Anti-EverythingThatIsNotWhite?

For me, I'm just a fan of doing that which eventually (key word) leads to equality of opportunity, and so different positions promote that and other positions do not. But, that would not include making laws specifically designed to benefit particular races, it would actually consist of its opposite, getting rid of as many laws as possible that exist to benefit other races.

Anyway, you wouldn't want to talk immigration with me because I'm an, "Open borders," guy, but for a different reason than you might expect:

---One of the fundamental tenets necessary to prevent social contract theory from falling apart is a notion of implied consent. We can accept that not each one of us in the country (in my case, America) had a direct say in the various laws that were created in that country. In many cases, the person wasn't even born yet, so how could he have a direct say? However, the general notion of the social contract would indicate that, by continued living in a particular society, the person is implicitly consenting to be bound by that society's laws.

---"Love it or leave it," was once a popular term, maybe still is.

---The entire theory fails from a freedom standpoint when the individual does not have a choice to go to a society that the individual might prefer. Assuming that no legal immigration was even permitted, (I know, generally not the case) the individual literally does not have anywhere else where that individual could legally go. By staying, the individual lives under a social contract that he explicitly does not consent to and would prefer to not be. By leaving, the individual does something that is completely illegal (in the country he goes to) and thereby violates the very social contract that he claims to prefer.

---Instead, I maintain that a, 'Good,' fundamental freedom to have would be freedom of movement. If the person doesn't like a particular society or its laws, then the individual can simply go to one that he prefers and see what happens.

---But, that is because I have a small list of freedoms that I hold as values, so I admit to an extreme bias here.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell

Posts: 7137
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

### Re: Traitorous Trump

On the one hand, Trump brought back the word "Nationalism" as an intended positive affirmation of the American Public and Society,
On the other hand, as you say, he strongly pushes Zionist-Israel foreign policy.

This isn't new. The Neo-Conservatives didn't just disappear after Bush. They're still there. And they are part of the 'Deep State', same as the Neo-Liberals.

It appears that they have the steering wheel of the US military, same as before. The Military-Industrial-Complex is more stagnant than ever.

It's about Desert Oil and Blood Money.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

### Re: Traitorous Trump

PavlovianModel146 wrote:Can I call you Gloomy?

Sure thing.

I like you

I like you.

I think that, "Populists," is a better catch-all term than the ones that I proposed as long as I can correct to indicate that a, "Populist," need not be moderately socially conservative.

What is populism?
It's what's popular, and more subjectively, what's in the interests of the people.
It's also promoting the positive and negative rights of the majority rather than the elite on the right hand, or minorities on the left.
It's synonymous with majoritarianism rather than elitism or minoritarianism.

If you look at the politics of the bottom 99%, they lean economically center-left and socially center-right.
The working class are economically further left and socially further right than the middleclass, but they both lean economically center-left and socially center-right.
At least, that's what I've heard time after time, maybe I've got it wrong.

I think the richest 1% are the opposite, they're economically center-right and socially center-left, they're what I call unpopulists or anti-populists.
And for the most part of course, it's the richest 1% who control things.

Diversity is good for them, they'll remain homogenous in their gated communities and in Israel anyway.
They like the cheap labor and it's how they divide and conquer us.
They're globalists, they want a one world government where everyone is culturally and socially mixed up and at each others throats.
Where people are atomized, don't have any loyalties other than to the bottom line.
And it's better for them if white people in particular are diluted.
They keep us sick, but not too sick.

No major objection. A minor objection would be that Socialism usually manifests by some way of Authoritarianism, but it doesn't necessarily have to.

Good point, there's such a thing as market socialism, just as there's such a thing as state capitalism.

Anohter minor point, there's different forms of free markets, in particular a right and a left free market.
A left free market doesn't recognize intellectual property, whereas a right free market does.
A left free market has a looser sense of property, a right free market stricter.

Gloominary wrote:There're different forms of individualism too, for example is intellectual property a legitimate form of property?
Or is something yours, just because you pay taxes on it?
What if you're not physically occupying or using it?
What if you never have, never will or can't physically occupy or use it?
Is government and the commons legitimate?
Where does the self and its property end and otherness begin?
Can you be violated by another's pollution, pollutants in the air, water and soil, noise pollution?
What're we to do with children and other sentient species?
Can you sell yourself into serfdom or slavery?
Are building codes necessary?
Individualism is far from settled, it's not this monolithic, middle ground between different forms of collectivism.

Shit, Trump is in favor of the cheap labor that comes from it in spite of Trump's rhetoric, or at least was. If not in favor, per se, he was in favor of not going to great lengths to ensure that his employees were not.

Trump is either a fool, or a neocon in populist garb, either way, not to be trusted.

I'm not going to get into a protracted immigration debate for the purposes of this thread other than to say that cheap labor costs also keep other costs down. There's really a ton that goes into the whole immigration thing if you want to boil it down to, "Is it good or is it bad," but I will give my position on it here in a second.

Only if you have competitors, in places where there's little-no competition, or where prices and things have been fixed, prices won't go down.

Also, crooked law enforcement probably punishes small businesses more often and severely for hiring illegals than big business.

I definitely don't think anyone should be marginalized, but why would white people becoming, 'Minoritized' be a negative unto itself? That seems like an inherently tribalistic stance to take. The fact that you have this notion of, "White people," to begin with is sort of a strength in numbers thing. If I say that I am an American Caucasian of primarily Germanic and Irish descent, that would almost certainly put me in a minority if I refuse to identify as simply, "White."

For me, populism is the bottom 99% in general, and the white working class in particular. The white working class is the most populous part of the working class, but it's also the most hated by the establishment, which would rather pander to minorities.
Even if you had no loyalty to your race, it's self-interested to vote for policies which benefit, rather than detriment your race or prop up minorities at your race's expense.
For me, either government should promote the same rights for all citizens irrespective of race, or, if it's to cater to a particular race, it should cater to mine.

Anyway, you wouldn't want to talk immigration with me because I'm an, "Open borders," guy, but for a different reason than you might expect:

---One of the fundamental tenets necessary to prevent social contract theory from falling apart is a notion of implied consent. We can accept that not each one of us in the country (in my case, America) had a direct say in the various laws that were created in that country. In many cases, the person wasn't even born yet, so how could he have a direct say? However, the general notion of the social contract would indicate that, by continued living in a particular society, the person is implicitly consenting to be bound by that society's laws.

---"Love it or leave it," was once a popular term, maybe still is.

---The entire theory fails from a freedom standpoint when the individual does not have a choice to go to a society that the individual might prefer. Assuming that no legal immigration was even permitted, (I know, generally not the case) the individual literally does not have anywhere else where that individual could legally go. By staying, the individual lives under a social contract that he explicitly does not consent to and would prefer to not be. By leaving, the individual does something that is completely illegal (in the country he goes to) and thereby violates the very social contract that he claims to prefer.

---Instead, I maintain that a, 'Good,' fundamental freedom to have would be freedom of movement. If the person doesn't like a particular society or its laws, then the individual can simply go to one that he prefers and see what happens.

---But, that is because I have a small list of freedoms that I hold as values, so I admit to an extreme bias here.

Interesting point, even tho it doesn't work for me, I can appreciate it.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:43 am, edited 4 times in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Traitorous Trump

Perhaps we should make a distinction between populism and majoritarianism.
Populism could mean promoting the same positive and/or negative rights for all people, irrespective of race, sex, citizenship, class (flat taxes) and so on, whereas majoritarianism would be promoting more positive/negative rights for the most populous race, religion, culture, ethnicity and so forth and minoritarianism more rights for other races and so on or alternatively, the least populous race and so forth.
Patriarchy more rights for men and matriarchy more for women.
Nationalism more rights for citizens and globalism more for noncitizens.
Elitism more rights for the richest and most powerful classes (the top 50, 10, 1 or 1 10th of 1%) and egalitarianism more for the poorest and least powerful classes (the bottom 50, 90, 99 or 99.9%).
Authoritarianism is positive rights and libertarianism is negative rights.

You see, in politics we think too much about positive vs negative rights, and not enough about rights for who, or what kind of positive and/or negative rights, or how many rights, in my view.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Traitorous Trump

For radical individualists, what many pit bulls (or insert any demographic here, class, culture, ethnicity, race, religion, sex) do or how their ancestors were reared, in the pit, has absolutely no implications for pit bulls as a whole.
They want us to treat each individual pit bull as a monad, with no relationship to its ancestors, their environment or other pit bulls.
They deny patterns within the breed, that all, most or at least a disproportionate minority of them are this, that they have inclinations to that.
Progressives on the other hand will acknowledge the patterns but excuse them, blame them on our discriminatory treatment of pit bulls, rather than on the pit bulls themselves.

In some cases, an entities characteristics can rightfully be attributed to how it's been individually reared, or to our preconceptions of it, or it could be an anomaly, a mutant, a one-off, but in all cases?
To take that as your default position?
Sure, every pit bull is an individual, but it's also part of a breed, it's more likely to exhibit this or that than other breeds.
If it exhibits hyper-aggression, we shouldn't be surprised, we should've been prepared.
Likewise, as individuals, and a society, we should expect certain things from certain demographics, and prepare for them.

Some take a step further, that an individual is born again anew each and every moment, with no past at all, not even one of their own, never mind their ancestors.
My past is just what happened to me, it's not me, they declare.
If they strike me, that tells me absolutely nothing about them, only my preconceptions, which's probably the only reason I was struck.
This is how parasitic individuals, and demographics, prey on naïve individuals and demographics.
Don't judge me by my ancestors past or my kind, don't even judge me by my past, I am pure potential, and good, we hope, and hope in the future, rather than insight into the past-present, is all we have.
This is not rationality, this is psychological warfare, and collective Stockholm syndrome, masquerading as its opposite.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Traitorous Trump

For the individualists.

Discrimination makes sense.
Take gypsies for example.
Gypsies commit more blue collar crime than other population groups.

Progressives attribute this to white racism (the extrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of minorities are wholly the result of the intrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of the majority i.e. reverse discrimination) and/or their environment.
Individualists will write it off as statistical noise.
Real conservatives will attribute it to their biology and/or culture, their clannishness, deceitfulness, low iQs, poor impulse control and so on, attributes progressives will either try to deny and/or also attribute to white racism.

So which is it?
The thing is, lots of minorities experience racial discrimination.
Jews experience comparable levels of racism, yet they don't commit blue collar crime more than most pop groups, probably because of their high iQs, good impulse control and so on.
The Jews occupied the same ghettos gypsies occupy for centuries, yet when given an opportunity, the vast majority of Jews were able to rise out of the ghettos, whereas the vast majority of Gypsies aren't.
So you see, there must be something different about the biology and/or culture of the gypsy, which makes them more crime prone.

Now, just as we're more weary of say pit bulls than other races of dog (they've even been banned in some countries and regions of the world), because they're more likely to bite your head off than other dogs, we should be more weary of gypsies than other breeds of man, because they're more crime prone.
As individuals, and a society, we should be more weary of them.
Our criminal justice system, our policemen should be more weary of them.
If their rate of recidivism is significantly higher than other pop groups, which I'm sure it is, judges should focus more on punitive measures than rehabilitative, quarantining, segregating, when dealing with gypsies than when dealing with other pop groups.

We can use past group behavior to help us predict future group and individual behavior, and we should, and conversely, we can use past individual behavior to help us predict future group and individual behavior.
It doesn't have to be all, or even most members of a pop group.
Even if it's just a disproportionate minority of them, it may be reason enough to take action against them, penalizing, restricting, segregating, surveilling or deporting and replacing them with more of our own, and/or with minorities we can better trust.

Groups are also culpable for individual behavior, and vice versa.
Take Islamic terror for example.
Muslims are more prone to commit terror than other pop groups.
If a Muslim commits terror, and we find that his mosque was preaching hatred of whites, and other minorities, the mosque bears responsibility (perhaps not as much, but still some) for what he did.
Even the members of the mosque who weren't preaching hate are somewhat responsible, if they didn't take a stand against and report it.

Open the Koran, in it you will find passage after passage supporting conversion of the heathen and infidels by the sword.
So Islam itself bears responsibility.
So what should be done with such mosques and Islam itself?
I'm not sure, but it's perfectly rational to discriminate against them.
Personally, I'd probably make things very uncomfortable for them, so most would pack up their things and head back home.
I'd do the same with Jews; by and large, they're backbiting/stabbing, ungrateful traitors.

People are selfish, some more than others of course.
Selfishness is not bad, in fact it's good, if beings weren't selfish, they'd be overtaken by the elements or other, lesser beings.
I see my biological and cultural kin partly as extensions of myself, and so care about, and would rather be around them than outgroups, and I find some outgroups more compatible with my ingroup than others.
It doesn't mean I don't care about others, but I prioritize, I rank.
Just because I'm loyal to family and friends doesn't mean I go around harming everyone else.
Barring desperation, everyone's entitled to their land, just as we are entitled to ours.
And so, it makes perfect sense to want more rights for my ingroup than for outgroups on our soil.

Positive rights are just as important as negative rights.
And collective rights are just as important as individual rights.
This idea that collective positive rights are irrational, is in fact irrational.
We may have our preferences, we may emphasize one over the other, but there's two sides to this coin, every part is part of a whole, and every whole has parts, metaphysically and sociologically, the part does not take precedence over the whole, and what I have, like a roof over my head, or some food in my belly, isn't less important to me than my freedom.
They're both important, and where they conflict, there needs to be compromise.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Traitorous Trump

Urwrongx1000 wrote:On the one hand, Trump brought back the word "Nationalism" as an intended positive affirmation of the American Public and Society,
On the other hand, as you say, he strongly pushes Zionist-Israel foreign policy.

This isn't new. The Neo-Conservatives didn't just disappear after Bush. They're still there. And they are part of the 'Deep State', same as the Neo-Liberals.

It appears that they have the steering wheel of the US military, same as before. The Military-Industrial-Complex is more stagnant than ever.

It's about Desert Oil and Blood Money.

Trump's a fake nationalist.
He's a clown, a neoziolibcon wearing nationalist makeup.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am