What is Populism?

[Fixed Cross]

Damn. I so hoped you were going to accept my challenge.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Zero_Sum]

Damn. I so hoped you were going to accept my challenge.

I bet.

Its frustrating for an audience wanting to see a good gore-fest that it occurs to none of the disenfranchised revolutionaries to think their plans through.

Except I've had twenty long miserable years to think through my plans.

[Fixed Cross]

So you're only 20 years old?

[Fixed Cross]

No that cant be.
What was the origin of this lengthy depression, if you don't mind my asking?

[Fixed Cross]

So your leader, the dictator, he is preparing in hiding somewhere now, or is he riling up beer-halls as we speak?

[Fixed Cross]

Okay okay you won't tell. You're strategic.
You're not telling me the whole truth.

[promethean75]

@ zero https://vocaroo.com/cZvF5L91R8p

[Gloominary]

anti-policies that benefit the elite at the expense of the middle and working classes?

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.

I never suggested that everything that benefits or doesn't detriment the elite detriments or doesn't benefit the poor.
That's why I'm a social democrat and social corporatist, not a democratic socialist.
I believe in balancing the needs of capital with the need for the state or the mob to empower labor and consumers.

"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.

Trump was in favor of the Wall Street bailout.
Trump does nothing to challenge the private Federal Reserve.
Trump didn't pay his taxes and hired illegals.
Trump leaves the border wide open.
Trump does nothing to end the unnecessary and costly war for Greater Israel, the military industrial complex, big oil and opium in West Asia.

All he's done is slash taxes for the rich and cut spending on the poor.
But he's not even a capitalist, he's a crony capitalist.
Ron Paul and his son Rand are real capitalists, real republicans.
Trump is a neocon, a Zio-con, almost if not all of them are.

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.

I thought right, you believe all social democracy is synonymous with elitism, and all capitalism and republicanism is synonymous with populism.
That's how you define populism, but that's not how I define it.

[Gloominary]

Populism is simply what the majority want at any given time - no more no less

For me populism is that, what you said (intersubjective), but it's also what's actually good for the people, somewhat irrespective of what they think is good for them (objective).
It's also a concrete ideology (democratic republicanism, economically center-left, culturally and socially center-right).
For me it's multiple things.

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

Agreed, Athens and Rome were partly founded on populist principles, but every government has to at least feign to care about the general will from time to time, if they want to keep their head for very long.

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

Right

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

I'd say culturally and socially there's a strong anti-conservative white male bias but economically there's a strong crony capitalist bias.

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

For me, what's popular is partly inherently good, but what's inherently good is partly unnecessarily popular.
I'm an ethical pluralist, there're multiple intrinsic goods.
Liberty is a good, but so is life, the ego, fraternity, equality, equity, health and happiness In the real world, intrinsic goods sometimes come into conflict with each other.
We define what's good individually, popularly and expertly.
In order to maximize the overall good, sometimes particular goods must be sacrificed.

[Zero_Sum]

So you're only 20 years old?

Did I say that? I'm almost 33.

Since a young adolescent I've always knew this nation was doomed where it was destroying itself. Over the past two decades it took me awhile to figure out why.

No that cant be.
What was the origin of this lengthy depression, if you don't mind my asking?

Would take way too long to explain and I don't think you would listen anyways.

So your leader, the dictator, he is preparing in hiding somewhere now, or is he riling up beer-halls as we speak?

A strong charismatic leader always rises to the occasion in chaotic portions of history where whole societies are on the brink of ruin or collapse, who will rise to the occasion this time around we don't know yet....

[Zero_Sum]

@ zero https://vocaroo.com/cZvF5L91R8p

We're at the point of being way past or beyond negotiations and reasonable dialogue where we're at the point of eliminating opposition instead. At the very least neutralizing opposition.

Violent revolution is the only thing left on the table as all other non-violent means of negotiations or diplomacy has failed.

I understand different conflict of interests all too easily Promethean and yes, people moralize as a way of justifying their self interests, I understand this also.

Also, I think you underestimate human nature where people knowingly conspire against, undermine, and go out of their way intentionally to hurt others for their own benefit. I have a different understanding of human nature than most and I do not view it with rose colored glasses. I've spent decades studying the more darker aspects of human nature which I view makes up the majority bulk of it, with that is also the reason human nature must be contained because if its not human beings will destroy each other or the entire planet. Human nature needs an iron rod placed over it to smash and mold it into something better towards a general aspiring guiding principle, I'm a firm believer in this.

[Fixed Cross]

Even if this seems unfair, its going to be a gigantic anarchic mix breed mayhem, a synthesis under the eye of the will to power. Under this prospect there will be endless more and less successful attempts to preserve racial purity and of course nations like China will be quite successful but I contend that this will bring them in trouble, and that as they begin to experiment with allowing good Han stock or whatever to breed with different races, they will quickly realize the immense potential their gene pool has when different patterns activate it. Then Chinese will really come to rule the world, but as a slow synthesis over thousands of years. It is inevitable, especially if the decline of the West is as drastic as predicted here, but in general its not really thinkable that China will not have to make use of its full potential to fulfill its destiny. As organizer of the world - here will be a legit "green" regime, let me coin it then, Chinamen, please make your government into a green dragon. You had the Yellow Emperor of the Dragon which is China, and Yellow is Earth, foundation, whereas Green is the colour of anger. But anyway the west, America, what comes of it - military loyalties must always decide. You have basically always hardline nationalists and geostrategists, as directions of thought, always in the history of war. Im not talking about tactics but as mindsets. So your military personnel is always going to fall in either of these two command chains no matter what grunts will feel in their hearts.

[Zero_Sum]

Even if this seems unfair, its going to be a gigantic anarchic mix breed mayhem, a synthesis under the eye of the will to power. Under this prospect there will be endless more and less successful attempts to preserve racial purity and of course nations like China will be quite successful but I contend that this will bring them in trouble, and that as they begin to experiment with allowing good Han stock or whatever to breed with different races, they will quickly realize the immense potential their gene pool has when different patterns activate it. Then Chinese will really come to rule the world, but as a slow synthesis over thousands of years. It is inevitable, especially if the decline of the West is as drastic as predicted here, but in general its not really thinkable that China will not have to make use of its full potential to fulfill its destiny. As organizer of the world - here will be a legit "green" regime, let me coin it then, Chinamen, please make your government into a green dragon. You had the Yellow Emperor of the Dragon which is China, and Yellow is Earth, foundation, whereas Green is the colour of anger. But anyway the west, America, what comes of it - military loyalties must always decide. You have basically always hardline nationalists and geostrategists, as directions of thought, always in the history of war. Im not talking about tactics but as mindsets. So your military personnel is always going to fall in either of these two command chains no matter what grunts will feel in their hearts.

You've just ousted yourself with this terrible disgusting post.

"After white western civilization dies the Asians civilizations are next and getting rid of their own racial or ethnic purity through dilution is a good thing too."

That's all I need to know where your philosophy or thinking stands.

[surreptitious75]

Violent revolution is the only thing left on the table as all other non violent means of negotiations or diplomacy has failed

This is but a temporary solution to a permanent problem

There have been violent revolutions for as long as civilisation has existed because of the hierarchical structure of society and this has never changed
That is because there will always be those at the bottom or in the middle who are very unhappy with the way those at the top are ruling over them
So when there is a change at the top it is only a matter of time before the masses become unhappy with that regime and so want another revolution

In the old days it was more violent but nowadays we do not have to kill them as we can just vote them out every four or five years
But the principle remains the same - the ones at the bottom or in the middle do not like those at the top so want to remove them
So this is the reason why here in the West and indeed in any non Western democracy we have to have elections on a regular basis

False promises and the corruption of power are the two main reasons why no one can or should rule over their people for all of time
You cannot please all of the people all of the time either which is an impossible ideal any way so it should never even be considered

No system can guarantee Utopia and everyone that has been tried has been less than perfect so we choose democracy as that is the least imperfect one

And so when you do eventually get your violent revolution you will have that exact same hierarchical structure that has always existed
As I have already said the entire history of civilisation has been hierarchical and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about this
For it is a fundamental law of Nature - the entire animal kingdom functions according to it - and we are but a tiny part of that kingdom

To eliminate this within human society would require nothing less than we all become hard wired to the concept of universal altruism
This is just not possible because of individual free will and the natural instinct of human beings to want to belong to their own tribes

So when you do eventually get your violent revolution you will be happy because you will be at the top
You may not be ruling over others as such but you will have achieved the desired result that you wanted

But at some point in the future those at the bottom or in the middle will want regime change and so they will then have their violent revolution
And this continual change at the top - whether by violent or non violent means - will carry on ad infinitum till the human race is finally no more

The greatest empires that have ever existed are now no more because of this continual change so when your revolution comes remember it will have a sell by date

[Karpel Tunnel]

A strong charismatic leader always rises to the occasion in chaotic portions of history where whole societies are on the brink of ruin or collapse, who will rise to the occasion this time around we don't know yet....

And often then makes things worse, gets beheaded, or both.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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.

Then this coming breakdown functions like a lottery ticket for you. Poor people by lottery tickets because it means, maybe in the next couple of days all the misery will end. They are paying to feel less what today feels like, in the end.

Imagine it is 15 years from now and the coming apocalypse is still just around the corner.

You want them to suffer. But this ends up being you need them to suffer or you can't feel right. Which means you aren't here now.

You might as well be waiting for Jesus to come and lift up the righteous. It is the exact same psychological pattern, except you are honest about what for them is undercurrent desire for revenge.

None of this means that the collapse isn't coming.

But the psychological pattern means you won't be able to enjoy it when it comes.

It's like applying for a job that will make other people feel bad if you get it.

You are living for others.

[Gloominary]

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.

He was the first famous one for moderns, but for Romans, the first populists were the populares party (akin to the democrats or liberals) of the Roman republic, in part, and the optimates party (akin to the republicans or conservatives), in part.
Julius Caesar was a populares, while his chief rival, Pompey, was an optimates.

[Zero_Sum]

Okay okay you won't tell. You're strategic.
You're not telling me the whole truth.

What is it you want to know Fixed?

[Zero_Sum]

Violent revolution is the only thing left on the table as all other non violent means of negotiations or diplomacy has failed

This is but a temporary solution to a permanent problem

There have been violent revolutions for as long as civilisation has existed because of the hierarchical structure of society and this has never changed
That is because there will always be those at the bottom or in the middle who are very unhappy with the way those at the top are ruling over them
So when there is a change at the top it is only a matter of time before the masses become unhappy with that regime and so want another revolution

In the old days it was more violent but nowadays we do not have to kill them as we can just vote them out every four or five years
But the principle remains the same - the ones at the bottom or in the middle do not like those at the top so want to remove them
So this is the reason why here in the West and indeed in any non Western democracy we have to have elections on a regular basis

False promises and the corruption of power are the two main reasons why no one can or should rule over their people for all of time
You cannot please all of the people all of the time either which is an impossible ideal any way so it should never even be considered

No system can guarantee Utopia and everyone that has been tried has been less than perfect so we choose democracy as that is the least imperfect one

And so when you do eventually get your violent revolution you will have that exact same hierarchical structure that has always existed
As I have already said the entire history of civilisation has been hierarchical and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about this
For it is a fundamental law of Nature - the entire animal kingdom functions according to it - and we are but a tiny part of that kingdom

To eliminate this within human society would require nothing less than we all become hard wired to the concept of universal altruism
This is just not possible because of individual free will and the natural instinct of human beings to want to belong to their own tribes

So when you do eventually get your violent revolution you will be happy because you will be at the top
You may not be ruling over others as such but you will have achieved the desired result that you wanted

But at some point in the future those at the bottom or in the middle will want regime change and so they will then have their violent revolution
And this continual change at the top - whether by violent or non violent means - will carry on ad infinitum till the human race is finally no more

The greatest empires that have ever existed are now no more because of this continual change so when your revolution comes remember it will have a sell by date

I have no faith in voting or democracy whatsoever, for me it is all rigged where the candidates are preselected.
Democracy and voting exists to keep the dumb majority in line making them believe they have a choice.

I don't want utopia and know that it doesn't exist, I just want a system that works for a majority of people. I also want a system that protects and secures interests for racial or ethnic white people.

Different governments provide different outcomes or environments, just about any kind of government would be better than the current United States government. For me the United States government is the most wicked one in existence, it is a wolf in sheep's clothing posing as the world's savior. For me the United States government is a sinister one.

[Zero_Sum]

A strong charismatic leader always rises to the occasion in chaotic portions of history where whole societies are on the brink of ruin or collapse, who will rise to the occasion this time around we don't know yet....

And often then makes things worse, gets beheaded, or both.

Not all dictators have been horrible ones, history is full of successful benevolent dictatorships that have worked.

[Zero_Sum]

Then this coming breakdown functions like a lottery ticket for you. Poor people by lottery tickets because it means, maybe in the next couple of days all the misery will end. They are paying to feel less what today feels like, in the end.

Imagine it is 15 years from now and the coming apocalypse is still just around the corner.

You want them to suffer. But this ends up being you need them to suffer or you can't feel right. Which means you aren't here now.

You might as well be waiting for Jesus to come and lift up the righteous. It is the exact same psychological pattern, except you are honest about what for them is undercurrent desire for revenge.

None of this means that the collapse isn't coming.

But the psychological pattern means you won't be able to enjoy it when it comes.

It's like applying for a job that will make other people feel bad if you get it.

You are living for others.

Yes it is, because when you have nothing left to lose, you really have nothing left to lose.

The only difference here is that when I speak of economic collapse it is a mathematical certainty where with this lottery the numbers are already known. My estimation is between one to six years from now, I'm a patient man as I play the long game concerning long term tactical interests much as a chess player has to think long term concerning strategy. For me all the national and international chess pieces if the world was a chess board game are going exactly as I've foreseen, the crucial element will be what last pieces are left concerning the end game. The end game is the opening or window of opportunity for revolution, like many things perfect timing is everything.

Yes, I live for the future as I am nothing currently where I have no present. If people only knew how I lived they would understand. You ever seen movies of sleeper cell spies just waiting to be activated in what pertains to their overall mission? Something like that. Those spies, infiltrators, and assassins will wait decades if need be until they're called for to be activated. In the meantime they just do a lot of waiting getting a job, house, mortgage, or a hobby just to pass the time blending in.

Except my waiting for an event once again is based upon facts and mathematical certainties. The math is incapable of lying or deceiving.

Wrong, I will be very happy, ecstatic, and full of joy when the collapse finally comes especially of this miserable piece of shit nation known as the United States. It's like judgement day for the United States only instead replace God with that of nature itself.

[Gloominary]

Isn't populism merely the antithesis of elitism? It doesn't promote any particular economic or social model other than to avoid elitist tyranny. President Trump is a notable populist.

For you, all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is synonymous with republicanism and Donald Trump is a republican.
For me, not all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is national social democracy and Donald Trump is a republican in rhetoric only, in reality he's a neocon Ziofascist, republicrats are all Ziofascists.

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!"

Because your people are at the center of everything that damages and destroys my people.
Because they incrementally took over the UK and US with their fraudulent banking practices and Russia in 1917, subsequently massacring tens of millions of whites.

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

Winston Churchill

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism

Because there were no homicidal gas chambers.



Because your people are at the center of the white men bad, don't deserve countries or borders of their own narrative, and everything rotten and degenerate in our society.



Because the Israel lobby is the most powerful lobby in the US, 1 3rd of American foreign aid goes to Israel, and 90% of neocons (Zio-cons) with their Project for the New American Century i.e. Greater Israel are Jewish, and I could go on and on.

[Gloominary]

For me, populism is both what the people believe is in their best interests, what is in their best interests, and a concrete ideology, but it's not necessarily what some prominent politician who claims to exclusively represent the people (as opposed to special interests) says is in their best interests.
Just because x politician claims to be exclusively for the people, doesn't make him a populist, they have to earn the trust and support of the people, and have their interests at heart and in mind, in order to be populists.

The people manifest their trust and support through activism, contributing, donating to and voting for a party or politician.
The less grass roots a party or politician, the less likely they're populists.
So populism is necessarily democratic.

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....

a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

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
1) I think it's good if we think of the term as neither good nor bad per se, but as a particular form.
2) 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.

I understand where you're coming from, but for me, populism is more concrete, rather than just what the people want, or what a politician thinks they want.
It's that, but it's also putting the majority first, meaning working and middle class white men and women in Canada, the US and the UK, increasing their positive and negative rights in particular, at the expense of foreigners, and the elite and minorities if needed.

[Fixed Cross]

Yes, Jews produced Einstein and Freud and a lot of other forms of power.
Poor dumb people, I guess.

Of course all this holocaust denial is too absurd for words. It is this dumbness and happiness to believe lies, this eagerness to blame ones weakness on some other people, that may indeed produce an American downfall, as it produced the German downfall.