From that article:
I don’t know what makes you think that, but it is false.
Apparently you live in a very dark distorted (gloomy) bubble of misbelief. No doubt a result of your news sources.
I wasn’t talking about anyone’s political stance but merely the meaning of an English word.
So, on the lines of an uncontrolled spontaneous grassroots movement uncontrolled by the elite power structure?
Sure, I can go with that at least for the modern context of the word.
So for you, populism can be anything, conservative or progressive, so long as its anti-elitism, or anti-policies that benefit the elite at the expense of the middle and working classes? If that’s the case, that’s a much broader definition of populism than the one I was proposing.
Populism is simply what the majority want at any given time - no more no less
It is not actually a modern day phenomenon because it has existed for as long as civilisation has - it existed for example back in the days of antiquity
So it may appear to be a twenty first century phenomenon because of social media but that just means that it is more accessible through technology
There is populism of both the left and the right in general and of specific issues as well such as for example abortion or the death penalty
It may alternate between different world views because what is popular now may not necessarily be so tomorrow
Right now here in the West it has a strong liberal bias but in the future it may change to a more conservative one
So while populism itself will always exist within the masses what the masses actually think is popular will not always be the same
This is why those who express populist views cannot claim the moral high ground because those views will not be popular always
And it is also a logical fallacy - specifically a non sequitur - because popularity and morality are not necessarily connected
Something is not automatically moral merely because it is popular but even if it is it is nothing more than just coincidence
That is one of the more serious mistakes of mind that people make when reviewing politics. A policy benefiting the wealthy does NOT necessarily hinder the poor. A policy that benefits the elites does NOT necessarily promote elitism.
“The rising tide lifts all boats.” - Wen Kang - The Gallant Maid
It’s a phrase often used in reference to a rising economy, especially when the less wealthy are benefiting as well as the wealthy.
Elitism strives for the opposite during any economic boost - wealthy for ONLY the elite so as to further ensure dominance (Bushes, Clinton, Obama) while hypocritically preaching the opposite. Elitism and Socialism are intrinsically bound (such as seen in California and New York).
Hillary was an elitist - grant us more power over you so that we can force your neighbors to obey the good.
Trump was a populist - increase the wealth and health of the entire nation regardless of class.
To surreptitious75’s point, a populist is not necessarily the most popular either. The definitional issue is whether the person is striving to benefit the general population rather than the elite of that population. The socialist vanguard always hate the populists because socialists thrive on the suffering of the masses.
One person’s populism is another person’s people finally shoving aside the problematic politicians and choosing freely. The term is usually pejorative, but I think we have to move away from the value judgment as see what it means without assuming it is either good or bad.
A candidate can create his or her own populist status through the usual lies and manipulation all politicians are capable of. It’s not like they just come along and are recognizing. They can make people think they are representing them and their values. They can even create those values. Here’s what your frustration is really about, here’s what is causing it.
So a more or less neutral definition I just plucked…
perhaps could be made more neutral removing ‘strives to’ and adding an s to appeal.
So, it is this person who contrasts him or herself with the usual fare. They may not be a contrast: iow they may be lying. They may be a contrast: but really they don’t represent the people they appeal to or are striving to appeal to. They may create their appeal. They may actually represent things that people who feel disenfranchized are feeling. Or a mix of these.
Further, the values they are appealing to may be confused.
People often think that, for example, X is in their best interests, and they are wrong.
The people who feel disregarded may be right about that - and generally I think they are - but be wrong about what needs to happen.
Populists can have some good solutions mixed in with other thigns that are neurtal or bad. They may be tyrants. They may have a primarily bad agenda (explicit or secret).
My main points are
- I think it’s good if we think of the term as neither good nor bad per se, but as a particular form.
- They may reflect a desire for certain policies and values, or they may create them or there can be a mix of these things, since populist philosophers including would be political candidates
are all the time telling people what they should and do thing and should and do value. Just as the other kinds of politicians are doing this.
Populism is a term used by elites to deride a politician who has the ear of the masses. Caesar was the first famous western populist.
What on Earth is all you dudes issues with Zionism. Its so weird.
Zionism. Meaning: the politics of Jews to return to their own land.
Why are you so fascinated with what happens in that small piece of land you’ll very likely never even visit? Why does it hurt you so much that the Jews are no longer prey to an given horde of morons?
Never mind, I know he answers: “muh jews have made me an incel!”
Going to be very interesting when the west economically crumbles and collapses what all the angry incel males are going to do through various means of retaliation especially when they become organized amongst themselves. Acts of organized terrorism comes to mind. 
Jews, radical feminists, and the upper middle class are going to eat those mean words wishing they have never uttered them to begin with me thinks. Too late now, the damage is already done. 
With a collapsed society I imagine former radical feminists performing fellatio under street bridges and alley ways just to survive. That’s why I keep going on in living, to witness such an event would make these last twenty years of misery or suffering all the more worth it. I want to savor their tears.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElOEwtx7wjA[/youtube]
I think your assessment is sufficient.
Populism is based on the Populace, meaning, a society represents its Core or ‘Center’. Obviously a society must reproduce, otherwise it dies. So the families or mothers are its representatives. Some populations are homogeneous (Racial ties) while others are heterogeneous (Ethnic tribal infighting). Western Civilization is heterogeneous, meaning that small ethnic groups carve out enclaves and try to prevent other ethnic groups from invading or growing too powerful. In Eastern USA, these ethnic clashes were between Scots, Irish, Italians, and British Colonialists (WASPs), who eventually rose to power in Washington DC. The ethnic divisions are still applicable today, despite any ethnic-mixing and marriage between the groups. The “American Mutt” is symbolic of blurring ethnic lines and divisions. Thus in a Heterogeneous society, the “Populism” will appeal to the dominant social-castes (like WASPs), and then appeal to racial and ethnic divisions (black vs white).
HAHAHAHAHAHA
you are so fucking slavish.
To keep living only to see God punish the happy people.
If I can’t have happiness, why should they?
There’s nothing more pleasurable than seeing others fall from grace losing everything especially since many acquired their economically privileged means through inheritance, corruption, or utilizing an unfair system.
I just want to be there when they begin their sad swan dance into oblivion and destruction, bring them down a few notches watching them despair.
Oh was it all unfair to you?
Life is will to power, you faggot.
Pardon my French.
I should leave this thread to you guys. No one gives a fuck about reality here anyway.
Right, so when the nation economically collapses the disenfranchised will have gathered together with their grievances in the formation of a fascist government body undoubtedly through violent civil war and anybody that opposes them will be lined up against the wall to be shot in the head faggot… 
You’re right, you can remove yourself any time of your own choosing. 
Okay tough guy.
Im now expecting the incel government to establish itself with you as its head.
That’s all you got Fixed? Weak.
Go back to taking hits off your bong man, it’s what you’re good at. Toke it up buddy.
Damn. I so hoped you were going to accept my challenge.
Its frustrating for an audience wanting to see a good gorefest that it occurs to none of the disenfranchised revolutionaries to place themselves in the equation.
It will apparently just happen, like a miracle.