What is Populism?

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: What is Populism?

Fixed Cross wrote: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.

Produced Epstein, Weinstein, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen.

[A bunch of Rothschilds throughout the centuries.]

Just to name a few, I can do this all night and everyday....

Zero_Sum
Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire.

Posts: 3295
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: What is Populism?

Urwrongx1000 wrote:I think your assessment is sufficient.

Populism is based on the Populace, meaning, a society represents its Core or 'Center'.

Right.
We can visualize society as consisting of two concentric spheres.
Outside the spheres are foreigners.
Inside the outer sphere are the overclass at the top, minorities in the middle and the underclass at the bottom.
Inside the inner sphere are middle and working class white men and women.

The people outside the spheres as a whole are of less value to us and ideally our state than the people inside the outer sphere.
The people inside the outer sphere as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the people inside the inner sphere.

Why?
Because we're us and they're them.
Why're humans more valuable than nonhumans?
Why're family and friends more valuable than strangers?
Furthermore, foreigners, the overclass and minorities have been propped up at our expense for the last several decades, they owe us.

A few more things:

The underclass as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the overclass, middle and working class minorities.

There're are also allies, other white nationalist nations, occupying a space between outside the spheres and in.

Value should be determined both decentrally, socioeconomically, and centrally, socio-politically.

We're comparing the value of demographics as a whole here, not the value of individuals between demographics.

Obviously a society must reproduce, otherwise it dies. So the families or mothers are its representatives.

Right, we've got our priorities backwards.
White middle and working class families first, they're the cream of the crop, our future.
If society, government and economics doesn't serve them, what good are they?
Their standard of living should be rising, not falling.
Whoever and whatever stands in the way of their standard of living rising, must fall.
Conversely, whoever and whatever supports them, should rise with them.
They should have the majority of wealth and power in our country, not the overclass, nor minorities and foreigners.

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.

Civilization is broad, in some respects, we're already part of one big global heterogenous civilization, in others there's western civilization (North America, Europe and Australia, some include Latin America and Russia), Islamic, Vedic, Sinic and so on.
Western, Islamic, Vedic and Sinic are the big four, and they're all heterogenous.
If you're talking nation states, then countries like the US have been heterogenous for centuries, whereas countries like Spain and Sweden have been homogenous until recent

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).

In a heterogenous society, populism appeals to the largest minority, or coalition of minorities.
If we continue importing the 3rd world, a non-white population group will eventually become the largest minority or nonwhites as a whole the majority, and so populism/majoritarianism will appeal to them.
Populism/majoritarianism should appeal to us, but unfortunately we've developed an inferiority complex, we think like we owe the 3rd world something.
We don't owe them shit, it's a privilege for 3rd worlders to make it here.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Re: What is Populism?

Zero_Sum wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote: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.

Produced Epstein, Weinstein, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen.

[A bunch of Rothschilds throughout the centuries.]

Just to name a few, I can do this all night and everyday....

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Re: What is Populism?

Gloominary wrote:
Urwrongx1000 wrote:I think your assessment is sufficient.

Populism is based on the Populace, meaning, a society represents its Core or 'Center'.

Right.
We can visualize society as consisting of two concentric spheres.
Outside the spheres are foreigners.
Inside the outer sphere are the overclass at the top, minorities in the middle and the underclass at the bottom.
Inside the inner sphere are middle and working class white men and women.

The people outside the spheres as a whole are of less value to us and ideally our state than the people inside the outer sphere.
The people inside the outer sphere as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the people inside the inner sphere.

Why?
Because we're us and they're them.
Why're humans more valuable than nonhumans?
Why're family and friends more valuable than strangers?
Furthermore, foreigners, the overclass and minorities have been propped up at our expense for the last several decades, they owe us.

A few more things:

The underclass as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the overclass, middle and working class minorities.

There're are also allies, other white nationalist nations, occupying a space between outside the spheres and in.

Value should be determined both decentrally, socioeconomically, and centrally, socio-politically.

We're comparing the value of demographics as a whole here, not the value of individuals between demographics.

Obviously a society must reproduce, otherwise it dies. So the families or mothers are its representatives.

Right, we've got our priorities backwards.
White middle and working class families first, they're the cream of the crop, our future.
If society, government and economics doesn't serve them, what good are they?
Their standard of living should be rising, not falling.
Whoever and whatever stands in the way of their standard of living rising, must fall.
Conversely, whoever and whatever supports them, should rise with them.
They should have the majority of wealth and power in our country, not the overclass, nor minorities and foreigners.

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.

Civilization is broad, in some respects, we're already part of one big global heterogenous civilization, in others there's western civilization (North America, Europe and Australia, some include Latin America and Russia), Islamic, Vedic, Sinic and so on.
Western, Islamic, Vedic and Sinic are the big four, and they're all heterogenous.
If you're talking nation states, then countries like the US have been heterogenous for centuries, whereas countries like Spain and Sweden have been homogenous until recent

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).

In a heterogenous society, populism appeals to the largest minority, or coalition of minorities.
If we continue importing the 3rd world, a non-white population group will eventually become the largest minority or nonwhites as a whole the majority, and so populism/majoritarianism will appeal to them.
Populism/majoritarianism should appeal to us, but unfortunately we've developed an inferiority complex, we think like we owe the 3rd world something.
We don't owe them shit, it's a privilege for 3rd worlders to make it here.

Or rather there're three spheres, from least to most valuable.
Outside the spheres are foreigners.
In the outer sphere are the underclass.
In the middle sphere are working and middle class minorities and the overclass.
In the inner sphere are working and middle class whites.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Re: What is Populism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

As a populist, the way the political spectrum is commonly conceived is deficient.
The Nolan Chart for example is a purely quantitative way of conceiving it.
Libertarian or minimal government intervention on top, centrism or moderate intervention in the middle and authoritarian or maximal intervention on bottom.

Liberal is defined as socially libertarian and economically authoritarian and conservative as socially authoritarian and economically libertarian, but in reality this's not the case.
For example, liberals can be every bit as socially authoritarian as conservatives, anti-free speech, anti-gun, some feminists are anti-prostitution, ecological and scientific authoritarianism: anti-homeschooling, carbon taxes, forced inoculations, identity politics, ethnic, racial, religious and sexual authoritarianism: socioeconomically and politically propping foreigners, immigrants, minorities and women up at the expense of citizens, the majority and men.

Conversely conservatives can be every bit as economically authoritarian as liberals, corporate bailouts, subsidies and welfare, raising taxes to pay for the so called wars on drugs and terror (in reality they're wars for drugs and terror).
And of course in practice there's very little difference between liberals and conservatives.

For me, there's a qualitative dimension to the left/right political spectrum in addition to a quantitative one, which I'll get to in just a bit.
So quantitatively left is libertarian, quantitatively centrist is communitarian, where government locally or moderately socioeconomically intervenes and quantitatively right is authoritarian or totalitarian, where government federally or maximally socioeconomically intervenes.
Being socially libertarian and economically authoritarian or socially authoritarian and economically libertarian isn't liberal or conservative respectively, it's just being socially libertarian and economically authoritarian or socially authoritarian and economically libertarian.

So you see the Nolan Chart is all about how much government intervention there is, but not at all about what kind of government intervention there is.
Just as there is quantitative left, libertarianism, and a quantitative right, authoritarianism, there's a qualitative left, and a qualitative right.
So what are they?

The qualitative right is elitism or conservatism, the notion that the upperclass ought to have more positive and negative rights than the working and middle classes, and that citizens, the majority and men ought to have more positive and negative rights than foreigners, immigrants, minorities and women.

The qualitative left is at times egalitarianism or progressivism and at others reverse elitism or reverse conservatism, the notion that the working and middle classes ought to have more positive and negative rights than the upperclass, and that foreigners, immigrants, minorities and women ought to have more positive and negative rights than citizens, the majority and men, at least until they're socioeconomically and politically equal, if not until they're the new elite.

So what is populism then?
Populism, which's the antiestablishment in the west, is socially elitist, and economically egalitarian.
Conversely, unpopulism, which's the establishment in the west, is socially egalitarian, and economically elitist.

There's also qualitative centrism, which's collaboration between elitism and egalitarianism, socially progressive conservative and economically social corporatist.
There's also a difference between separatism and patriarchy, or matriarchy on the one hand, which can be seen as part of qualitative centrism, and supremacism on the other, but I'm not going to get into that just yet.

To recap, quantitative right-left: authoritarianism, quantitative conservatism, communitarianism, quantitative liberalism and libertarianism.
Qualitative right-left: elitism, populism, centrism, unpopulism and egalitarianism.
Bearing all that in mind, I'm a communitarian, and a populist, altho qualitative centrism has some appeal to me as well.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:31 am, edited 6 times in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Re: What is Populism?

Populism is appeasing the majority to gain political clout.
Both left and right.
Aegean
Philosopher

Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: What is Populism?

Gloominary wrote:Right.
We can visualize society as consisting of two concentric spheres.
Outside the spheres are foreigners.
Inside the outer sphere are the overclass at the top, minorities in the middle and the underclass at the bottom.
Inside the inner sphere are middle and working class white men and women.

The people outside the spheres as a whole are of less value to us and ideally our state than the people inside the outer sphere.
The people inside the outer sphere as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the people inside the inner sphere.

Why?
Because we're us and they're them.
Why're humans more valuable than nonhumans?
Why're family and friends more valuable than strangers?
Furthermore, foreigners, the overclass and minorities have been propped up at our expense for the last several decades, they owe us.

A few more things:

The underclass as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the overclass, middle and working class minorities.

There're are also allies, other white nationalist nations, occupying a space between outside the spheres and in.

Value should be determined both decentrally, socioeconomically, and centrally, socio-politically.

We're comparing the value of demographics as a whole here, not the value of individuals between demographics.

What I've learned is that "white nationalism", although demonized, is the Status-Quo. White people aren't supposed to talk about it, openly, but it's there. Liberals feel guilt and shame for the thoughts; but they have the thoughts. And in times of emergency, natural disaster, war, famine, and austerity, ethnic and racial groupings immediately coalesce and exclude. In hedonistic times, of prosperity, there is more miscegenation, mixing, blurring of the lines. Liberal-Leftists want to keep the 'Hedonism' and pleasure going forever. They are unrealistic, turning to Socialism, as a last-vain attempt to keep the drugs flowing. Conservative-Right, though, understand economics and know the flow doesn't last forever. There is burn-out. There is risk of the well running dry. There is risk of consolidation and monopolization, excluding the low and middle class out of Hedonism, which seems to be the next step of "progression/regression" of Western society.

So, yes, the white-middle-class will look to other white societies/cultures (Europe) if and when they get lost, need guidance, or be righted back on track.

However, within the 'White' category, there are many internally competing factions/ethnic groupings: English, Scottish, Irish, French, Italian, German, Swedish, Polish, Russian, Greek, Romanian, Albanian, etc. The "American mutt", a cross-breed of tradition ethnic groupings, doesn't have a 'place' yet, except in the "Western" sphere and society. So USA is fundamentally different than Europe.

Gloominary wrote:Right, we've got our priorities backwards.
White middle and working class families first, they're the cream of the crop, our future.
If society, government and economics doesn't serve them, what good are they?
Their standard of living should be rising, not falling.
Whoever and whatever stands in the way of their standard of living rising, must fall.
Conversely, whoever and whatever supports them, should rise with them.
They should have the majority of wealth and power in our country, not the overclass, nor minorities and foreigners.

I agree, but that's the Modern division between Left-Democrats (Minorities) and Right-Conservatives (Whites). It's becoming 50-50 power-sharing. So the non-whites are close to usurping resources (Socialism) through voting and social-movements. The radicalization of ideologues is the consequence. You're a "racist" if you want the (white) middle-class to prevail, rise, or even mention it publicly, to safeguard it. You're a "sexist", if you want to protect your (white) women.

Gloominary wrote:Civilization is broad, in some respects, we're already part of one big global heterogenous civilization, in others there's western civilization (North America, Europe and Australia, some include Latin America and Russia), Islamic, Vedic, Sinic and so on.
Western, Islamic, Vedic and Sinic are the big four, and they're all heterogenous.
If you're talking nation states, then countries like the US have been heterogenous for centuries, whereas countries like Spain and Sweden have been homogenous until recent

History shows that some locations, demographics, countries, and nations will be infiltrated and overthrown, pushed the boundaries until something breaks. European nations are being infiltrated and overrun by Moslem, Islam, and ethnic-minorities. Europeans fear "Nazi" and "Hitler' more than Americans, where in America, it's a cliche to be associated as "Neo-Nazi", as-if that were a threatening label, when it's not. So American "racism" (white in-group) is stronger than the European version. The force being fought against, is the desire to "protect your own", if you're a white-male, is automatically "Evil", according to the Left. This has to be addressed, and confronted.

Gloominary wrote:In a heterogenous society, populism appeals to the largest minority, or coalition of minorities.
If we continue importing the 3rd world, a non-white population group will eventually become the largest minority or nonwhites as a whole the majority, and so populism/majoritarianism will appeal to them.
Populism/majoritarianism should appeal to us, but unfortunately we've developed an inferiority complex, we think like we owe the 3rd world something.
We don't owe them shit, it's a privilege for 3rd worlders to make it here.

That's the struggle. As Populism turns to and appeals to the "New 51%", the non-white majority, it risks destabilizing the entire system. This is why I believe Left-Right and radicalization is occurring. Whites will self-segregate though, as usual, "white flight" from areas where minorities take over. Then these places collapse (Detroit). So minorities will keep following Whites emigration around, until there is nowhere left to run, and Whites must become radicalized and fight back.

You're right. Whites don't "owe" minorities or foreigners or outsiders. It's the other way around. But that will label you as "Far-Right" or "Alt-Right", whether you want labels or not. Fighting back is becoming a "crime".
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: What is Populism?

To repeat, the threat and destablization of Western Society is the rising minority, non-white population that is approaching 50-50 or 51-49. What does Democracy then imply? If minorities and non-whites comprise the majority, then they can start voting-out and overthrowing people from within. This is evident, daily, within the Democratic Party, where they more and more, everyday, appeal to "Racist"-"Sexist"-"Homophobic" identity politics. As you mentioned, the Liberal-Left-DNC, believe that whites owe minorities rather than the other way around, minorities owe whites. The Conservative-Right-Republican party appeals to the latter. Minorities owe Whites, not the other way around. And what is the point of a 'tolerant' society, if there is no class-division, upper-middle-low? Whites still hold the wealth; this frustrates the minority, non-white, and foreigner.

So institutions of wealth are also holding power, which isn't necessarily political power, but economic power. This is represented by Mass-Media siding with and protecting the Democratic party, because they are the potential "New Populism" by which they can aim commercials, products, and seek to drain wealth and profit off their potential audience (minorities and non-whites, queers, etc).
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: What is Populism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

As a populist, the way the political spectrum is commonly conceived is deficient.
The Nolan Chart for example is a purely quantitative way of conceiving it.
Libertarian or minimal government intervention on top, centrism or moderate intervention in the middle and authoritarian or maximal intervention on bottom.

Liberal is defined as socially libertarian and economically authoritarian and conservative as socially authoritarian and economically libertarian, but in reality this's not the case.
For example, liberals can be every bit as socially authoritarian as conservatives, anti-free speech, anti-gun, some feminists are anti-prostitution, ecological and scientific authoritarianism: anti-homeschooling, carbon taxes, forced inoculations, identity politics, ethnic, racial, religious and sexual authoritarianism: socioeconomically and politically propping foreigners, immigrants, minorities and women up at the expense of citizens, the majority and men.

Conversely conservatives can be every bit as economically authoritarian as liberals, corporate bailouts, subsidies and welfare, raising taxes to pay for the so called wars on drugs and terror (in reality they're wars for drugs and terror).
And of course in practice there's very little difference between liberals and conservatives.

For me, there's a qualitative dimension to the left/right political spectrum in addition to a quantitative one, which I'll get to in just a bit.
So quantitatively left is libertarian, quantitatively centrist is communitarian, where government locally or moderately socioeconomically intervenes and quantitatively right is authoritarian or totalitarian, where government federally or maximally socioeconomically intervenes.
Being socially libertarian and economically authoritarian or socially authoritarian and economically libertarian isn't liberal or conservative respectively, it's just being socially libertarian and economically authoritarian or socially authoritarian and economically libertarian.

So you see the Nolan Chart is all about how much government intervention there is, but not at all about what kind of government intervention there is.
Just as there is quantitative left, libertarianism, and a quantitative right, authoritarianism, there's a qualitative left, and a qualitative right.
So what are they?

The qualitative right is elitism or conservatism, the notion that the upperclass ought to have more positive and negative rights than the working and middle classes, and that citizens, the majority and men ought to have more positive and negative rights than foreigners, immigrants, minorities and women.

The qualitative left is at times egalitarianism or progressivism and at others reverse elitism or reverse conservatism, the notion that the working and middle classes ought to have more positive and negative rights than the upperclass, and that foreigners, immigrants, minorities and women ought to have more positive and negative rights than citizens, the majority and men, at least until they're socioeconomically and politically equal, if not until they're the new elite.

So what is populism then?
Populism, which's the antiestablishment in the west, is socially qualitatively right, and economically qualitatively left.
Conversely, unpopulism, which's the establishment in the west, is socially qualitatively left, and economically qualitatively right.

There's also qualitative centrism, which's collaboration between elitism and egalitarianism, socially progressive conservative and economically social corporatist.
There's also a difference between separatism and patriarchy, or matriarchy on the one hand, which can be seen as part of qualitative centrism, and supremacism on the other, but I'm not going to get into that just yet.

To recap, quantitative right-left: authoritarianism, quantitative conservatism, communitarianism, quantitative liberalism and libertarianism.
Qualitative right-left: elitism, populism, centrism, unpopulism and egalitarianism.
Bearing all that in mind, I'm a communitarian, and a populist, altho qualitative centrism has some appeal to me as well.

I'm going to change things up a little, keep the Nolan Chart definitions of liberalism and conservatism and replace communitarianism with quantitative centrism.
With that in mind, quantitatively right-left: authoritarianism, conservatism, centrism, liberalism and libertarianism.
Qualitatively right-left: elitism, populism, centrism, unpopulism and egalitarianism.
Qualitative centrism is class, racial, religious and sexual collaboration, as opposed to the class, racial, religious and sexual competition of elitism, populism, unpopulism and egalitarianism.

Additionally there's separatism, which's when different classes, races, religions and sexes share different subgovernments within the same government.
Elitism or supremacism is when the bourgeois, the majority and men have more positive and negative rights than the proletariat, minorities and women, but patriarchy is when the bourgeois, the majority and men have more negative rights, but less positive rights than the proletariat, minorities and women.

Conversely egalitarianism or reverse elitism is when the proletariat, minorities and women have more positive and negative rights than the bourgeois, the majority and men at least until they're socioeconomically and politically equal if not permanently, but matriarchy is when the proletariat, minorities and women have more negative rights, but less positive rights than the bourgeois, the majority and men.
Communitarianism is federally libertarian and locally authoritarian.

Libertarianism fits with anarchism, quantitative centrism with democracy and authoritarianism with dictatorship.
Elitism fits with majoritarian plutocracy, populism with majoritarian democracy, qualitative centrism with supermajority timocracy, unpopulism with minoritarian plutocracy and egalitarianism with minoritarian democracy.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Re: What is Populism?

The "Populism" in Mass Media has obviously shifted:

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: What is Populism?

"American "racism" (white in-group) is stronger than the European version. "

Am I correct in presuming you've never visited a European city, like Paris?

There is virtually zero integration.

America had a black president, all kinds of famous black well respected high society people, famous writers, directors, big business owners, public speakers, mayors, governors, --
none of that exists in mainland Europe.

If you are seriously under the impression that Poland or Serbia, or Austria and Italy or even France and the Netherlands are less racist than the US - well it just speaks to the perfect ignorance of Americans about the world outside their borders.

You are the least racist country on Earth by an enormous distance.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
-
valueontologyforsuperIQs - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 10931
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: What is Populism?

Fixed Cross wrote:You are the least racist country on Earth by an enormous distance.

That's not enough and "never enough" for Modern-Post-Moderns, Neo-Liberals, and Cultural Marxist.

It's "never black enough" for them. You need to understand and accept that some people want "White", and all its identifies, to die, to cease to exist.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher

Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: What is Populism?

Gloominary wrote:Right.
We can visualize society as consisting of two concentric spheres.
Outside the spheres are foreigners.
Inside the outer sphere are the overclass at the top, minorities in the middle and the underclass at the bottom.
Inside the inner sphere are middle and working class white men and women.

The people outside the spheres as a whole are of less value to us and ideally our state than the people inside the outer sphere.
The people inside the outer sphere as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the people inside the inner sphere.

Why?
Because we're us and they're them.
Why're humans more valuable than nonhumans?
Why're family and friends more valuable than strangers?
Furthermore, foreigners, the overclass and minorities have been propped up at our expense for the last several decades, they owe us.

A few more things:

The underclass as a whole are of less value to us and our state than the overclass, middle and working class minorities.

There're are also allies, other white nationalist nations, occupying a space between outside the spheres and in.

Value should be determined both decentrally, socioeconomically, and centrally, socio-politically.

We're comparing the value of demographics as a whole here, not the value of individuals between demographics.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:What I've learned is that "white nationalism", although demonized, is the Status-Quo. White people aren't supposed to talk about it, openly, but it's there. Liberals feel guilt and shame for the thoughts; but they have the thoughts. And in times of emergency, natural disaster, war, famine, and austerity, ethnic and racial groupings immediately coalesce and exclude. In hedonistic times, of prosperity, there is more miscegenation, mixing, blurring of the lines.

Right, racism is natural and healthy in moderation.

Liberal-Leftists want to keep the 'Hedonism' and pleasure going forever. They are unrealistic, turning to Socialism, as a last-vain attempt to keep the drugs flowing. Conservative-Right, though, understand economics and know the flow doesn't last forever. There is burn-out. There is risk of the well running dry. There is risk of consolidation and monopolization, excluding the low and middle class out of Hedonism, which seems to be the next step of "progression/regression" of Western society.

What does conservatism mean in general and in this context?

In general does conservatism mean authoritarianism?
Libertarianism?
Economically libertarian and socially authoritarian?
Does it mean to try to preserve what is, socially, politically and economically?
Does it mean to try to restore what we suppose was, decades, centuries or even millennia ago?
Is it traditional (Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian and/or Anglo-Saxon) values?
Is it traditional institutions, family, church and nation state?
All of the above?

In this context are conservatives less hedonistic than liberals?
While they seem less sexually hedonistic, they seem more gluttonous and materialistic.
Some liberals are always going on about eating greener, more vegetarian, vegan and whole foods for the sake of the planet and our own health, altho some omnivorous and carnivorous conservatives are also into eating greener and more whole foods e.g. paleos.
Some liberals are always going on about downsizing and localizing the economy and/or redistributing the wealth from the greedy to the needy for the same reasons.
Sometimes you'll hear liberals say, buy local, think global (conversely do conservatives buy global, think local?).
Do liberals want to keep their party going, by undeservedly redistributing the wealth downward, or do conservatives want to keep their party going, by undeservedly redistributing it upward?

Are conservatives more antiimmigration than liberals?
Lately yea, but they're not necessarily more anti-globalization than liberals.
Conservatives tend to want a more economic globalization, whereas liberals a more sociopolitical globalization.

The words conservatism and liberalism themselves never change, but their meaning does, depending on the time, place, speaker and listener.
Perhaps their meaning should be refined, or they should be discarded altogether.
Labels can oversimplify things.

Discarding the labels for now and getting back to hedonism and immigration themselves, I think hedonism is inherently good, and immigration can be good.
But of course too much or the wrong kinds of hedonism can be extrinsically bad.
If housing, jobs, wealth and resources are plentiful, if there's lots of room for economic and population growth, then legal, moderate, predominantly white collar immigration from friendly nations with similar, or at least compatible biology and culture can work.
But of course that's not what's occurring, arguably we don't need any more immigration, and we're getting a lot of illegal, mass, predominantly blue or no collar immigration and refugees from biologically and culturally incompatible and hostile nations.

Young/poor, weak nations tend to suffer from scarcity, old/rich, powerful ones from abundance.
When a nation goes from scarcity to abundance, especially if the transition is rapid, it often loses sight of moderation, it only regains it near the end, but by then it's often too little, too late, and we're a very, very immoderate civilization, in all sorts of ways, perhaps the most there ever was.
After decline and collapse, it's moderation, or minimalism and asceticism by default.
Only the upperclass may be able to indulge/have to keep moderation in mind.
I mean we all have to keep it in mind, even a peasant can get drunk off homemade moonshine, it's just especially true of the rich and rich societies.

Overall, I don't think liberals are any more to blame for immoderation than conservatives.
I think conservationism rather than conservatism is the antidote, but not just environmental conservationism, like the word has come to mean, but racial, national and cultural conservationism, social, political and economic conservationism.

So, yes, the white-middle-class will look to other white societies/cultures (Europe) if and when they get lost, need guidance, or be righted back on track.

However, within the 'White' category, there are many internally competing factions/ethnic groupings: English, Scottish, Irish, French, Italian, German, Swedish, Polish, Russian, Greek, Romanian, Albanian, etc. The "American mutt", a cross-breed of tradition ethnic groupings, doesn't have a 'place' yet, except in the "Western" sphere and society. So USA is fundamentally different than Europe.

Most whites in Canada and the US are (nearly) 100% white, whereas most so called African Americans (mulattos), Hispanics and Native Americans (mestizos) are half black or brown and half white.
As I've said elsewhere, before 1965 Canada and the US had an immigration policy designed to keep us majority white, not majority Anglo-Saxon.
However, barring collapse and balkanization similar to the soviet union, it's doubtful we'll be able to restore white nationalism to North America soon if ever.

Gloominary wrote:Right, we've got our priorities backwards.
White middle and working class families first, they're the cream of the crop, our future.
If society, government and economics doesn't serve them, what good are they?
Their standard of living should be rising, not falling.
Whoever and whatever stands in the way of their standard of living rising, must fall.
Conversely, whoever and whatever supports them, should rise with them.
They should have the majority of wealth and power in our country, not the overclass, nor minorities and foreigners.

I agree, but that's the Modern division between Left-Democrats (Minorities) and Right-Conservatives (Whites). It's becoming 50-50 power-sharing. So the non-whites are close to usurping resources (Socialism) through voting and social-movements. The radicalization of ideologues is the consequence. You're a "racist" if you want the (white) middle-class to prevail, rise, or even mention it publicly, to safeguard it. You're a "sexist", if you want to protect your (white) women.

Right, they're doing it through racial socialism, strictly economic socialism is next to nonexistent in North America and the UK, unless you're a megacorp, it's more about race than class now, and to a lesser extent sex.
It's a war, we're being gutted by the elite on the one hand, and minorities on the other.
Diversity = division, diversity is killing us.

Gloominary wrote:Civilization is broad, in some respects, we're already part of one big global heterogenous civilization, in others there's western civilization (North America, Europe and Australia, some include Latin America and Russia), Islamic, Vedic, Sinic and so on.
Western, Islamic, Vedic and Sinic are the big four, and they're all heterogenous.
If you're talking nation states, then countries like the US have been heterogenous for centuries, whereas countries like Spain and Sweden have been homogenous until recent

History shows that some locations, demographics, countries, and nations will be infiltrated and overthrown, pushed the boundaries until something breaks. European nations are being infiltrated and overrun by Moslem, Islam, and ethnic-minorities. Europeans fear "Nazi" and "Hitler' more than Americans, where in America, it's a cliché to be associated as "Neo-Nazi", as-if that were a threatening label, when it's not. So American "racism" (white in-group) is stronger than the European version. The force being fought against, is the desire to "protect your own", if you're a white-male, is automatically "Evil", according to the Left. This has to be addressed, and confronted.

Right, it's survival, we defend ourselves and our own, whatever doesn't will be consumed by those who do.
I wouldn't underestimate European racism however, they're far more racist than us.
The American media likes to pretend America is more conservative and racist than it is, it makes it look like we're already far right and we need to take a left turn.
Americans aren't native so they feel less entitled to the land, more guilt-ridden, and they've been diversifying for centuries so they're more accustomed to racial globalism. Australians and Canadians are probably the least racist people on earth, followed closely by Americans.

Gloominary wrote:In a heterogenous society, populism appeals to the largest minority, or coalition of minorities.
If we continue importing the 3rd world, a non-white population group will eventually become the largest minority or nonwhites as a whole the majority, and so populism/majoritarianism will appeal to them.
Populism/majoritarianism should appeal to us, but unfortunately we've developed an inferiority complex, we think like we owe the 3rd world something.
We don't owe them shit, it's a privilege for 3rd worlders to make it here.

That's the struggle. As Populism turns to and appeals to the "New 51%", the non-white majority, it risks destabilizing the entire system. This is why I believe Left-Right and radicalization is occurring. Whites will self-segregate though, as usual, "white flight" from areas where minorities take over. Then these places collapse (Detroit). So minorities will keep following Whites emigration around, until there is nowhere left to run, and Whites must become radicalized and fight back.

You're right. Whites don't "owe" minorities or foreigners or outsiders. It's the other way around. But that will label you as "Far-Right" or "Alt-Right", whether you want labels or not. Fighting back is becoming a "crime".

Agreed, that looks like where we're headed.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Re: What is Populism?

Gloominary wrote:What does conservatism mean in general and in this context?

I would say three factors concerning Resources:
1) How Resources are acquired
2) Who owns those Resources
3) How to spend/consume the Excess

I'll split this by Liberal-Left versus Conservative-Right, the x-axis. Liberals, today, believe in high taxes and socialism as means to acquire Resources. So Resources are acquired slowly. Liberals believe that everybody "owns" those Resources. They are owned by Society, not the Individual. Thirdly, Liberals believe to spend the Excess frivolously and "live it up", leaving little, nothing, or worse, debt to the next generation. Conservatives believe in low taxes and capitalism as means to acquire Resources. Thus they are acquired quickly. Conservatives believe that individuals, small groups, or corporations "own" those Resources. They are owned by Individuals, not the Society. Lastly, Conservatives believe to spend the Excess carefully, sparsely, or not at all, thus comprising a Monopoly or Control of flow of Hedonism. Conservatives have restrictive access to wealth and excess, allowing who they deem 'worthy', into the trough. Liberals are against these Restrictions, and want to give everybody access to wealth or High Class.

Gloominary wrote:In general does conservatism mean authoritarianism?

No, not necessarily, although it can.

X-axis (left-right) = Liberalism (left) vs Conservatism (right)
y-axis (top-down) = Authoritarian (top) vs Populism (down)
z-axis (forward-back) = Progressivism (forward) vs Regressivism (back)

Most people are simple-minded, common, average, etc. and think that Politics is one or two dimensional (Liberal-Left vs Conservative-Right) when it is 3 or more dimensions. More intelligent minds can have more means of measure and understanding the axis, and peoples' positions. A society can be Liberal-Populist-Regressive ("Socialist"). Another society can be Conservative-Populist-Progressive ("Secularist").

Gloominary wrote:Libertarianism?
Economically libertarian and socially authoritarian?

Liberal-Authoritarian-Progressive ("Libertarianist")

Gloominary wrote:Does it mean to try to preserve what is, socially, politically and economically?
Does it mean to try to restore what we suppose was, decades, centuries or even millennia ago?
Is it traditional (Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian and/or Anglo-Saxon) values?
Is it traditional institutions, family, church and nation state?
All of the above?

I think the three-axis (or more) demonstrate these nuances.

Gloominary wrote:In this context are conservatives less hedonistic than liberals?
While they seem less sexually hedonistic, they seem more gluttonous and materialistic.
Some liberals are always going on about eating greener, more vegetarian, vegan and whole foods for the sake of the planet and our own health, altho some omnivorous and carnivorous conservatives are also into eating greener and more whole foods e.g. paleos.
Some liberals are always going on about downsizing and localizing the economy and/or redistributing the wealth from the greedy to the needy for the same reasons.
Sometimes you'll hear liberals say, buy local, think global (conversely do conservatives buy global, think local?).
Do liberals want to keep their party going, by undeservedly redistributing the wealth downward, or do conservatives want to keep their party going, by undeservedly redistributing it upward?

Liberal sexual hedonism would be sex outside marriage, multiple partners, polyamory, bisexuality.
Conservative sexual hedonism is adultery, serial-monogamy, children out of wedlock, maybe homosexuality.
Like you say, either group has their form of Righteousness. Liberals consider themselves Morally-Superior, Haughty, eating "green" and paleo.
While Conservatives consider themselves superior by High Class, High Dining, Cultural Sophistication, etc.
Liberal and Conservative elitists attack each other with "my Morality is better to/superior than yours".

Gloominary wrote:Are conservatives more antiimmigration than liberals?
Lately yea, but they're not necessarily more anti-globalization than liberals.
Conservatives tend to want a more economic globalization, whereas liberals a more sociopolitical globalization.

(I was rewatching this video earlier tonight and it's very relevant.)

Gloominary wrote:The words conservatism and liberalism themselves never change, but their meaning does, depending on the time, place, speaker and listener.
Perhaps their meaning should be refined, or they should be discarded altogether.
Labels can oversimplify things.

I think "Liberalism vs Conservatism" is best founded upon, as I mentioned above,
Resource Acquisition
Resource Ownership
Resource Excess

Gloominary wrote:Discarding the labels for now and getting back to hedonism and immigration themselves, I think hedonism is inherently good, and immigration can be good.

I'd clarify to say "Rewards and Excess" is always good, but not Hedonism. Hedonism is explicitly bad in a severe/austere/scarce environment.

Gloominary wrote:But of course too much or the wrong kinds of hedonism can be extrinsically bad.
If housing, jobs, wealth and resources are plentiful, if there's lots of room for economic and population growth, then legal, moderate, predominantly white collar immigration from friendly nations with similar, or at least compatible biology and culture can work.
But of course that's not what's occurring, arguably we don't need any more immigration, and we're getting a lot of illegal, mass, predominantly blue or no collar immigration and refugees from biologically and culturally incompatible and hostile nations.

It's interesting how poor, disparate, displaced, and anti-American groups within the US, are introduced to Hedonism. Nobody really talks about this. But is American wealth 'owed' to fresh immigrants, who have not lived here or been patriated? Are African immigrants, beyond 2000, still "black-American", although they technically have not been slaves? Are Reparations owed to them, based on race-alone? How about Moslems, what do they think of American Hedonism, except repulsion, disgust, and leads to more animosity? Or how about welfare-dependents, are they owed Excess? Should poor people be able to buy beer, cigarettes, and junk food with food-stamps? Etc.

Gloominary wrote:Young/poor, weak nations tend to suffer from scarcity, old/rich, powerful ones from abundance.
When a nation goes from scarcity to abundance, especially if the transition is rapid, it often loses sight of moderation, it only regains it near the end, but by then it's often too little, too late, and we're a very, very immoderate civilization, in all sorts of ways, perhaps the most there ever was.
After decline and collapse, it's moderation, or minimalism and asceticism by default.
Only the upperclass may be able to indulge/have to keep moderation in mind.
I mean we all have to keep it in mind, even a peasant can get drunk off homemade moonshine, it's just especially true of the rich and rich societies.

Agreed, going down-up in Wealth is dangerous as is going up-down, back to poor, is dangerous.

Ideally, people should be 'hedonistic' with Excess and Wealth, 'stoic' with Austerity and Scarcity.

Gloominary wrote:Overall, I don't think liberals are any more to blame for immoderation than conservatives.

I believe that "Liberal", by definition, is going to "spend it all away" more or faster than Conservatives. But, yes, both will spend it away, or lose it eventually.

The relevant shift now is from a Capitalist/Meritocracy, to Socialist/Aristocracy, where Resources become further entrenched through Inheritance. This leads to strict Class rigidity and severe restriction of class-mobility.

Gloominary wrote:I think conservationism rather than conservatism is the antidote, but not just environmental conservationism, like the word has come to mean, but racial, national and cultural conservationism, social, political and economic conservationism.

I don't think there's necessarily a "correct" way to act with Excess, Abundance, and Wealth. I personally prefer stoicism, and so see myself as Conservative/Conservationist in that regard. But I also understand the importance of "letting yourself go" and indulging. Sometimes people should reward themselves and relax, especially when they deserve it. America is still lingering with Hedonism from the Post-World War Victories. But that Excess is running out. You can't stay High forever. You need to win the next wars too.

Gloominary wrote:Most whites in Canada and the US are (nearly) 100% white, whereas most so called African Americans (mulattos), Hispanics and Native Americans (mestizos) are half black or brown and half white.
As I've said elsewhere, before 1965 Canada and the US had an immigration policy designed to keep us majority white, not majority Anglo-Saxon.
However, barring collapse and balkanization similar to the soviet union, it's doubtful we'll be able to restore white nationalism to North America soon if ever.

US is becoming polarized. I look to "white-flight", out of racial minority areas, leading to Fragmentation. There comes a point when non-whites create simply undesirable areas where nobody, not even themselves, want to live. These quagmires are bad-bad, all around. Lose-lose. So "racism" would be good, to solve that dilemma, but it's a blind-spot to Liberals and Liberalism. They can't imagine a means of solving it, and so simply give-up and themselves flee.

Gloominary wrote:Right, we've got our priorities backwards.
White middle and working class families first, they're the cream of the crop, our future.
If society, government and economics doesn't serve them, what good are they?
Their standard of living should be rising, not falling.
Whoever and whatever stands in the way of their standard of living rising, must fall.
Conversely, whoever and whatever supports them, should rise with them.
They should have the majority of wealth and power in our country, not the overclass, nor minorities and foreigners.

That's part of the struggle of the overclass versus underclass. Liberals want to say Excess/Wealth should be spent this way, Conservatives say it should be spent that way or not at all.

Gloominary wrote:Right, they're doing it through racial socialism, strictly economic socialism is next to nonexistent in North America and the UK, unless you're a megacorp, it's more about race than class now, and to a lesser extent sex.
It's a war, we're being gutted by the elite on the one hand, and minorities on the other.
Diversity = division, diversity is killing us.

Yes, and then when there is a consolidation of "White-America", it's labeled as a threat, white-nationalism, "racist", etc. I think the "Racist" label is being played-out. The more Liberal-Left scream, emotional hysteria, and fearmonger, the middle or Center develops resistance or immunity. At this point, fine, I'm a white-nationlist, so what? What are you going to do about it? I care about my family more than yours. Don't you? And yes, it turns out, Liberals care about their families more than other peoples'. They're no better, and especially no moral authority. Furthermore, if you want to attack my family, or simply, teach American youth that "gender is fluid", then maybe some fighting needs to happen to prevent this, to protect the sexual perversion of children. If the opposition is so low, so immoral, then fuck them, they will lose sooner or later.

Gloominary wrote:Right, it's survival, we defend ourselves and our own, whatever doesn't will be consumed by those who do.
I wouldn't underestimate European racism however, they're far more racist than us.
The American media likes to pretend America is more conservative and racist than it is, it makes it look like we're already far right and we need to take a left turn.
Americans aren't native so they feel less entitled to the land, more guilt-ridden, and they've been diversifying for centuries so they're more accustomed to racial globalism. Australians and Canadians are probably the least racist people on earth, followed closely by Americans.

Europeans would hurt a neighboring country rather than deal with a problem themselves though. In fact this is how and why European countries are literally selling their foreign immigrants to neighbors, or paying Turkey to stop immigrants from Africa. They are putting a dollar symbol to the problem. Europeans don't work as a 'whole', as a nationality, except in last-ditch efforts of all-out warfare. Europeans are only unified during severe wars or existential threats (like the Ottoman invasion attempt, Mongolians or Huns long ago, etc). Gloominary wrote:In a heterogenous society, populism appeals to the largest minority, or coalition of minorities. If we continue importing the 3rd world, a non-white population group will eventually become the largest minority or nonwhites as a whole the majority, and so populism/majoritarianism will appeal to them. Populism/majoritarianism should appeal to us, but unfortunately we've developed an inferiority complex, we think like we owe the 3rd world something. We don't owe them shit, it's a privilege for 3rd worlders to make it here. Again, I tell you, I can't even watch television commercials or programs anymore. The propaganda is so bad, mixed-race here, miscegenation, all these subliminal messages, it's overload. It's grotesque what US "Mass Media" has become. The message is black-and-white now, obvious. I think lots of people are become repulsed and revile over how far US Culture has receded and degraded. Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 2910 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm Re: What is Populism? Urwrongx1000 wrote:To repeat, the threat and destablization of Western Society is the rising minority, non-white population that is approaching 50-50 or 51-49. What does Democracy then imply? If minorities and non-whites comprise the majority, then they can start voting-out and overthrowing people from within. This is evident, daily, within the Democratic Party, where they more and more, everyday, appeal to "Racist"-"Sexist"-"Homophobic" identity politics. As you mentioned, the Liberal-Left-DNC, believe that whites owe minorities rather than the other way around, minorities owe whites. The Conservative-Right-Republican party appeals to the latter. Minorities owe Whites, not the other way around. And what is the point of a 'tolerant' society, if there is no class-division, upper-middle-low? Whites still hold the wealth; this frustrates the minority, non-white, and foreigner. So institutions of wealth are also holding power, which isn't necessarily political power, but economic power. This is represented by Mass-Media siding with and protecting the Democratic party, because they are the potential "New Populism" by which they can aim commercials, products, and seek to drain wealth and profit off their potential audience (minorities and non-whites, queers, etc). Right, it's a war. If we could have racial, religious and sexual libertarianism, where government protected and provided for all of us equally, that wouldn't be so bad, but instead we went from white separatism and patriarchy in the 19th century, to non-white and female supremacism in the 21st, with the 20th being a transitional period between the two. Anglo-Saxons can live together with other whites, but we can't live with nonwhites, and like you say, as we're transitioning from a white majority to a non-white majority by the mid-late 21st century, it's becoming more apparent, their hatred for us is growing or rather revealing itself as our numbers decline and theirs incline. We're already 2nd class citizens, if we don't put a stop to this shit then by the mid-late 21st century we could be hunted like dogs and rounded up like cattle, like South African whites. Only the west has adopted multicultural and multiracial policies while the rest of the world mobilize for economic, cold and hot war. At the very, very least we need to hold onto our white majority by ending non-white immigration and deporting all illegals, refugees and non-contributing non-white immigrants, if not all non-whites, and at the very least we need sexual libertarianism, if not patriarchy. Multiracialism and multiculturalism, where we all join hands and sing kumbaya, was an absolute fantasy and disaster. Racism is natural and normal, the question is not if racism, but what kind of racism are you going to have, one that protect you and yours, or subjugates and exterminates them? Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total. Gloominary Philosopher Posts: 2400 Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am Location: Canada Re: What is Populism? Gloominary wrote:We're already 2nd class citizens, if we don't put a stop to this shit then by the mid-late 21st century we could be hunted like dogs and rounded up like cattle, like South African whites. I don't believe it would come to that, but, "you never know." Gloominary wrote:Only the west has adopted multicultural and multiracial policies while the rest of the world mobilize for cold and hot war. At the very, very least we need to hold onto our white majority by ending non-white immigration and deporting all illegals, refugees and non-contributing non-white immigrants, if not all non-whites, and at the very least we need sexual libertarianism, if not patriarchy. Multiracialism and multiculturalism, where we all join hands and sang kumbaya, was an absolute fantasy and disaster, racism is natural and normal, the question is not if racism, but what kind of racism are you going to have, one that helps protect and provide for you and yours, or subjugates and exterminates them. The DNC and Liberal-Left are becoming so radicalized that they will do anything for more votes, including illegal patriation of illegal immigrants to boost their numbers. However, in the Coulter-McInnes video, the non-white, minority, and radical liberal-left are not as 'solid' as they portray through the Mass Media. There is very little, or nothing, that they have in common, at this point, except blind-hatred of the conservative-right. And hatred only goes so far, only offers so much power, before it is easily rebuked and exposed by a modicrum of Reason and Intelligence. What I expect this Century is a mass "White-Flight" as both bourgeois liberals and conservatives run here & there looking for new White-majority communities. This will cause further fragmentation and polarization throughout the US, especially in politics. I also expect a massive upturn in Conservative religions, expansion of Mormon power in the Western US, expansion of Evangelical power in the Eastern US. If State/Government fail, then people turn to Religion for the next safe-space or avenue to power. There are signs of more Theocratic power coming. Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 2910 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm Re: What is Populism? Wow! You folks really don't get it. The RIGHT is a control group. They don't care about ethics, just about votes. Like a control group from a psychology experiment. The right has no INHERENT VALUES!! No inherent ETHICS!! We are a fundamentalist christian nation. The right panders to this. Understand this: The majority of people are pro choice. They don't vote. The fucking fanatics vote, and the think abortion is a sin. I'll tell you this: I mean it honestly, the BIGGEST issue in US politics is abortion. Trump doesn't give a shit, but he knows that if he says that he had a "revelation" that abortion is wrong, that he'll win. All the conservatives care about is power, not truth to power. He's appealing to the fanatics… The man has ZERO ethics. By appealing to the rich for tax cuts and loopholes and environmental rollbacks, he gets MASSIVE money for his campaign, the money and the fact that only 6 corporations own 80% of the media, means the Trump will win. Integrity? Zero percent. You know what's fucked up? The dems have figured out that they can't win without the ultra rich, so they have sold out on every issue except abortion. And that's why they keep losing. Because we're a "christian" nation. This only means that the dens have SOME integrity (not much but SOME) republicans don't give a SHIT. I hate both parties, but I'll objectively state that at least democrats have at least ONE FUCKING PLATFORM OF INTEGRITY!! You really think the rich want integrity in politics? The people who own the press? NO!! ALL OF YOUR MEDIA OUTLETS ARE USING A BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT DEMOCRATS ARE RADICALS THAT LET ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN NO MATTER WHAT TO RUIN OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!! THE RICH ARE TELLING YOU THIS NARRATIVE, PANDERING TO YOUR FEAR!! IT'S NOT TRUE!! WE DON'T DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WE'VE DONE THE LAST 200 YEARS!!! THE RICH LOVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!! IT MAKES THEM MORE MONEY AND ERODES THE MIDDLE CLASS!! TRUMP IS FULL OF SHIT!! What you posters still don't understand, is that all of these DRAMAS!!!!!!!!!! are meant to distract you from the core problems, the rich fucking us all. Donald Trump is totally on board with this shit, so was obama, clinton, the bushes etc... Honestly folks!!! Ecmandu ILP Legend Posts: 10800 Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am Re: What is Populism? Both the left and right political parties all throughout the west are controlled opposition, bankers or central banks are the real governments behind all societal imposed policies. All governments throughout the west are merely puppets made for the domestic consumption of the majority of imbeciles that really haven't the slightest clue how the world is really ruled or controlled. Everywhere throughout the west the real rulers hide behind a curtain through a variety or plethora of intelligence agencies. Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 3295 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S. Re: What is Populism? Zero_Sum wrote:Both the left and right political parties all throughout the west are controlled opposition, bankers or central banks are the real governments behind all societal imposed policies. All governments throughout the west are merely puppets made for the domestic consumption of the majority of imbeciles that really haven't the slightest clue how the world is really ruled or controlled. Everywhere throughout the west the real rulers hide behind a curtain through a variety or plethora of intelligence agencies. Succinct. Is really the biggest issue on earth that people should have the right to call themselves "them"? You know what's a joke? Trump talks on and on about the fake media (which, by the way is the same thing Hitler did), but if the media is owned by the wealthy in only 6 companies and can't be trusted, then we shouldn't trust trump!! People are sucked in by the DRAMA, that they can't see the misdirection. Trump doesn't give a fuck!! He KNOWS about the misdirection… he's just playing the game. "Oh poor me, the darling of the rich being maligned by the media, owned by the rich." Are people that ignorant? YES!!!!!!!!! Ecmandu ILP Legend Posts: 10800 Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am Re: What is Populism? Ecmandu wrote: Zero_Sum wrote:Both the left and right political parties all throughout the west are controlled opposition, bankers or central banks are the real governments behind all societal imposed policies. All governments throughout the west are merely puppets made for the domestic consumption of the majority of imbeciles that really haven't the slightest clue how the world is really ruled or controlled. Everywhere throughout the west the real rulers hide behind a curtain through a variety or plethora of intelligence agencies. Succinct. Is really the biggest issue on earth that people should have the right to call themselves "them"? You know what's a joke? Trump talks on and on about the fake media (which, by the way is the same thing Hitler did), but if the media is owned by the wealthy in only 6 companies and can't be trusted, then we shouldn't trust trump!! People are sucked in by the DRAMA, that they can't see the misdirection. Trump doesn't give a fuck!! He KNOWS about the misdirection… he's just playing the game. "Oh poor me, the darling of the rich being maligned by the media, owned by the rich." Are people that ignorant? YES!!!!!!!!! Jew World Order, start there. Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 3295 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S. Re: What is Populism? You give them too much credit. They are opportunists, like all vermin, taking advantage of weakness, desperation, turmoil, need, and desire, through the manipulation of semiotics. Aegean Philosopher Posts: 1040 Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:36 pm Re: What is Populism? Aegean wrote:You give them too much credit. They are opportunists, like all vermin, taking advantage of weakness, desperation, turmoil, need, and desire, through the manipulation of semiotics. Control the global money supply, control the world.... Zero_Sum Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire. Posts: 3295 Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm Location: U.S. Re: What is Populism? I'm going to go out on a limb, and just guess, that Gloom would want you two to stick to the topic. Urwrongx1000 Philosopher Posts: 2910 Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm Re: What is Populism? Gloominary wrote:What does conservatism mean in general and in this context? Urwrongx1000 wrote:I would say three factors concerning Resources: 1) How Resources are acquired 2) Who owns those Resources 3) How to spend/consume the Excess I'll split this by Liberal-Left versus Conservative-Right, the x-axis. Liberals, today, believe in high taxes and socialism as means to acquire Resources. So Resources are acquired slowly. Liberals believe that everybody "owns" those Resources. They are owned by Society, not the Individual. Thirdly, Liberals believe to spend the Excess frivolously and "live it up", leaving little, nothing, or worse, debt to the next generation. Conservatives believe in low taxes and capitalism as means to acquire Resources. Thus they are acquired quickly. Conservatives believe that individuals, small groups, or corporations "own" those Resources. They are owned by Individuals, not the Society. Lastly, Conservatives believe to spend the Excess carefully, sparsely, or not at all, thus comprising a Monopoly or Control of flow of Hedonism. Conservatives have restrictive access to wealth and excess, allowing who they deem 'worthy', into the trough. Liberals are against these Restrictions, and want to give everybody access to wealth or High Class. Right, so for you, conservatism is capitalism and reinvesting most of your surplus rather than splurging, liberalism is socialism and splurging. Gloominary wrote:In general does conservatism mean authoritarianism? Urwrongx1000 wrote:No, not necessarily, although it can. I've been thinking about your classification system. Here's my interpretation: X-axis (left-right) = Liberalism (left) vs Conservatism (right) y-axis (top-down) = Authoritarian (top) vs Populism (down) z-axis (forward-back) = Progressivism (forward) vs Regressivism (back) Most people are simple-minded, common, average, etc. and think that Politics is one or two dimensional (Liberal-Left vs Conservative-Right) when it is 3 or more dimensions. More intelligent minds can have more means of measure and understanding the axis, and peoples' positions. A society can be Liberal-Populist-Regressive ("Socialist"). Another society can be Conservative-Populist-Progressive ("Secularist"). Right, more intelligent minds are multidimensional. You've explained what you mean by liberalism-conservatism, the X-axis, can you explain what you mean by the Y and Z-axes? I'm guessing authoritarianism is granting more positive (liberal) and/or negative (conservative) rights to minorities and/or the elite than the majority (the white proletariat and middle class) and populism is the reverse. Does progressivism mean social, political and economic globalization and modernization, and conversely does regressivism mean social, political and economic localization and antiquation? If so, these three axes come close to how I think about things, it's just I would use a bit different terminology. X-axis: Libertarianism (negative rights) vs Authoritarianism (positive rights). Y-axis: Unpopulism (more rights for the underclass, noncitizens, minorities and/or the elite and their culture) vs Populism (more rights for the proletariat, citizens, the majority, the middle class and their culture). Z-axis: Progressivism vs Regressivism. I've talked quite a bit about what I mean by libertarianism-authoritarianism and unpopulism-populism, but not much about progressivism-regressivism. For me, regressivism means favoring more localization and antiquation, favoring more wilderness, ruralism and new urbanism, favoring greener tech, traditional cultural values, trad science, trad medicine and cutting back on unnecessary production-consumption. I think there is such a thing as quantitatively too progressive and qualitatively the wrong kinds of progression. If I could, I'd turn back the clock several decades in some ways. More globalization, modernization, urbanization, production-consumption and so on isn't necessarily better. Man needs to find the right balance between nature and traditionalism on the one hand and artifice and modernity on the other. You could replace regressivism with conservationism and conservatism in the Z-axis. The way I see it, capitalism, reinvesting (materialism) and libertarianism aren't conservatism, they're their own ideologies. Or conservationism and conservatism (staying put) could be placed in between progressivism (moving forward) and regressivism (moving backward) in the Z-axis. "On science and medicine, I'm in favor of more alternative and DIY science and medicine. I think science and government are hiding a lot of things about health and the nature of reality from us. They want to keep us dumbed down, misinformed and sick, that way we're easier to manage and profit off of. On technology, I think we've picked all the low hanging fruit sort of speak, what's left is either presently out of reach, unripe or poisonous. I think tech should help preserve and protect what we are and evolve naturally, rather than transform us into something we're not. It should enhance and supplement our lives, rather than substitute or replace them. Tech exists to serve humanity, not the other way around. We have to be more careful with how we proceed technologically, not try to fix what's not broken. We got the wrong idea about tech. That being said, I'm in favor of CO2 and global warming, the globe isn't warm enough, but as I've said elsewhere, I'm against 5G, geo and genetic engineering, nanotech and apprehensive about Ai. CO2 is a nutrient, it's either a boon, not a concern or the least of them, but I am concerned about unnecessarily dumping toxic chemicals, the endangerment of species, unnecessary deforestation and scientific meddling." http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=195313&start=75 Gloominary wrote:In this context are conservatives less hedonistic than liberals? While they seem less sexually hedonistic, they seem more gluttonous and materialistic. Some liberals are always going on about eating greener, more vegetarian, vegan and whole foods for the sake of the planet and our own health, altho some omnivorous and carnivorous conservatives are also into eating greener and more whole foods e.g. paleos. Some liberals are always going on about downsizing and localizing the economy and/or redistributing the wealth from the greedy to the needy for the same reasons. Sometimes you'll hear liberals say, buy local, think global (conversely do conservatives buy global, think local?). Do liberals want to keep their party going, by undeservedly redistributing the wealth downward, or do conservatives want to keep their party going, by undeservedly redistributing it upward? Urwrongx1000 wrote:Liberal sexual hedonism would be sex outside marriage, multiple partners, polyamory, bisexuality. Conservative sexual hedonism is adultery, serial-monogamy, children out of wedlock, maybe homosexuality. But conservatives have been against those forms of sexual hedonism you listed, at least in rhetoric, except for perhaps men being promiscuous with unmarried women, whereas liberals have been for them. For conservatives, moral sex is heterosexual sex within marriage, whether the marriage was consensual or arranged, coerced, for libertarians and liberals, moral sex is consensual sex, but for libertarians consent is narrow and straightforward (yes means yes), whereas for liberals broad and convoluted (yes may mean no, if the woman was inebriated or felt economically or psychosocially manipulated or pressured). For radical liberals, all (heterosexual) sex is rape. For conservatives, sexual purity is what counts, whereas for libertarians and liberals narrow and broad consent respectively is what counts. Like you say, either group has their form of Righteousness. Liberals consider themselves Morally-Superior, Haughty, eating "green" and paleo. While Conservatives consider themselves superior by High Class, High Dining, Cultural Sophistication, etc. Liberal and Conservative elitists attack each other with "my Morality is better to/superior than yours". Right, green vegan-vegetarianism vs fine dining. Gloominary wrote:Are conservatives more antiimmigration than liberals? Lately yea, but they're not necessarily more anti-globalization than liberals. Conservatives tend to want a more economic globalization, whereas liberals a more sociopolitical globalization. Urwrongx1000 wrote:Skip to 45:45 mark, about Immigration, Environmentalism, and selling-out. (I was rewatching this video earlier tonight and it's very relevant.) I'll watch this in a bit. Gloominary wrote:Discarding the labels for now and getting back to hedonism and immigration themselves, I think hedonism is inherently good, and immigration can be good. Urwrongx1000 wrote:I'd clarify to say "Rewards and Excess" is always good, but not Hedonism. Hedonism is explicitly bad in a severe/austere/scarce environment. Both hedonism and "Rewards and Excess" are intrinsically good, but what's intrinsically good, can still be extrinsically bad if the subsequences are sufficiently intrinsically bad. Gloominary wrote:But of course too much or the wrong kinds of hedonism can be extrinsically bad. If housing, jobs, wealth and resources are plentiful, if there's lots of room for economic and population growth, then legal, moderate, predominantly white collar immigration from friendly nations with similar, or at least compatible biology and culture can work. But of course that's not what's occurring, arguably we don't need any more immigration, and we're getting a lot of illegal, mass, predominantly blue or no collar immigration and refugees from biologically and culturally incompatible and hostile nations. Urwrongx1000 wrote:It's interesting how poor, disparate, displaced, and anti-American groups within the US, are introduced to Hedonism. Nobody really talks about this. But is American wealth 'owed' to fresh immigrants, who have not lived here or been patriated? Are African immigrants, beyond 2000, still "black-American", although they technically have not been slaves? Are Reparations owed to them, based on race-alone? How about Moslems, what do they think of American Hedonism, except repulsion, disgust, and leads to more animosity? Or how about welfare-dependents, are they owed Excess? Should poor people be able to buy beer, cigarettes, and junk food with food-stamps? Etc. All good points. Ultimately they're going after us simply because they hate us and they can, we let them. Morality has to have some impartiality and consistency. They have no impartiality or consistency other than 'white people bad' and so no morality, what they have are excuses. Gloominary wrote:Young/poor, weak nations tend to suffer from scarcity, old/rich, powerful ones from abundance. When a nation goes from scarcity to abundance, especially if the transition is rapid, it often loses sight of moderation, it only regains it near the end, but by then it's often too little, too late, and we're a very, very immoderate civilization, in all sorts of ways, perhaps the most there ever was. After decline and collapse, it's moderation, or minimalism and asceticism by default. Only the upperclass may be able to indulge/have to keep moderation in mind. I mean we all have to keep it in mind, even a peasant can get drunk off homemade moonshine, it's just especially true of the rich and rich societies. Urwrongx1000 wrote:Agreed, going down-up in Wealth is dangerous as is going up-down, back to poor, is dangerous. Ideally, people should be 'hedonistic' with Excess and Wealth, 'stoic' with Austerity and Scarcity. I think people should be ascetic and minimalistic in poverty and moderately hedonistic and materialistic in affluence. Just because you're spending within your means, doesn't mean you're not harming yourself and, depending on what you're doing, others, the economy and the environment we all share in the process, which's when the state, community and/or mob if necessary, ought to intervene, when your hedonism and materialism coercively physically harms others and their property, financially harms the economy and trashes the environment we all share. I'm not a libertarian, not on ecological and economic issues, I believe in balancing liberty and authority, altho if I had to choose between two extremes, I'd select libertarianism over totalitarianism. I don't think people owe it to themselves or others not to harm themselves or to help themselves or others, but they do owe it to others not to coercively physically harm them or their property, financially harm the economy and trash the environment we all share. I'm not worried about psychological and self-harm, except for when it comes to children, people should keep their debauchery (hard drinking, drugs, LGBT, etcetera) away from children or places where children gather, keep it private or restricted. We can decide what constitutes harm and when it crosses the line democratically. We don't all have to agree with what we've decided democratically, I believe in free thought-speech, but we do have to comply. Gloominary wrote:Overall, I don't think liberals are any more to blame for immoderation than conservatives. Urwrongx1000 wrote:I believe that "Liberal", by definition, is going to "spend it all away" more or faster than Conservatives. But, yes, both will spend it away, or lose it eventually. The relevant shift now is from a Capitalist/Meritocracy, to Socialist/Aristocracy, where Resources become further entrenched through Inheritance. This leads to strict Class rigidity and severe restriction of class-mobility. While capitalism tends to be meritocratic (luck can also play a role in success) when it isn't crony (fractional reserve banking, unsocial corporatism, usury), vulture capitalism and similar practices can damage and destroy families, communities and entire nations. I don't see anything wrong with forbidding fractional reserve banking, unsocial corporatism, usury, vulture capitalism and stripping the swindlers of their wealth and redistributing it to the families and communities they swindled. In my view, the right balance of capitalism, social democracy and social corporatism will lead to the greatest meritocracy. Of course we can't prevent or reverse every swindling that happens in capitalism, but we can prevent and reverse extreme cases, where hundreds or thousands of people have been financially terrorized. Gloominary wrote:I think conservationism rather than conservatism is the antidote, but not just environmental conservationism, like the word has come to mean, but racial, national and cultural conservationism, social, political and economic conservationism. Urwrongx1000 wrote:I don't think there's necessarily a "correct" way to act with Excess, Abundance, and Wealth. I personally prefer stoicism, and so see myself as Conservative/Conservationist in that regard. But I also understand the importance of "letting yourself go" and indulging. Sometimes people should reward themselves and relax, especially when they deserve it. America is still lingering with Hedonism from the Post-World War Victories. But that Excess is running out. You can't stay High forever. You need to win the next wars too. Right, some hedonism, and materialism is good. Gloominary wrote:Most whites in Canada and the US are (nearly) 100% white, whereas most so called African Americans (mulattos), Hispanics and Native Americans (mestizos) are half black or brown and half white. As I've said elsewhere, before 1965 Canada and the US had an immigration policy designed to keep us majority white, not majority Anglo-Saxon. However, barring collapse and balkanization similar to the soviet union, it's doubtful we'll be able to restore white nationalism to North America soon if ever. Urwrongx1000 wrote:US is becoming polarized. I look to "white-flight", out of racial minority areas, leading to Fragmentation. There comes a point when non-whites create simply undesirable areas where nobody, not even themselves, want to live. These quagmires are bad-bad, all around. Lose-lose. So "racism" would be good, to solve that dilemma, but it's a blind-spot to Liberals and Liberalism. They can't imagine a means of solving it, and so simply give-up and themselves flee. I agree, as the chasm between the proletariat and the bourgeois deepens, as we continue to diversify; decline, collapse, balkanization and revolution become an inevitability. Gloominary wrote:Right, we've got our priorities backwards. White middle and working class families first, they're the cream of the crop, our future. If society, government and economics doesn't serve them, what good are they? Their standard of living should be rising, not falling. Whoever and whatever stands in the way of their standard of living rising, must fall. Conversely, whoever and whatever supports them, should rise with them. They should have the majority of wealth and power in our country, not the overclass, nor minorities and foreigners. That's part of the struggle of the overclass versus underclass. Liberals want to say Excess/Wealth should be spent this way, Conservatives say it should be spent that way or not at all. Gloominary wrote:Right, they're doing it through racial socialism, strictly economic socialism is next to nonexistent in North America and the UK, unless you're a megacorp, it's more about race than class now, and to a lesser extent sex. It's a war, we're being gutted by the elite on the one hand, and minorities on the other. Diversity = division, diversity is killing us. Yes, and then when there is a consolidation of "White-America", it's labeled as a threat, white-nationalism, "racist", etc. I think the "Racist" label is being played-out. The more Liberal-Left scream, emotional hysteria, and fearmonger, the middle or Center develops resistance or immunity. At this point, fine, I'm a white-nationlist, so what? What are you going to do about it? I care about my family more than yours. Don't you? And yes, it turns out, Liberals care about their families more than other peoples'. They're no better, and especially no moral authority. Furthermore, if you want to attack my family, or simply, teach American youth that "gender is fluid", then maybe some fighting needs to happen to prevent this, to protect the sexual perversion of children. If the opposition is so low, so immoral, then fuck them, they will lose sooner or later. Gloominary wrote:Right, it's survival, we defend ourselves and our own, whatever doesn't will be consumed by those who do. I wouldn't underestimate European racism however, they're far more racist than us. The American media likes to pretend America is more conservative and racist than it is, it makes it look like we're already far right and we need to take a left turn. Americans aren't native so they feel less entitled to the land, more guilt-ridden, and they've been diversifying for centuries so they're more accustomed to racial globalism. Australians and Canadians are probably the least racist people on earth, followed closely by Americans. Europeans would hurt a neighboring country rather than deal with a problem themselves though. In fact this is how and why European countries are literally selling their foreign immigrants to neighbors, or paying Turkey to stop immigrants from Africa. They are putting a dollar symbol to the problem. Europeans don't work as a 'whole', as a nationality, except in last-ditch efforts of all-out warfare. Europeans are only unified during severe wars or existential threats (like the Ottoman invasion attempt, Mongolians or Huns long ago, etc).

Gloominary wrote:In a heterogenous society, populism appeals to the largest minority, or coalition of minorities.
If we continue importing the 3rd world, a non-white population group will eventually become the largest minority or nonwhites as a whole the majority, and so populism/majoritarianism will appeal to them.
Populism/majoritarianism should appeal to us, but unfortunately we've developed an inferiority complex, we think like we owe the 3rd world something.
We don't owe them shit, it's a privilege for 3rd worlders to make it here.

Again, I tell you, I can't even watch television commercials or programs anymore. The propaganda is so bad, mixed-race here, miscegenation, all these subliminal messages, it's overload. It's grotesque what US "Mass Media" has become. The message is black-and-white now, obvious. I think lots of people are become repulsed and revile over how far US Culture has receded and degraded.

Agree with all these points.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

Re: What is Populism?

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:We're already 2nd class citizens, if we don't put a stop to this shit then by the mid-late 21st century we could be hunted like dogs and rounded up like cattle, like South African whites.

I don't believe it would come to that, but, "you never know."

Gloominary wrote:Only the west has adopted multicultural and multiracial policies while the rest of the world mobilize for cold and hot war.

At the very, very least we need to hold onto our white majority by ending non-white immigration and deporting all illegals, refugees and non-contributing non-white immigrants, if not all non-whites, and at the very least we need sexual libertarianism, if not patriarchy.

Multiracialism and multiculturalism, where we all join hands and sang kumbaya, was an absolute fantasy and disaster, racism is natural and normal, the question is not if racism, but what kind of racism are you going to have, one that helps protect and provide for you and yours, or subjugates and exterminates them.

The DNC and Liberal-Left are becoming so radicalized that they will do anything for more votes, including illegal patriation of illegal immigrants to boost their numbers. However, in the Coulter-McInnes video, the non-white, minority, and radical liberal-left are not as 'solid' as they portray through the Mass Media. There is very little, or nothing, that they have in common, at this point, except blind-hatred of the conservative-right. And hatred only goes so far, only offers so much power, before it is easily rebuked and exposed by a modicrum of Reason and Intelligence.

What I expect this Century is a mass "White-Flight" as both bourgeois liberals and conservatives run here & there looking for new White-majority communities. This will cause further fragmentation and polarization throughout the US, especially in politics. I also expect a massive upturn in Conservative religions, expansion of Mormon power in the Western US, expansion of Evangelical power in the Eastern US. If State/Government fail, then people turn to Religion for the next safe-space or avenue to power. There are signs of more Theocratic power coming.

The way I see it, while Donald Trump is mostly a fraud, he's at least a representation, a symbol of the coming new order, along with Brexit in the UK and the rise of V4 (the Visegrad Group) in central Europe.
The age of the left, of social, political and economic unpopulism, egalitarianism, pseudo-egalitarianism, globalization, progression, urbanization and unbridled, unchecked production-consumption is at end, while the age of the right, of elitism, populism, nationalization, conservation, ruralisation and traditionalism is upon us.

Additionally, white civilization is increasingly going to look to Eastern Europe and Russia rather than America and Western Europe for leadership.
And the 3rd world is increasingly going to look to China rather than America and Western Europe, as it continues to play catch-up with the west, altho with the exception of China perhaps, I don't think the rest of the 3rd world is capable of reaching the heights of peace and prosperity we did.

We're going to enter a long period of stagnation and/or decline, followed by more decline.
It's probably not going to happen overnight tho, these things usually take decades if not centuries.
Just as the social, political and economic expansion of the Roman Republic gave way to the stagnation of the Roman Dictatorship followed by decline a few centuries later, so too does our civilization have a life span.

Stagnation and decline are inevitable, the only question is, how deep and steep will it be?
It's a question that partly depends on us, on how willing we are to adapt and roll with the punches rather than futilely attempt to delay the inevitable.
We can only speculate as to when, if ever, white civilization and humanity as a whole will begin advancing again, but this idea that civilization was going to continue ascending forever without pause was in my estimation, a complete fantasy.

There're limits to growth, and there're repercussions and such a thing as bad growth.
Some limits are impossible to transcend, others it can take centuries or longer to transcend them.
Growth is something we need to approach with some degree of apprehension and caution, because it can lead to our demise.
Conversely stagnation and even recession are not necessarily bad things, they can help us purge the excess and pollution.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am