Some really insightful thoughts on the state of things...

[freyasman]

https://accordingtohoyt.com/2017/02/28/upside-down/

From the link;
"I was in a private group, where one of my friends said that our problem right now is not left against right; it’s not political correctness against free thinkers; it’s not even SJWs against Libertarians. No. It is the elites against everyone else and, of course, vice versa.

He said we’re in the middle of a great populist spasm.

This is true… ish.

What I mean is, I know the idea we have in our minds of a populist revolution. But that is not … exactly what we’re facing. It’s possible that a lot of the so called populist spasms of the past weren’t that, precisely, either, because these spasms seem to work out with incredibly regularity at moments similar to what we’re facing now.

Because of movies and books, and the inevitable Marxist gloss on anything created/taught in the last century, a lot of us think a revolution comes about when the pressure on the people being oppressed is so strong that they rise come against the oppressor, and assert the will of the people.

This is not jut crazy, it is fricking delusional. Like most ideas Marx had and disseminated to gullible minds, it would have benefited a little bit from JUST a little exposure to the real world.

If this were the case, the Soviet Union would not have lasted, and Cuba and for that matter North Korea would be a thing of history. As would be Venezuela for that matter. And before you tell me “no, because those are populist movements” think very carefully, because otherwise I’ll send you to the corner without books to contemplate your sins. This is precisely what the left thinks, that those governments are populist and “the will of the people” and that’s why no matter how horrible the suffering they haven’t been overturned.

This is not how this works. This is not how any of this works.

Revolution happens not when things are at their direst and when the boot of the oppressor is solidly on the neck of the people, but when conditions ease up, when things are better, when the boot lifts enough to allow movement."

Go to the link and read the whole thing; I want to hear what ya'll think.

 

[as seen on tv]

the democrats embraced populism, when sanders was in the primaries.

now that trump is in the white house, they've changed their tune. they suggest populism is "fascist" and would lead to worldwide tragedy.

 

[freyasman]

the democrats embraced populism, when sanders was in the primaries.

now that trump is in the white house, they've changed their tune. they suggest populism is "fascist" and would lead to worldwide tragedy.

Did you read the whole thing?

 

[Arkady]

https://accordingtohoyt.com/2017/02/28/upside-down/

From the link;
"I was in a private group, where one of my friends said that our problem right now is not left against right; it’s not political correctness against free thinkers; it’s not even SJWs against Libertarians. No. It is the elites against everyone else and, of course, vice versa.

He said we’re in the middle of a great populist spasm.

This is true… ish.

What I mean is, I know the idea we have in our minds of a populist revolution. But that is not … exactly what we’re facing. It’s possible that a lot of the so called populist spasms of the past weren’t that, precisely, either, because these spasms seem to work out with incredibly regularity at moments similar to what we’re facing now.

Because of movies and books, and the inevitable Marxist gloss on anything created/taught in the last century, a lot of us think a revolution comes about when the pressure on the people being oppressed is so strong that they rise come against the oppressor, and assert the will of the people.

This is not jut crazy, it is fricking delusional. Like most ideas Marx had and disseminated to gullible minds, it would have benefited a little bit from JUST a little exposure to the real world.

If this were the case, the Soviet Union would not have lasted, and Cuba and for that matter North Korea would be a thing of history. As would be Venezuela for that matter. And before you tell me “no, because those are populist movements” think very carefully, because otherwise I’ll send you to the corner without books to contemplate your sins. This is precisely what the left thinks, that those governments are populist and “the will of the people” and that’s why no matter how horrible the suffering they haven’t been overturned.

This is not how this works. This is not how any of this works.

Revolution happens not when things are at their direst and when the boot of the oppressor is solidly on the neck of the people, but when conditions ease up, when things are better, when the boot lifts enough to allow movement."

Go to the link and read the whole thing; I want to hear what ya'll think.

It's tough to evaluate the idea, because usually the boot of the oppressor lifts up a bit out of fear of a coming revolution. So, you're left with the question of whether the revolution would have happened if not for the efforts to prevent it from happening. For example, the French Revolution happened in a time when, in fact, the elite was trying to address the complaints of the people. But part of why they were trying to do so is that things had become intolerable enough that the elites were scared to death of a revolution if they continued to ignore the people. The same with the Russian Revolution. And the American Revolution. And the revolution that ended the Soviet Union. They all look like "too little, too late." By the time the powers that be recognized the instability of their position and tried to release some revolutionary pressure with half measures, the die had already been cast.

 

[freyasman]

It's tough to evaluate the idea, because usually the boot of the oppressor lifts up a bit out of fear of a coming revolution. So, you're left with the question of whether the revolution would have happened if not for the efforts to prevent it from happening. For example, the French Revolution happened in a time when, in fact, the elite was trying to address the complaints of the people. But part of why they were trying to do so is that things had become intolerable enough that the elites were scared to death of a revolution if they continued to ignore the people. The same with the Russian Revolution. And the American Revolution. And the revolution that ended the Soviet Union. They all look like "too little, too late." By the time the powers that be recognized the instability of their position and tried to release some revolutionary pressure with half measures, the die had already been cast.

What I found interesting, is that here is yet another person acknowledging what we have all been seeing for awhile now..... the sense that things are not working. Not just government, but almost everything is dysfunctional; all the things people were conditioned to believe in and rely on, are falling apart. The economy, their pensions, the family, the law, etc...... shit is just not working. And I am seeing more and more and more people noticing this.... and saying so.
Things are gonna get wild.

 

[bdtex]

the democrats embraced populism, when sanders was in the primaries.

Not all of us.

 

[Arkady]

What I found interesting, is that here is yet another person acknowledging what we have all been seeing for awhile now..... the sense that things are not working. Not just government, but almost everything is dysfunctional; all the things people were conditioned to believe in and rely on, are falling apart. The economy, their pensions, the family, the law, etc...... shit is just not working. And I am seeing more and more and more people noticing this.... and saying so.
Things are gonna get wild.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. On paper, at least, we're not well situated for a revolution, because most people still have a huge stake in the status quo. I mean, historically, has there ever been a revolution where the great majority of people were arguably as well off as ever in their nation's history? As I've pointed out before, we currently have the highest real family income per capita, the highest stock values, the highest education levels, the longest life expectancies, the lowest infant mortality rates, the highest real GDP per capita, etc. Even in those areas where things aren't at an all-time good point, they're generally much, much better than they were a generation or two ago. For example, murder and violent crime were twice as common in the early 1990s as today. The employment-population ratio, though off from Clinton-era highs, is still much higher than historical averages. We're not bleeding out in the deserts of Iraq or the jungles of Vietnam like in earlier eras. Overall, things just aren't particularly bad, notwithstanding the national mood.

Yet, even as we're arguably more prosperous and secure than ever in history, there's no denying people are acting like we've gone to hell in a hand-basket. I think the gap is largely a result of 24-7 news cycles and the Internet, which give us an overwhelming supply of negative stories. And I think it's also demographic -- people get more depressive as they get older, and as a nation we're quite old on average. Old people have ALWAYS thought the world has gone to crap since their heyday, but right now old people are such a big portion of the population that the usual gray-headed bitterness is dictating the overall national mood.

But that's reason to doubt a revolution will happen, even if people wrongly perceive that they have nothing to lose. Revolutions are a young man's game. They're common in demographically young nations and they tend to be led by people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. Lenin was 47 in 1917. Thomas Jefferson was 33 in 1776. Castro was 26 in 1952. Robespierre was 31 in 1789. It's easy enough for an old man to sit on his couch nursing a beer and firing off angry tweets about what he sees on Fox News. But actual revolution? Getting off your butt and risking everything? It's hard to see the bitter geriatric crowd doing that. To get a revolution, or even just widespread rioting and chaos, you'd need Millennials to become politically radicalized, and I just don't see that happening.

 

[marvin martian]

the democrats embraced populism, when sanders was in the primaries.

now that trump is in the white house, they've changed their tune. they suggest populism is "fascist" and would lead to worldwide tragedy.

Sanders' campaign was fake. It was just a diversion to make Democrats think they were being offered a choice. Look at Sanders' alleged "supporters" like @Arkady, who dutifully flipped and became skull-punched Clinton evangelists about 30 seconds after Sanders' engineered loss in the primaries.

 

[freyasman]

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. On paper, at least, we're not well situated for a revolution, because most people still have a huge stake in the status quo. I mean, historically, has there ever been a revolution where the great majority of people were arguably as well off as ever in their nation's history? As I've pointed out before, we currently have the highest real family income per capita, the highest stock values, the highest education levels, the longest life expectancies, the lowest infant mortality rates, the highest real GDP per capita, etc. Even in those areas where things aren't at an all-time good point, they're generally much, much better than they were a generation or two ago. For example, murder and violent crime were twice as common in the early 1990s as today. The employment-population ratio, though off from Clinton-era highs, is still much higher than historical averages. We're not bleeding out in the deserts of Iraq or the jungles of Vietnam like in earlier eras. Overall, things just aren't particularly bad, notwithstanding the national mood.

Yet, even as we're arguably more prosperous and secure than ever in history, there's no denying people are acting like we've gone to hell in a hand-basket. I think the gap is largely a result of 24-7 news cycles and the Internet, which give us an overwhelming supply of negative stories. And I think it's also demographic -- people get more depressive as they get older, and as a nation we're quite old on average. Old people have ALWAYS thought the world has gone to crap since their heyday, but right now old people are such a big portion of the population that the usual gray-headed bitterness is dictating the overall national mood.

But that's reason to doubt a revolution will happen, even if people wrongly perceive that they have nothing to lose. Revolutions are a young man's game. They're common in demographically young nations and they tend to be led by people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. Lenin was 47 in 1917. Thomas Jefferson was 33 in 1776. Castro was 26 in 1952. Robespierre was 31 in 1789. It's easy enough for an old man to sit on his couch nursing a beer and firing off angry tweets about what he sees on Fox News. But actual revolution? Getting off your butt and risking everything? It's hard to see the bitter geriatric crowd doing that. To get a revolution, or even just widespread rioting and chaos, you'd need Millennials to become politically radicalized, and I just don't see that happening.

It doesn't need to be an actual revolution to be a shitstorm.

 

[Arkady]

Sanders' campaign was fake. It was just a diversion to make Democrats think they were being offered a choice. Look at Sanders' alleged "supporters" like @Arkady, who dutifully flipped and became skull-punched Clinton evangelists about 30 seconds after Sanders' engineered loss in the primaries.

If Sanders's campaign was fake, he wouldn't have attacked Clinton so forcefully, and he would have withdrawn as soon as he could cite mathematical certainty of his defeat as an excuse to do so. Instead, he campaigned like he wanted to win. He may not have come terribly close, but it sure wasn't from lack of trying. Just look at his enormously successful fundraising, which isn't something he would have committed to if he wasn't in it to win it.

 

[Arkady]

It doesn't need to be an actual revolution to be a shitstorm.

Agreed. That's why I specified "even just widespread rioting and chaos." When you look at huge historical movements that fell short of full-scale revolution, like the Prague Spring or Arab Spring or the protests of 68 throughout Europe, or Tianmen, etc., it always comes down to a politically radicalized group of young people. So, I think it would take a change in our Millennials, or the post-Millennials, to get that kind of shit-storm. The bitter old dudes with waning testosterone levels and too much to lose just aren't likely to mobilize in the numbers that would be needed for more than an occasional small-scale temper tantrum (like the Bundy clown shows). People shuffling sullenly towards death don't tend to have the energy or inclination to challenge the system in a fundamental way. It takes young people with tons of energy and a sense that they have nothing to lose and many decades of improvement to gain by acting.

 

[freyasman]

Agreed. That's why I specified "even just widespread rioting and chaos." When you look at huge historical movements that fell short of full-scale revolution, like the Prague Spring or Arab Spring or the protests of 68 throughout Europe, or Tianmen, etc., it always comes down to a politically radicalized group of young people. So, I think it would take a change in our Millennials, or the post-Millennials, to get that kind of shit-storm. The bitter old dudes with waning testosterone levels and too much to lose just aren't likely to mobilize in the numbers that would be needed for more than an occasional small-scale temper tantrum (like the Bundy clown shows). People shuffling sullenly towards death don't tend to have the energy or inclination to challenge the system in a fundamental way. It takes young people with tons of energy and a sense that they have nothing to lose and many decades of improvement to gain by acting.

Yes, the folks who take to the streets and riot, and burn cars, and assault people, and break windows and destroy property in order to express their dissatisfaction with whatever, are young folks, but as has been pointed out here, there are a lot of other extremely but rather quietly pissed off people in this country who don't act out like that. Instead, the first you hear of them and their grievances, is when they decide to take out a whole building full of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

I am a LOT more worried about them, than I am about a bunch of young fools I can simply drive over or shoot.

 

[Arkady]

Yes, the folks who take to the streets and riot, and burn cars, and assault people, and break windows and destroy property in order to express their dissatisfaction with whatever, are young folks, but as has been pointed out here, there are a lot of other extremely but rather quietly pissed off people in this country who don't act out like that. Instead, the first you hear of them and their grievances, is when they decide to take out a whole building full of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

OK City is an example of what I was saying. He was 26 years old when he decided to blow up that building full of people. He wasn't some fat old dude sitting through his fourth straight hour of Fox News stewing about the fact his erectile dysfunction pills don't do the job the way they once did. It's the young people who tend to make big waves outside the traditional power structure, for both good and ill. That's why you'd be wise to be a lot more worried about the angry young folks than the impotent rage of the gray haired set.

 

[marvin martian]

OK City is an example of what I was saying. He was 26 years old when he decided to blow up that building full of people. He wasn't some fat old dude sitting through his fourth straight hour of Fox News stewing about the fact his erectile dysfunction pills don't do the job the way they once did. It's the young people who tend to make big waves outside the traditional power structure, for both good and ill. That's why you'd be wise to be a lot more worried about the angry young folks than the impotent rage of the gray haired set.

Indeed. The young radicals are dangerous, hence the problem the world currently has with young, radical Islamists, enabled (and in some cases openly encouraged) by policies and politicians you support, blowing shit up and murdering people.

 

[Arkady]

Indeed. The young radicals are dangerous, hence the problem the world currently has with young, radical Islamists, enabled (and in some cases openly encouraged) by policies and politicians you support, blowing shit up and murdering people.

To be clear, I don't support the politicians whose acts have encouraged those Islamists -- people like Bush and Trump. When we do incredibly stupid things like Bush's half-baked conquest of Iraq, or Trump serving up tailor-made propaganda to terrorist recruiters, we play right into the hands of those enemies. I strongly oppose doing so.

 

[marvin martian]

To be clear, I don't support the politicians whose acts have encouraged those Islamists -- people like Bush and Trump. When we do incredibly stupid things like Bush's half-baked conquest of Iraq, or Trump serving up tailor-made propaganda to terrorist recruiters, we play right into the hands of those enemies. I strongly oppose doing so.

As I said, your thinking is right in line with the guys raping and killing their daughters because they "asked for it".

 

[Arkady]

As I said, your thinking is right in line with the guys raping and killing their daughters because they "asked for it".

No. My thinking is right in line with the thinking of those who correctly predicted disaster if we invaded Iraq. Too bad the numbskulls in the GOP thought it would be a cakewalk, where we'd be greeted a liberators, and we'd set off a chain of improvements in the Middle East. How anyone can take them seriously, at this point, is beyond me.

 

[marvin martian]

No. My thinking is right in line with the thinking of those who correctly predicted disaster if we invaded Iraq. Too bad the numbskulls in the GOP thought it would be a cakewalk, where we'd be greeted a liberators, and we'd set off a chain of improvements in the Middle East. How anyone can take them seriously, at this point, is beyond me.

I don't think many people take them seriously.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

To be clear, I don't support the politicians whose acts have encouraged those Islamists -- people like Bush and Trump. When we do incredibly stupid things like Bush's half-baked conquest of Iraq, or Trump serving up tailor-made propaganda to terrorist recruiters, we play right into the hands of those enemies. I strongly oppose doing so.

What about Obama droning them and arming 'rebel' groups of them? I notice you conveniently left them off your list.

 

[freyasman]

OK City is an example of what I was saying. He was 26 years old when he decided to blow up that building full of people. He wasn't some fat old dude sitting through his fourth straight hour of Fox News stewing about the fact his erectile dysfunction pills don't do the job the way they once did. It's the young people who tend to make big waves outside the traditional power structure, for both good and ill. That's why you'd be wise to be a lot more worried about the angry young folks than the impotent rage of the gray haired set.

You got a real issue with getting older, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_in_the_Streets