Left and Rzzight

[Pedro I Rengel]

And yes, the Netherlands are probably the closest Europe has to this ethos. Probably linked to their long and bloody struggle to be free of the Spanish and the Catholic church. They fought it for so long Freedom itself, without the freedom from, became a thing.

But not until the gringos, God bless the beautiful bastards, was it explicitly formulated as a pathos. A need. A God given right. The greatest gift of all.

The thing to be protected, at all costs, to the death, to the point of becoming a superpower that dwarfs all other nations with the only goal of ensuring nobody fucks with it.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"to the death."

Sure, but you know, gringos are also the dudes that came up with this:

"Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other bastard die for HIS!"

Peace through strength was the inevitable conclusion.

[Pedro I Rengel]

And yes, the Netherlands are probably the closest Europe has to this ethos. Probably linked to their long and bloody struggle to be free of the Spanish and the Catholic church. They fought it for so long Freedom itself, without the freedom from, became a thing.

But not until the gringos, God bless the beautiful bastards, was it explicitly formulated as a pathos. A need. A God given right. The greatest gift of all.

The thing to be protected, at all costs, to the death, to the point of becoming a superpower that dwarfs all other nations with the only goal of ensuring nobody fucks with it.

Maybe more to the point, not until the gringos was it explicitly used as a basis for citizenry and nation.

Some might say the French, but check out what the gringos did:

"Liberty, Brotherhood, Equality"

"Hmm... Take out brotherhood and equality, they impose too much on lady Liberty there."

[barbarianhorde]

I'm just gonna attack my own weak spot here, because I ain't see nobody capable of even noticing it.

The only thing that can associate Nazism and Fascism to the right is the militarism. The almost sensual love for all things military. Military uniform fetish.

The US is the cure for this. Proof of how effective that cure is is how disdainful all the Europeans were of the US military during WW2. Gringo soldiers are very ironic and cynical about martial feelings. It's like they think of it all as a joke, but within that joke they will be damned if they don't put together the most effective killing force in the history of mankind. Cause they have to, cause if not the fucking nazis take over.

Individuals, weirdly, somehow, through that ironic humor, survive and exist within the US military. Not so, very much not so Nazi military.

Anyway, your welcome. think on this and come at me in a bit with an actual meaningful attack.

Thanks.
No one is strong enough to see your weaknesses here.

The US is the cure for this. Proof of how effective that cure is is how disdainful all the Europeans were of the US military during WW2. Gringo soldiers are very ironic and cynical about martial feelings. It's like they think of it all as a joke, but within that joke they will be damned if they don't put together the most effective killing force in the history of mankind. Cause they have to, cause if not the fucking nazis take over.

Do you see what I mean. People could feel this but not know this. It takes a man, one guy, to say it.
US pulled military ethos out of the swamp it probably had been roughly since it came about.

[barbarianhorde]

And yes, the Netherlands are probably the closest Europe has to this ethos. Probably linked to their long and bloody struggle to be free of the Spanish and the Catholic church. They fought it for so long Freedom itself, without the freedom from, became a thing.

Yes, must be. The war lasted 80 years, 4 generations.

But not until the gringos, God bless the beautiful bastards, was it explicitly formulated as a pathos. A need. A God given right. The greatest gift of all.

The thing to be protected, at all costs, to the death, to the point of becoming a superpower that dwarfs all other nations with the only goal of ensuring nobody fucks with it.

Dutch admiration for Gringos was absolute, until Bush jrs era.

On cultural levels it is still the replacement for God or rather the sweet gift of first being allowed belief in one.
Its embarrassing, but it keeps us young.

[barbarianhorde]

"to the death."

Sure, but you know, gringos are also the dudes that came up with this:

"Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other bastard die for HIS!"

Its another dimension.

Paul Verhoevens account of when he first arrived to do Robocop and was walking some LA boulevard along the maniacs and crack junkies and he stuck his head in a deli and the Challenger exploded is good, his movies are good too, the honest to god intoxication of freedom which the Yankees invented.

In a sense Lincoln was like Willem of Orange on the next level, the level of the whole planet.

There will never be something that surpasses the US, its the way the world seduced itself to itself. Only this globalism can win. Coca Cola motherfucker. 22 cubes of sugar in a 33cl can. The one thing that will prevent stomach flu in the rest of the world.

[barbarianhorde]

America is the one nation that ever attempted deal with all the shit in the world, set some standard as a theory.
I think in that sense I cant avoid its like Jesus. A nation that is like Jesus. I guess slavery is its cross.

But its Easter Sunday


.

[barbarianhorde]

America dealt with slavery because it had all the slaves. I bet a lot of slavesellers envisioned this scenario and a lot were quickly gratefully capitalizing on it. Human nature was severely undervalued.
Since the civil war I guess nature has been dealing with a lot of excess of human value.

I guess the time for christians to come to terms with a Christ idea is now that it is obvious Jesus has spent all his powers in us. The path here to some demons is scary but tempting, as is the path to take some serious christian steps to make things right with baby Jesus, is code for Africa.

Sorry Rengel but capitalism.
Must demonstrate the Vision.

The core of capitalism is the same as the core of science. Seeing below the surface to what works, rather than what appears.

Hume was just the shiver in the air as the jet had passed. A sentiment after the fact, something to gather around for tea, a polite form, which is great.
There is no more inescapable tyrant than Newton. It really wasnt proper. It really wasnt. It made life a lot more predictable, boring.

People had to come up with really violent ideas to make life back into something worth thinking about.
Science isnt any fun in that sense, its just crazy and unreasonable. It takes very weird people to make it useful. Thats why people are getting weirder and weirder, just so they can still be objective about science.

So this all started when someone sat down in a tub. Before that there was only "lore".
See, there isnt even any proper context for it.
Its ethically complete bullshit.

[Gloominary]

Is Jay-Z part of a or the business elite?

Yes and no.
He's nouveau riche, so not quite.

[Gloominary]

Yeah, fuck it, I stick by that. Business elite is a term that refers to corporatism, not entrepreneurship. There is crossover, so the term works, but not an actual correspondence.

Capitalism itself is a kind of exploitation, in that when the means of production is made more efficient via advancements in automation and energy production, rather than capitalists sharing some of the spoils with workers, they lay them off, and later rehire them to do increasingly meaningless work.
I say meaningless because most or much of the meaningful work (taking care of societies necessities, and even its natural wants if you will) has been taken by machines, giving way to a consumerism (created wants) that largely benefits capitalists, ruining our health and the health of the planet in the process.
And the process of obsolescence, laying off and rehiring continues.
economic growth used to be a good thing, but it's become the enemy of the people and the environment.

Furthermore, the left argues unbridled capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism, and I agree.
And we've had corporatism for decades.
It's not enough to simply remove the corruption in place, the elite have been getting richer off of it for over a century.
They owe us trillions of dollars in reparations.

Regarding the exploitation thing: yeah, ok, so what? I was not even remotely talking about this. What's with the pivot?

Regarding the corporatism: actually if you look at the history of the thing, all regulatory innitiatives and creation of corporatist bodies, here referring to bodies constituted by the State to participate in free enterprise and capitalistic activities, are undertaken in the name of some leftist aim: regulating the economy somehow to protect the vulnerable. See: fanny May and Freddy Mac.

Anyway, like I been saying, right wing politics is not about building a perfectc system from the bottom up. we leave that genocidal project to the left. The right is about working with what is there for the benefit of all.

I think you said there's no such thing as a business or capitalist elite, unless they're corporatists, presumably because corporatists are exploitive, or authoritarian.
My point was capitalists can be exploitive, even without becoming government or getting it to intervene on their behalf.
And when you/your class possess most of the wealth, not only can you buy power, politicians, but you can create wants and manufacture consent via taking control of the media, which they've been doing for over a century.

[Gloominary]

Pretty much what I think of the left/right paradigm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eInuuLp1Dw&t=0s&list=WL&index=437

[Pedro I Rengel]

Negus, I never mentioned exploitation.

That's not even remotely related to what we were talking about. It's not that you can't bring in some other thing, it's the way you popped it in like that's what we were talking about all along.

That's how you know there is an agenda at work.

Propaganda 101

Why not? Slip class in there as well.

[Pedro I Rengel]

And no commie argument can go without the distribution of wealth shtick. Who OWNS wealth, like it's just a thing that exists there, and it's just a matter of who claims it.

That famous River of Wealth, which comes from God and precedes all human activity, which evil capitalists divert towards their own ranches or whatever.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Anyway, let the record note that you did not address anything I said besides answering my question what do you mean exploitation, and let the record note also that in that answer nothing I said was addressed either.

It's disappointing, but par for the course with leftists. Since individuals don't exist, one can only hope to address narratives disguised as persons.

[barbarianhorde]

Negus, I never mentioned exploitation.

That's not even remotely related to what we were talking about. It's not that you can't bring in some other thing, it's the way you popped it in like that's what we were talking about all along.

That's how you know there is an agenda at work.

Propaganda 101

Why not? Slip class in there as well.

Where our expertise lies we pay more mind to what words actually mean. Where it doesn't we don't even see these differences.

Similarly this angle about "intuition" where I never mentioned anything like that.

[Pedro I Rengel]

It's a good thing you got poetic vision.

[barbarianhorde]

I just see below the surface in general. I'm not as enchanted, in general, as you lot.

You are all women. "Consensus". "Appearance".

The feminisation of science.

Too bad James is gone. He was the only other man around here.

[Silhouette]

The main, only real difference really between leftists and right wingers is that leftists see politics as the pursuit of attaining a perfect society, whilst right wingers see politics as a means to deal with what's actually out there.

I don't go too deep with it. I think that in the context of American politics, the left wants the poor to eat, and the right wants the rich to eat the poor.

It's amusing to me that the employed poor are the ones physically feeding the poor, i.e. employed to actually do the work, but in order to do so they're required to give money to the rich so that the rich can pay the employed poor to do this.

Comedian Steve Hughes came up with a bit on the topic of not giving money to the homeless, immitating the attitude of "are you insane? They can't be trusted", the punchline being that you should give it to a registered charity... and they'll make sure the homeless get it.

Generally speaking the right want the middlemen to be capitalists because they don't trust government, and the left want the middlemen to be government because they don't trust capitalists.
"What's actually out there" is a mixed economy somewhere in the middle.

Time for some stats:
Scandinavia dominate the countries that have the closest to, or above 1/2 their GDP being taxed, which approximates their economy going equally through the public sector as the private sector - above even Cuba. As reference points, the UK taxes about a 1/3 of their GDP, the US taxes about 1/4 of their GDP and China about 1/5 of their GDP.

What's amazing is that however you slice it there's a positive correlation between taxation as a proportion of GDP and GDP (per person parity). Including the outliers it's not that strong, at around 0.25, but if you remove about 10 statistical outliers that have high GDP per person despite low taxation and 10 vice versa (which happen to almost all be oil rich nations and a couple of tax havens, and corrupt poor African nations respectively), the correlation jumps to just either side of 0.5 depending on how you do it.

Basically, countries are producing more per person when they are taxed more, proving that the left are objectively correct in trusting government over capitalists to get the best out of everyone.
And how do the, admittedly much more subjective, measures of happiness line up with these stats?
Well there's actually a nearly 0.5 correlation coefficient between Taxation and Happiness, there's an astonishing coefficient of over 0.7 between GDP per person and Happiness, and when you calculate the ratio of GDP per person per taxation to emphasise the high GDP and low taxation countries, the correlation is weak at less than 0.2 - so the solution definitely doesn't seem to be to lower tax rates.

From what I can tell, the philosophy is different for the right who're chasing the 0.2 instead of the 0.5 - they would rather put most of their eggs in the basket of rewarding whatever innovation sells the most than be happy, on the assumption that the sacrifice of most of its people in the present is worth, and necessary for maximising innovations for the future. Anecdotally there's certainly been a lot of technological innovation from the US at least, but what do the stats say?

Well, according to the International Innovation Index, which does lack some data from some less developed countries (mostly a fair few African countries and the odd country just east of the Arabian Peninsula), Innovation has that familiar 0.5 correlation with Taxation, an even more impressive correlation with GDP per person that approaches 0.8, an almost negligible correlation with that ratio of GDP per person per taxation of 0.1, and it knocks that assumption that sacrifice of happiness in the present is worth and necessary for innovations for the future completely out of the water with an Innovation to Happiness correlation coefficient of nearly 0.7.

Basically the right is statistically overwhelmingly wrong in its approach to whatever it's trying to achieve, and just slowing things down and making things worse for everyone. Makes me angry.
That's probably the main, only real difference really between leftists and right wingers...
But anecdotes and propaganda are so much easier swallowed, and who actually checks these things these days anyway, huh? All I did was lift things off Wikipedia and put them into a spreadsheet - feel free to check it yourself.

[Serendipper]

Basically, countries are producing more per person when they are taxed more, proving that the left are objectively correct in trusting government over capitalists to get the best out of everyone.

Yes exactly! (Though I wouldn't use the word "objectively" since the Right are the objectivists. We are not absolutely sure, but we are "maximally sure" in our conclusion.)

Basically the right is statistically overwhelmingly wrong in its approach to whatever it's trying to achieve, and just slowing things down and making things worse for everyone.

As slow as sap in january.

The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12784934

Low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22427384

Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideologies https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-conten ... 421206.pdf

Makes me angry.

Me too.

A bunch of ignorant people too lazy to educate themselves run about arrogantly spewing what they haven't taken time to learn, then patting themselves on the back for being innately privy to knowledge inaccessible to the learned.

A century of empirical data interpreted by our greatest minds, both living and dead, is sufficient redundancy of confirmation required for justification to concretely categorize the Right as a traitorous entity, populated with morons and controlled by psychopaths, which can only and has already resulted in the suffering of masses of people and society in general.

If the brightest minds have consistently deemed a group stupid over the course of 100 years, and such an abundance of empirical data exists from the county-level to that of nations and global-level all testify to the stupidity of the same group, and if the ideologies of the same stupid group has potential to cause mass suffering, and if the appeal of said ideologies is that they seem superficially sensible barring deeper inspection, and if the group advocating said ideologies are demonstrably stupid in general, then I certainly have no ethical problem in banning the dimwits and branding them traitors to "we the people".

I applaud Google

MAGA - Muricans Against Geriatric Assholes

[Serendipper]

Left vs Right

The right is stupid like Dunning-Kruger.

The left is crazy like Freddy Krueger.

So it's like King Arthur's duel with the Black Knight when Freddy says "What are you gonna do: drool on me?"

Maybe Freddy will slip on the drool like Jimmy on Seinfeld: "Jimmy's down!"



And speaking of Seinfeld, gotta love this old classic: