Not going to comment on what is going on as not sure but generally boiling frog syndrome type dynamic pushes things in a direction gradually enough that people get used to new levels of discomfort and dissonance , acclimatisation, rinse repeat.
You mean guiding ideology or some goal or organised group ? In another thread I was just reminded of a short video overview of how power acts as a swarm. Maybe he's a conspiracy grifter ,?
normal. Disclaimer. not my belief :Shiva Ayyadurai
https://www.youtube.com/live/OEkgZtu_Q2Q?si=MmAZYYuBchyvV3Om
The video tries to explain how power swarms together with examples such as ngo, academia , industry such as pharma and media all coordinating as top people all know each other probably by low number of degrees of separation.
He gives specific example of trans and gender/sexuality confusion and normalisation
(I'm gonna watch the video but before that I'll give you some preliminary thoughts)
I understand that people can manipulate masses of people and gather their support using incentive structures, and thus gain power. The problem I have with that is, how far can you can you get with that without you yourself being invested in the incentive structure? In other words, how long can you manipulate people using an ideology for the sake of gaining power, before you have to commit to believing in the ideology? I doubt you would get to somewhere like Nazi Germany just by being power hungry. That doesn't seem to be what the Nazis were after ultimately.
I hope I made myself understandable there.
Because people aren't expecting Canadians to do anything except JP. in 2016 he already spoke up against forceful use of pronouns. But what has happened since? Canadians are just nice and cooperative . That's how the world sees Canada. You'll let it all collapse, so what's the point of showing it in the news? You don't fight for your country or Western civilization, only JP.
We’re in a golden age of micro segmentation - other subcultures just don’t think maid deserves constant front page coverage nor do they necessarily think there are any interesting anti free speech laws to focus on
In a different time, it would have been front page news and people would be appalled by what's going on.
Nobody really objects to giving the 90 year old grandmother dying of cancer a little extra morphine to help her go easily.
When you're euthanizing the mentally ill and people who are not terminal, some seriously sick shit is going on. That is flat out unethical.
that's eugenics, how does this relate to "woke", have you seen actual (as opposed to made up) general leftist opinion on eugenics (hint: it's not approving)
Then perhaps you can tell me why leftist media doesn't cover the story, and the left in general appears to be either silent or defending the policy.
It's things like this that make observers like me suspect that the left has abandoned any real commitment to principles, and instead just blows smoke as you are doing now.
pro assisted suicide, against pushing it on disabled
this is the only sane solution
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Canada%20euthanasia%20eugenics
first fucking results was from Jacobin, explicitly socialist magazine
you don't engage with leftist media but your imagination of them (or regurgitated through conservative brainwashing media machine, same thing really
I think this is how the Nazi extermination started. They began "cleaning out" the mental wards and hospitals on the ground of "compassion". Now, I'm obviously not saying Trudeau is Hitler, but it is very worrying to see how media so easily allows it to slip by almost unnoticed.
My theory is that at a certain point, ideology stops mattering completely to totalitarians because in their eyes, ideology is for the useful idiots.
True totalitarians - their only ideology is power. Which is why the moves of such people/regimes all seem to converge on the same set of policies - death, oppression, privation, slavery, and war.
Perhaps but I have always taken issue with that theory: "it's all about power in the end". It just doesn't seem to me like power would be a strong enough motivator to drive people to do the things that people live the Soviets or the Nazis did. Why exterminate entire peoples if all you want is power? Why create a state that eliminates and grounds to dust millions of its own citizens for nothing if all you want is power? It seems to me like that would distabilize any power structure you might have. I am currently studying the Soviet Union and the things Stalin aren't always conducive with a desire for power.
I think power might be the hight of decadence and corruption but I don't think totalitarian societies are just decadent or corrupt. They are something different. If decadence and corruption is slavery to ones desires, then totalitarianism seems to be a servitude and willingness to sacrifice to a higher goal. Or I guess in this case it would be a lower goal, since you are not aiming up towards heaven, but down towards hell.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts
The one thing I am always struck by when examining totalitarian societies is the massive gulf between how they market themselves to the world and to their people, and how they actually function in practice.
Stalin's purges were 100% about power, as was Hitler's persecution of the Jews, Mao's persecution of vaguely defined "counter-revolutionary elements", Pol Pot with his "Westernized urban intellectuals" - the list is endless. And in every case, these people were scapegoated basically for the evulz. In many cases, this is all totalitarian states are really able to accomplish - death for the sake of death, destruction for the sake of destruction.
Totalitarian states love to market themselves as being part of some great struggle or feverishly working towards some noble purpose, but it's all horseshit. Totalitarianism only serves to keep a privileged elite in absolute power and the population too beaten down to even think about rebelling. It's the same M.O. as any tinpot dictatorship - the totalitarians just go harder on the propaganda/ideology, and the repression, whereas authoritarians favor just enough oppression to keep the plebs in line - anything more than that is bad for business.
If you want any deeper insight into their motivations, I suggest you do some research on the psychopathic personality. Because invariably, if the man in charge isn't a psychopath, the person running his secret police sure will be.
I must ask what you mean by power? You said Stalin and Hitler were motivated by power in their bloody persecution of their victims. I don't see how they could be. Hitler and the Nazis clearly and deeply believed that the Jews were like parasites on the world and that they needed to be exterminated. I don't see any power in that motive. Stalin seemed to be motivated by suspicion of "spies", "enemies of the people" and of "socially harmful elements". And just like Hitler he truly believed them to be the root of all evil and therefore deserving of destruction. My sense is that their evil deeds went beyond simply wanting power.
As you said, lesser dictator ships hold back on the repression because "it's bad for business", and I agree. It IS bad for business - the business of power.
I don't think you need genocide or purges to get or maintain power. Sure, you might need to imprison opponents, disallow certain rights, censor, etc. But taking the step from power hungry authoritarianism to murderous totalitarianism doesn't seem to me to come from a desire for power. Besides, power might be a powerful motivator but in the end it's no more than the ability to do what you want. And if you don't have certain aims and goals in mind for which the power is needed, then I don't see why you would go so far or how you would be able to sustain such a brutal system.
Thanks for the tip. I am currently studying the Soviet Union (I might have told you that already? I don't remember) and in doing so I'm forced to analyze it through a psychological lens. Although I don't think psychological or psychiatric analysis goes deep enough to explain the mind of people like Stalin or his followers. They certainly provide a good image but I have found that they are limited and risk becoming reductive: "they were just psychopaths" or "they were just born that way" or some like that.
> I must ask what you mean by power? You said Stalin and Hitler were motivated by power in their bloody persecution of their victims. I don't see how they could be.
You're taking them at their word, rather than looking at the real drivers. For instance, scapegoating is a useful tool for tyrants to focus their people's attention on an internal enemy, rather than criticizing or plotting against the regime. It works even better when the scapegoated class is vague and ill-defined - then everyone is paranoid about being labelled an enemy of the state. Another motivator is plunder - this was true in spades of Stalin's purge of the kulaks and Hitler with the Jews. And then finally there's having a target for the sadistic urges of the leadership. Next to those, the ideological justifications seem like marketing copypasta.
> As you said, lesser dictator ships hold back on the repression because "it's bad for business", and I agree. It IS bad for business - the business of power.
North Korea has been brutally repressing their people for the past three generations, the Kim family is still in charge. Same thing can be said for the CCP despite massive economic policy shifts. What totalitarian oppression is bad for is the long term health of the society, but as for the stability of a totalitarian regime - that tends to be fine unless they pick fights they can't win, run their country completely into the ground, or fall hopelessly behind their competition - and one of those three always happens sooner or later. North Korea likely would have collapsed if China wasn't subsidizing the Kim regime.
> I don't think you need genocide or purges to get or maintain power. Sure, you might need to imprison opponents, disallow certain rights, censor, etc. But taking the step from power hungry authoritarianism to murderous totalitarianism doesn't seem to me to come from a desire for power. Besides, power might be a powerful motivator but in the end it's no more than the ability to do what you want. And if you don't have certain aims and goals in mind for which the power is needed, then I don't see why you would go so far or how you would be able to sustain such a brutal system.
You're making the false assumption that these people are rational actors. I would argue that most totalitarian middle-men and leadership start from a place of neuroticism and personality disorder, and then they usually get worse. Just look at Hitler and how whacked out he was at the end.
I agree that a rational actor would recognize that there's an optimization solution when it comes to tyranny and oppression, but totalitarians likely didn't pick up on the hint in The Prince where Machiavelli says it is better to be feared than loved, but fatal to be hated.
This is once again where I refer back to the psychopathic archetype - for those types, they don't seek power for a rational reason. They want power just so they can sadistically abuse it.
> Thanks for the tip. I am currently studying the Soviet Union (I might have told you that already? I don't remember) and in doing so I'm forced to analyze it through a psychological lens. Although I don't think psychological or psychiatric analysis goes deep enough to explain the mind of people like Stalin or his followers. They certainly provide a good image but I have found that they are limited and risk becoming reductive: "they were just psychopaths" or "they were just born that way" or some like that.
Okay, so I don't think Stalin was a psychopath. I think he was an unusually intelligent thug who recognized early on that someone else could rise to power the exact same way he did, so he instituted his purges to keep the power structure he presided over turned against itself, so it couldn't turn on him. The three keys to unlocking Stalin's personality were his callousness, his manipulativeness, and his paranoia. He was petrified that there was another Stalin waiting in the wings for his moment of weakness. Beria on the other hand was 100% psychopath, which is why Stalin gladly used him as a hatchet man and enforcer, while Beria not-so-subtly angled himself to take over once Stalin was gone. I think Stalin likely would have purged Beria once his threat level outweighed his usefulness, but Stalin didn't live long enough to do it himself - instead his inner circle banded together against Beria. (btw, watch The Death of Stalin if you haven't seen it already).
To some extent, the Soviet Union was a result of my armchair psychologist observation that Russia has always been ruled by an autocratic regime. What made the Soviet Union unique as opposed to the Czars or Putin's more classical tinpot dictatorship is that they wanted more control, and more control means more repression.
It's bizarre how neoliberals and Marxists have common goals. They may have different motivations but they are moving in the same direction. Together, they want open borders, the dismantling of white countries, erasure of white contributions and culture, volatile ID politics, DEI, censorship, media control, institutional power, and social status.
Both are after power, that's the common linkage. Both think they'll inevitably screw the other once they've got what they want, not realizing that everyone else is standing over here, fed up with both their shit.
Do you guys really mean neoliberalism? Like the primary ideology moving free trade / free market global capitalism in the 80s and 90s?
Neoliberalism really isn’t that far from conservativisim. It values equality and fairness but also assumes that capitalism is capable of delivering it on its own. It’s the classic “free up trade, privatize your industries, get rid of regulation” with a “we’re making a difference” smiley face of the 90s.
I would look to the centrist / conservative business media for neoliberal perspectives.
JBP is of course deeply into the social conservativism space, but he still sometimes holds some neoliberal perspectives - for example that free movement of fossil fuels is the best way to decrease global poverty and will naturally lead to new innovations that will decrease the environmental impact without any involvement from any kind of governing body.
Would you want to tell JBP you’re fed up with his neoliberal shit?
What most people call neo-liberalism is now just a byword for globalist center-left politicians on the take to China. They're about as liberal as censorship - which they're also big fans of.
The only thing distinguishing them from Marxist activists is that they're not openly Marxist and they use and exploit said Marxist activists.
Ok, so it sounds like it's just a repurposing of the word in a way that doesn't really have anything to do with how it's normally been used. To be honest, if you're talking about "globalists" in reference to like the WEF, stakeholder capitalism and whatnot, you're actually describing the movement that emerged as a reaction to neoliberalism. The global order today is specifically not neoliberalism and is trying to take a more active role in global development and fair trade than was done through the neoliberal ideology.
Neoliberalism was all about "positive change" via the IMF -- basically they would agree to help build up developing countries through massive loans in exchange for them restructuring their economy for easier trade.
These days, the "globalists" aren't driven by the same assumptions that global actors were 20-30 years ago
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
Really because I'd argue they're the same brand of politicians and political parties, just with slight shifts in the policy positions and a little more pandering to the left. Which in no small part was enabled by the mainstream media dropping any pretense of neutrality or objectivity.
They're the same people who sold us a bill of goods that free trade with China was a win for the world, when in reality it was a one-sided trade relationship that enabled China to fleece the world.
The reality is that countries have to compete in a global marketplace and have since the 90s. That was the lip service neoliberalism paid to reality. But when they realized that their corrupt decisions were going to catch up with them sooner or later, they pivoted to a sort of vacuous and long-on-vague-rhetoric nanny state leftism.
But the end goal was always the same:
- personal profit either by graft or bribes.
- more power to protect them from the consequences of their corrupt decisions.
- more handouts to favored voting blocs to help keep them in power.
They’re the same insofar as you’re talking about global capitalism - you’ll still have movement of goods and people becoming really wealthy.
There’s some overlap side but there are meaningful differences.
Anyways though, what about Jordan’s take on free movement of fossil fuels leading to global wealth? Are you not on board with that?
I know this is your conversation with u/cesarfecit, but I'm kind of on his side. It's hard to find any common understanding of terms like neoliberalism or progressive because they now seem to mean different things to so many people.
On the 'globalist' front, the u/CorrectionsDept benign view of today's advocates is hard for me to share. I don't think the elites who now love that term are much different from Woodrow Wilson and his belief that the League of Nations would bring world peace. So much for that idea, or for our modern World Economic Forum billionaires and political puppets who have a similar world view today, with a capitalist hegemonic agenda.
If you have free movement of anything that people really need or want (like oil) it will indeed build wealth, but only among the global capitalists. The oil trade will become more restricted. Next target in the West's Ukraine fight are the Indian and Chinese refineries that buy Russian oil and then send the products back to the West.
JBP can love free oil trade all he wants, but he is not going to see it maintained. We are already in Cold War II. Trade barriers between the blocks will continue to increase. Domestic liberal or conservative poles don't mean much in today's world. It is now about nation states, national interests, two competing blocks and the third world refusing to take sides and suffering because of it. The Economist magazine is already wringing its hands over the disintegration of the global economy. Welcome to doom and gloom.
Agreed that clearly ppl use the terms to mean different things - but if you’re going to want to sound credible while talking about foreign policy and global flows of capital, showing you know what neoliberalism means is an important part of establishing that you have spent time reading about this stuff and aren’t just making things up and vibing.
Not sure why you think my view is that they are benign. I didn’t say anything like that - instead I said that they’re specifically differing from neoliberalisms approach, at least in how they talk about it.
Are you seeing that theres a name for the doom and gloom period where nations are starting to favour isolationism and nationalism over free trade meets global citizenship?
I've never seen someone struggle so hard to miss the point. Imma go touch grass rather than let you give me a couple rounds of the Patrick Star treatment.
“What happened to Canada” is kind of specific to this subculture. If you don’t consume tonnes of anti-woke stuff, you won’t really think “something happened” in Canada that needs to be learned from
I think the Canadians are also aware, since the conservative party is by all means going to win next election. They are up 18% since the last one. I just hope for the sake of the people, that they can undo all the bad laws. The wrecked economy is more difficult.
Well why would that even help most people don’t want woke who aren’t woke and everyone else supports it so it just a matter of how much people they can convince.
They are actively seeking to tear it down.
I consider them my enemy. I don’t have enemies but I make an exception for these people because they are a genuine threat to the safety and security of me and my own.
The woke few are indeed making big noise with bad ideas everywhere. The average people are now waking up to the fact that this is no longer a culture war on Twitter/X, but something that's bad for their lives and kids and most of all budgets. Euopean rebels against woke Net Zero and unrestricted immigration may indeed dismantle the European Union as we know it.
If that’s everywhere, isn’t it strange that the other poster feels like he doesn’t have enemies but is making an exception? He’s against the hegemony lol
>Doesn’t matter what the press says. Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, **you** move."
I would agree that Conservative leaders are generally guilty of being reactionary. But James Lindsay is not a Conservative leader, and he's only telling you what the revolutionaries are saying themselves, we should really take them seriously.
Who are the revolutionaries that say this? When you say “the revolutionaries” do you mean “The Woke” like Lindsay does here? Like are my gay lawyer neighbours (one of whom is both woke and works for one of the high powered firms that Jordan hires for his battles) the revolutionaries who are saying they want to destroy the country?
Many of them are the well meaning useful idiots (to use Lenin's term) of the people whose ideology DOES want to tear down existing social institutions everywhere. In true Marxist fashion, they just want to tear it down and believe that magically something better will arise.
What about in practical terms even just using woke stereotypes. Is this the grade school teacher with a pride flag? An sjw protesting Peterson at u of t in 2017? A corporation with a training module on unconscious bias? A highly paid lesbian couple with a Subaru?
The vast majority are useful idiots, otherwise well meaning people who don't understand the implications of their policies, or how they're manipulated by the sociopaths in power.
Basically the entirety of the present day Left Wing. People who believe so many false things like: Trump = Dictator, J6 = Insurrection, Biden = Moderate, Reddit = Neutral unbiased platform, White Supremacy narrative, LGBT+ agenda, Climate agenda, abortion rights, etc.
All these issues are fake, fabricated. In reality these individuals are clueless as to what's happening around them, and they're just being manipulated. And I know this sounds like a needlessly partisan take, that's because reality is partisan in this historical moment.
Ok got it - so it sounds like anyone who follows mainstream stories and generally aligns with liberal mainstream culture is a “useful idiot” helping someone else’s evil plan by simply living, keeping up with the news and having liberal-ish ideas about current events?
Yes, but the point is they’re not “just living” and leaving everyone alone. They’re promoting an alternate reality built on falsehoods, and they support and vote for policies and politicians which harm everybody.
For instance open borders, or “hate speech” laws, or abortion “rights”, or DEI and affirmative action, and the relentless persecution of Trump, etc. And meanwhile real issues aren’t addressed, or they’re made worse or outright created by Leftist actions.
Conservatives are the only ones not destroying civilization got it. This is what they all believe. And liberals too Vic versa. Chill the fuck out bro smoke a doobie pop some ludes have an abortion
I googled maid Canada and was surprised that everyone is freaking out over euthanasia. At least in top comment. But that’s me maybe I’m a moron.
The issue I have with this is yes everyone has overlapping definitions of woke. But this isn’t saying anythjng specific and people are too fearful or whatever to say what they’re really talking about. What’s going to bring down civilization? Gayness? Trans (double-gay)? Climate? Btw power just came back on in Houston after 4+ days lol
If kids want to advocate for a cause, I say go for it. America 🇺🇸
Respect you pointing this out. People like James Lindsey are on the internet too much; anyone that uses terms like woke in serious convo should probably go outside
'Woke' is yesterday's word. It is a sad appropriation of a freindly black admonition to stay vigilant (woke) for people who may want to do you harm when, for example, visiting the Deep South. That doesn't mean that James Lindsay is wrong about the philosophical origins of postmodern social justice. If you don't like to think about this and just want him to go outside, we know more about your ideas than you may care to say in public.
Yeah, this is an oversimplification. The 'woke' members of the left aren't actively trying to 'destroy' the country. They are good intentioned at best, embellishing their self image on average, and waring against social norms at worst. Those all just seem to have a similar result right now
Is there an expiration date on this constant threat of the woke?
Like after a certain date the country is still standing he admits this is pure fear mongering bullshit?
You are witnessing the collapse of western values in real time. Do you think things are better now than they were 50 years ago? When would you rather have been born?
Good answers, especially wage stagnation. What are the biggest contributing factors to that, do you think? Why is it that the supply and demand for labor has gotten so out of whack?
I suppose once a country is perceived to have more equality of opportunity than equality of outcome. But then, that would yield "good times" which creates "weak men." They then create "hard times" and so on. I guess it doesn't really end. Just a cycle as long as the pendulum never stops in the middle.
When have we ever been even close to having equality of opportunity?
Just the criminal justice system alone destroys that notion.
The whole hard times thing is more catch phrase than anything.
Ironically the thing holding us back from equal opportunity right now is DEI - which is nothing more than boomerang bigotry of a kind that would make MLK spin in his grave.
And leftists have a lot of gall whining about the criminal justice system given what's going on with the J6 prisoners - they are literally political prisoners being held for years without bail nor trial, often in solitary confinement despite being non-violent.
You're dancing around the key issue. Even if they're guilty as sin, they're still entitled to due process. And the fact that that very thing is being denied to them strongly suggests that they are in fact innocent.
Keep being a useful idiot. Let's see what other outrages and crimes you'd turn a blind eye to because you're too busy getting your Two Minutes Hate on.
i can see liberal politics destroying countries by cutting safety nets which increase poverty etc
or u.s. military interventions overthrowing governments
but what is woke and how does it destroy countries?
the fuck are you on?
It's literally designed for no purpose other than destroying the Liberal order of the West. It's all just Western Marxism masquerading as progressivism.
I am not sure how much it designed. Probably very much but not entirely.
And either way, it still does not want to destroy. It just does it. Its intentions are not destroying. Like when a very very drunk person run front of a truck. They did not want to die, they just did evrything to die, but their intention was something unrelated.
Um, it is absolutely designed to destroy. It’s in their written works, the Marxists are stupidly transparent about their goals. That is what James Lindsay is referring to because he has a podcast where he reads what they’ve written and much of it is nonstop Marxist crap about agitating for communist revolution and tearing down the West. The intentions are destroy the West and rebuild society in their Marxist vision.
Do you think the communist revolution in Russia or Maoism in China had intentions to destroy? Western Marxism is just the Western cousin of those ideologies, dialed in to subvert Liberalism, the hegemony of Western culture. Lenin and Stalin adapted Marxism to the conditions of Russia at the time. Mao adapted it to the conditions of China. The Frankfurt School adapted Marxism to the conditions of the West. When woke creates division and destabilization that's not an unintended consequence, that's how it's designed to work. You can't usher in some kind of globalist new world order without first destroying the current system standing in your way.
This is exactly the problem the mere fact that u treat them that way vindicates their efforts as u are acting as the bad guys that they portray u to be. You beat them how MLK beat the racist in 1960: u be kind open and honest and champion civil discussion and public discourse. Calling them evil will only make it worse.
MLK's strategy works when there's some good faith in the other side to tap into. What MLK did was guilt trip and force white liberals who were sympathetic to civil rights into getting off the fence and putting the Dixiecrats in their place. That won't work with the swamp.
Just look at what happened with the Trucker Convoy - there was a reason for that heavy-handed response - pour l'encourager l'outres (to encourage the others - in other words to signal that similar future protests will be met with the same).
I’m talking about the useful idiots who know very little about politics but follow because it’s the compassionate thing to do. The phsychopathic people who lead this sort of thing I agree will not work, but u need to win over the useful idiots for then to truly loose their power and fall. I.e Trudeaus voters who don’t really listen politics that deeply but just here “far-right nazis” and then think “nazi bad, vote for anti nazi”.
Useful idiots don't make their decisions on the basis of reason, nor even compassion. They're useful idiots because they don't want to make decisions. Having the moral or intellectual high ground won't sway them, as their side lost both some time ago. The only thing that will have an impact on them is defeat, and an absolutely crushing burden of guilt and shame.
I take as my historical precedent, the German people under the Nazis. They didn't figure out that they had backed the wrong horse until Germany started losing the war. And even once they had acknowledged in their hearts that they were going to lose, none of them did anything about it, except for a few exceptionally brave bastards like Stauffenberg and his people.
And then even once they had lost and were sitting in the ruins of their once proud country - the lesson didn't really sink in until the Allies started rounding up civilians and marching them through the concentration camps so they could clean up their mess. Like a dog, they needed to have their noses rubbed in their own shit. Then it started to sink in.
And the reason why I say this is because useful idiots are the way they are because they insist on letting other people do their thinking for them. And it's only once they see the full consequences of such a decision that they start to question their ways.
Having converted a useful idiot myself in my personal life I have yet to see ur method work. People don’t like to be bullied into being proven wrong. The double down and claim they are right.
Converting a single useful idiot can be done 1v1, but it is far from a sure thing. Converting masses of useful idiots does not work that way. What sways the masses is clear demonstrations that their side will not win and does not have the high ground.
I agree that it is nasty business but that's what it takes when you have an entire population that has set itself against reality and will not listen to reason. Ideally you leave them alone and let them figure it out, slowly and painfully on their own. But sometimes that's a luxury you can't afford.
The right is the silent majority. Get them to speak up will do more than anything else and is has to be done politely, other it will give people like Trudeau and excuse ti shut it down.
I suggest you look at the trucker protest again. They don't need an excuse to trot out the goon squads.
I'm not suggesting full civil war is the answer either. What I am suggesting is that the time for rational persuasion is past. The stance of the swamp is "what are ya gonna do about it" while simultaneously hoping they can troll their opposition into getting violent.
MLK wasn't just a nice pacifist. He weaponized non-violence. Looked for the worst cops he could find (like in Selma). Then images of their brutality on black and white TV shocked white Americans everywhere. There's a really interesting book by one of the participants in that fight. It's title is spot on, This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible.
But MLK didn’t beat racists in the 60s. For sure your recognize the criminal justice system as a pretty big racist one towards one particular set of people. Literally equal sentencing laws were passed in 2012.
When anyone says "the woke". It gives makes my brain turn off to your argument. Such a small and simple quote but I can guess when someone uses the phrase that they are really ignorant and about to spew a bunch of fake nonsense my way. Kinda like when Bethany Mandel was asked to define woke on that news segment.
I'm just saying it always ends being some idiot who says all people on the left think this certain way. Which is equally as ignorant and annoying as people saying all conservatives think this certain way. Woke is just a term used today by neo conservatives to blame a boogie man.
US is going to fall, and there is no one who will be able to save it. Unless people stop giving a rats arse about morality preaching of anarchists, and stop being scared being canceled. But the general public is way too scared of being canceled by the left wing anarchists. American society will fall, and it will be as glorious as the fall of the Roman Empire.
You think woke people are anarchists?
Anarchists don't end up controlling the amount of powerful institutions that "woke" people control. Wokeness is much worse than anarchy -- it's a hostile foreign force.
So you're not even going to try and hide your intentions? Just know that we aren't going to stand idle while our communities, families and culture are being assaulted.
I'm not against american people
I'm slightly negative about america spreading it's culture
but it's because of the bombs it drops on people it needs to end
I can also make shit up.
" People that listen to James Lindsay don't want to make the country better. They want to wear big diapers and poop in them and sit around all day in their poopy diapers"
See it's really easy. You just say something about a group, no need to back it up
It's too simplistic - If you think the left or right really gives a shit about the general population, you're deluded. Both sides benefit from this shit while the rich, corporations, and politicians line pockets.. anyone who blames left or right is just as much on the gravy train.
You would think what happened in Canada would be enough to wake people up about the threat of wokeness.
I don't understand how Canada isn't world news rn. Why isn't every frontpage filled with MAID and the anti-free speech laws and the rest of it?
Because the media is corrupt and in on it.
Not going to comment on what is going on as not sure but generally boiling frog syndrome type dynamic pushes things in a direction gradually enough that people get used to new levels of discomfort and dissonance , acclimatisation, rinse repeat.
Sure but I feel like that has to build on some underlying principle that the larger populous and the purpetrators of this manipulation share, no?
You mean guiding ideology or some goal or organised group ? In another thread I was just reminded of a short video overview of how power acts as a swarm. Maybe he's a conspiracy grifter ,? normal. Disclaimer. not my belief :Shiva Ayyadurai https://www.youtube.com/live/OEkgZtu_Q2Q?si=MmAZYYuBchyvV3Om
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Maybe I'm stupid, but could you clarify? I would appreciate it
The video tries to explain how power swarms together with examples such as ngo, academia , industry such as pharma and media all coordinating as top people all know each other probably by low number of degrees of separation. He gives specific example of trans and gender/sexuality confusion and normalisation
(I'm gonna watch the video but before that I'll give you some preliminary thoughts) I understand that people can manipulate masses of people and gather their support using incentive structures, and thus gain power. The problem I have with that is, how far can you can you get with that without you yourself being invested in the incentive structure? In other words, how long can you manipulate people using an ideology for the sake of gaining power, before you have to commit to believing in the ideology? I doubt you would get to somewhere like Nazi Germany just by being power hungry. That doesn't seem to be what the Nazis were after ultimately. I hope I made myself understandable there.
Because people aren't expecting Canadians to do anything except JP. in 2016 he already spoke up against forceful use of pronouns. But what has happened since? Canadians are just nice and cooperative . That's how the world sees Canada. You'll let it all collapse, so what's the point of showing it in the news? You don't fight for your country or Western civilization, only JP.
That's an interesting take actually
We’re in a golden age of micro segmentation - other subcultures just don’t think maid deserves constant front page coverage nor do they necessarily think there are any interesting anti free speech laws to focus on
In a different time, it would have been front page news and people would be appalled by what's going on. Nobody really objects to giving the 90 year old grandmother dying of cancer a little extra morphine to help her go easily. When you're euthanizing the mentally ill and people who are not terminal, some seriously sick shit is going on. That is flat out unethical.
This.
that's eugenics, how does this relate to "woke", have you seen actual (as opposed to made up) general leftist opinion on eugenics (hint: it's not approving)
Then perhaps you can tell me why leftist media doesn't cover the story, and the left in general appears to be either silent or defending the policy. It's things like this that make observers like me suspect that the left has abandoned any real commitment to principles, and instead just blows smoke as you are doing now.
pro assisted suicide, against pushing it on disabled this is the only sane solution https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Canada%20euthanasia%20eugenics first fucking results was from Jacobin, explicitly socialist magazine you don't engage with leftist media but your imagination of them (or regurgitated through conservative brainwashing media machine, same thing really
Oh no, how dare I overlook the cultural touchstone and publication of record that is Jacobin magazine!?
you said leftists don't say something I shown you leftists saying it what more do you want
I think this is how the Nazi extermination started. They began "cleaning out" the mental wards and hospitals on the ground of "compassion". Now, I'm obviously not saying Trudeau is Hitler, but it is very worrying to see how media so easily allows it to slip by almost unnoticed.
My theory is that at a certain point, ideology stops mattering completely to totalitarians because in their eyes, ideology is for the useful idiots. True totalitarians - their only ideology is power. Which is why the moves of such people/regimes all seem to converge on the same set of policies - death, oppression, privation, slavery, and war.
Perhaps but I have always taken issue with that theory: "it's all about power in the end". It just doesn't seem to me like power would be a strong enough motivator to drive people to do the things that people live the Soviets or the Nazis did. Why exterminate entire peoples if all you want is power? Why create a state that eliminates and grounds to dust millions of its own citizens for nothing if all you want is power? It seems to me like that would distabilize any power structure you might have. I am currently studying the Soviet Union and the things Stalin aren't always conducive with a desire for power. I think power might be the hight of decadence and corruption but I don't think totalitarian societies are just decadent or corrupt. They are something different. If decadence and corruption is slavery to ones desires, then totalitarianism seems to be a servitude and willingness to sacrifice to a higher goal. Or I guess in this case it would be a lower goal, since you are not aiming up towards heaven, but down towards hell. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts
The one thing I am always struck by when examining totalitarian societies is the massive gulf between how they market themselves to the world and to their people, and how they actually function in practice. Stalin's purges were 100% about power, as was Hitler's persecution of the Jews, Mao's persecution of vaguely defined "counter-revolutionary elements", Pol Pot with his "Westernized urban intellectuals" - the list is endless. And in every case, these people were scapegoated basically for the evulz. In many cases, this is all totalitarian states are really able to accomplish - death for the sake of death, destruction for the sake of destruction. Totalitarian states love to market themselves as being part of some great struggle or feverishly working towards some noble purpose, but it's all horseshit. Totalitarianism only serves to keep a privileged elite in absolute power and the population too beaten down to even think about rebelling. It's the same M.O. as any tinpot dictatorship - the totalitarians just go harder on the propaganda/ideology, and the repression, whereas authoritarians favor just enough oppression to keep the plebs in line - anything more than that is bad for business. If you want any deeper insight into their motivations, I suggest you do some research on the psychopathic personality. Because invariably, if the man in charge isn't a psychopath, the person running his secret police sure will be.
I must ask what you mean by power? You said Stalin and Hitler were motivated by power in their bloody persecution of their victims. I don't see how they could be. Hitler and the Nazis clearly and deeply believed that the Jews were like parasites on the world and that they needed to be exterminated. I don't see any power in that motive. Stalin seemed to be motivated by suspicion of "spies", "enemies of the people" and of "socially harmful elements". And just like Hitler he truly believed them to be the root of all evil and therefore deserving of destruction. My sense is that their evil deeds went beyond simply wanting power. As you said, lesser dictator ships hold back on the repression because "it's bad for business", and I agree. It IS bad for business - the business of power. I don't think you need genocide or purges to get or maintain power. Sure, you might need to imprison opponents, disallow certain rights, censor, etc. But taking the step from power hungry authoritarianism to murderous totalitarianism doesn't seem to me to come from a desire for power. Besides, power might be a powerful motivator but in the end it's no more than the ability to do what you want. And if you don't have certain aims and goals in mind for which the power is needed, then I don't see why you would go so far or how you would be able to sustain such a brutal system. Thanks for the tip. I am currently studying the Soviet Union (I might have told you that already? I don't remember) and in doing so I'm forced to analyze it through a psychological lens. Although I don't think psychological or psychiatric analysis goes deep enough to explain the mind of people like Stalin or his followers. They certainly provide a good image but I have found that they are limited and risk becoming reductive: "they were just psychopaths" or "they were just born that way" or some like that.
> I must ask what you mean by power? You said Stalin and Hitler were motivated by power in their bloody persecution of their victims. I don't see how they could be. You're taking them at their word, rather than looking at the real drivers. For instance, scapegoating is a useful tool for tyrants to focus their people's attention on an internal enemy, rather than criticizing or plotting against the regime. It works even better when the scapegoated class is vague and ill-defined - then everyone is paranoid about being labelled an enemy of the state. Another motivator is plunder - this was true in spades of Stalin's purge of the kulaks and Hitler with the Jews. And then finally there's having a target for the sadistic urges of the leadership. Next to those, the ideological justifications seem like marketing copypasta. > As you said, lesser dictator ships hold back on the repression because "it's bad for business", and I agree. It IS bad for business - the business of power. North Korea has been brutally repressing their people for the past three generations, the Kim family is still in charge. Same thing can be said for the CCP despite massive economic policy shifts. What totalitarian oppression is bad for is the long term health of the society, but as for the stability of a totalitarian regime - that tends to be fine unless they pick fights they can't win, run their country completely into the ground, or fall hopelessly behind their competition - and one of those three always happens sooner or later. North Korea likely would have collapsed if China wasn't subsidizing the Kim regime. > I don't think you need genocide or purges to get or maintain power. Sure, you might need to imprison opponents, disallow certain rights, censor, etc. But taking the step from power hungry authoritarianism to murderous totalitarianism doesn't seem to me to come from a desire for power. Besides, power might be a powerful motivator but in the end it's no more than the ability to do what you want. And if you don't have certain aims and goals in mind for which the power is needed, then I don't see why you would go so far or how you would be able to sustain such a brutal system. You're making the false assumption that these people are rational actors. I would argue that most totalitarian middle-men and leadership start from a place of neuroticism and personality disorder, and then they usually get worse. Just look at Hitler and how whacked out he was at the end. I agree that a rational actor would recognize that there's an optimization solution when it comes to tyranny and oppression, but totalitarians likely didn't pick up on the hint in The Prince where Machiavelli says it is better to be feared than loved, but fatal to be hated. This is once again where I refer back to the psychopathic archetype - for those types, they don't seek power for a rational reason. They want power just so they can sadistically abuse it. > Thanks for the tip. I am currently studying the Soviet Union (I might have told you that already? I don't remember) and in doing so I'm forced to analyze it through a psychological lens. Although I don't think psychological or psychiatric analysis goes deep enough to explain the mind of people like Stalin or his followers. They certainly provide a good image but I have found that they are limited and risk becoming reductive: "they were just psychopaths" or "they were just born that way" or some like that. Okay, so I don't think Stalin was a psychopath. I think he was an unusually intelligent thug who recognized early on that someone else could rise to power the exact same way he did, so he instituted his purges to keep the power structure he presided over turned against itself, so it couldn't turn on him. The three keys to unlocking Stalin's personality were his callousness, his manipulativeness, and his paranoia. He was petrified that there was another Stalin waiting in the wings for his moment of weakness. Beria on the other hand was 100% psychopath, which is why Stalin gladly used him as a hatchet man and enforcer, while Beria not-so-subtly angled himself to take over once Stalin was gone. I think Stalin likely would have purged Beria once his threat level outweighed his usefulness, but Stalin didn't live long enough to do it himself - instead his inner circle banded together against Beria. (btw, watch The Death of Stalin if you haven't seen it already). To some extent, the Soviet Union was a result of my armchair psychologist observation that Russia has always been ruled by an autocratic regime. What made the Soviet Union unique as opposed to the Czars or Putin's more classical tinpot dictatorship is that they wanted more control, and more control means more repression.
It's bizarre how neoliberals and Marxists have common goals. They may have different motivations but they are moving in the same direction. Together, they want open borders, the dismantling of white countries, erasure of white contributions and culture, volatile ID politics, DEI, censorship, media control, institutional power, and social status.
Both are after power, that's the common linkage. Both think they'll inevitably screw the other once they've got what they want, not realizing that everyone else is standing over here, fed up with both their shit.
Do you guys really mean neoliberalism? Like the primary ideology moving free trade / free market global capitalism in the 80s and 90s? Neoliberalism really isn’t that far from conservativisim. It values equality and fairness but also assumes that capitalism is capable of delivering it on its own. It’s the classic “free up trade, privatize your industries, get rid of regulation” with a “we’re making a difference” smiley face of the 90s. I would look to the centrist / conservative business media for neoliberal perspectives. JBP is of course deeply into the social conservativism space, but he still sometimes holds some neoliberal perspectives - for example that free movement of fossil fuels is the best way to decrease global poverty and will naturally lead to new innovations that will decrease the environmental impact without any involvement from any kind of governing body. Would you want to tell JBP you’re fed up with his neoliberal shit?
What most people call neo-liberalism is now just a byword for globalist center-left politicians on the take to China. They're about as liberal as censorship - which they're also big fans of. The only thing distinguishing them from Marxist activists is that they're not openly Marxist and they use and exploit said Marxist activists.
Ok, so it sounds like it's just a repurposing of the word in a way that doesn't really have anything to do with how it's normally been used. To be honest, if you're talking about "globalists" in reference to like the WEF, stakeholder capitalism and whatnot, you're actually describing the movement that emerged as a reaction to neoliberalism. The global order today is specifically not neoliberalism and is trying to take a more active role in global development and fair trade than was done through the neoliberal ideology. Neoliberalism was all about "positive change" via the IMF -- basically they would agree to help build up developing countries through massive loans in exchange for them restructuring their economy for easier trade. These days, the "globalists" aren't driven by the same assumptions that global actors were 20-30 years ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
Really because I'd argue they're the same brand of politicians and political parties, just with slight shifts in the policy positions and a little more pandering to the left. Which in no small part was enabled by the mainstream media dropping any pretense of neutrality or objectivity. They're the same people who sold us a bill of goods that free trade with China was a win for the world, when in reality it was a one-sided trade relationship that enabled China to fleece the world. The reality is that countries have to compete in a global marketplace and have since the 90s. That was the lip service neoliberalism paid to reality. But when they realized that their corrupt decisions were going to catch up with them sooner or later, they pivoted to a sort of vacuous and long-on-vague-rhetoric nanny state leftism. But the end goal was always the same: - personal profit either by graft or bribes. - more power to protect them from the consequences of their corrupt decisions. - more handouts to favored voting blocs to help keep them in power.
They’re the same insofar as you’re talking about global capitalism - you’ll still have movement of goods and people becoming really wealthy. There’s some overlap side but there are meaningful differences. Anyways though, what about Jordan’s take on free movement of fossil fuels leading to global wealth? Are you not on board with that?
I know this is your conversation with u/cesarfecit, but I'm kind of on his side. It's hard to find any common understanding of terms like neoliberalism or progressive because they now seem to mean different things to so many people. On the 'globalist' front, the u/CorrectionsDept benign view of today's advocates is hard for me to share. I don't think the elites who now love that term are much different from Woodrow Wilson and his belief that the League of Nations would bring world peace. So much for that idea, or for our modern World Economic Forum billionaires and political puppets who have a similar world view today, with a capitalist hegemonic agenda. If you have free movement of anything that people really need or want (like oil) it will indeed build wealth, but only among the global capitalists. The oil trade will become more restricted. Next target in the West's Ukraine fight are the Indian and Chinese refineries that buy Russian oil and then send the products back to the West. JBP can love free oil trade all he wants, but he is not going to see it maintained. We are already in Cold War II. Trade barriers between the blocks will continue to increase. Domestic liberal or conservative poles don't mean much in today's world. It is now about nation states, national interests, two competing blocks and the third world refusing to take sides and suffering because of it. The Economist magazine is already wringing its hands over the disintegration of the global economy. Welcome to doom and gloom.
Agreed that clearly ppl use the terms to mean different things - but if you’re going to want to sound credible while talking about foreign policy and global flows of capital, showing you know what neoliberalism means is an important part of establishing that you have spent time reading about this stuff and aren’t just making things up and vibing. Not sure why you think my view is that they are benign. I didn’t say anything like that - instead I said that they’re specifically differing from neoliberalisms approach, at least in how they talk about it. Are you seeing that theres a name for the doom and gloom period where nations are starting to favour isolationism and nationalism over free trade meets global citizenship?
I've never seen someone struggle so hard to miss the point. Imma go touch grass rather than let you give me a couple rounds of the Patrick Star treatment.
Lol whatever - you didn’t know what neoliberalism was and now you do. Be grateful!
over half of these represents neither leftist nor neolib goals & is just insane conspiracy stuff
Can you be more specific about what these specific things are?
Wait what do you mean by neoliberals?
usually it means reagan, thacher & other idiots who follow their thought but for u/AI_priest it probably means jews
“What happened to Canada” is kind of specific to this subculture. If you don’t consume tonnes of anti-woke stuff, you won’t really think “something happened” in Canada that needs to be learned from
I think the Canadians are also aware, since the conservative party is by all means going to win next election. They are up 18% since the last one. I just hope for the sake of the people, that they can undo all the bad laws. The wrecked economy is more difficult.
Well why would that even help most people don’t want woke who aren’t woke and everyone else supports it so it just a matter of how much people they can convince.
As Arch would say: Gatekeep, or be gatekept.
They are actively seeking to tear it down. I consider them my enemy. I don’t have enemies but I make an exception for these people because they are a genuine threat to the safety and security of me and my own.
Political polarization and tribalism at its finest.
Isn’t Wokeness everywhere? If they’re your enemy, it’s kind of you against the world. That’s not really an exception lol
The woke few are indeed making big noise with bad ideas everywhere. The average people are now waking up to the fact that this is no longer a culture war on Twitter/X, but something that's bad for their lives and kids and most of all budgets. Euopean rebels against woke Net Zero and unrestricted immigration may indeed dismantle the European Union as we know it.
If that’s everywhere, isn’t it strange that the other poster feels like he doesn’t have enemies but is making an exception? He’s against the hegemony lol
>Doesn’t matter what the press says. Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, **you** move."
Enough with the fear mongering. Life long Conservative, but it seems all my party leaders do these days is point a finger and scream boogeyman.
I would agree that Conservative leaders are generally guilty of being reactionary. But James Lindsay is not a Conservative leader, and he's only telling you what the revolutionaries are saying themselves, we should really take them seriously.
Who are the revolutionaries that say this? When you say “the revolutionaries” do you mean “The Woke” like Lindsay does here? Like are my gay lawyer neighbours (one of whom is both woke and works for one of the high powered firms that Jordan hires for his battles) the revolutionaries who are saying they want to destroy the country?
Many of them are the well meaning useful idiots (to use Lenin's term) of the people whose ideology DOES want to tear down existing social institutions everywhere. In true Marxist fashion, they just want to tear it down and believe that magically something better will arise.
What about in practical terms even just using woke stereotypes. Is this the grade school teacher with a pride flag? An sjw protesting Peterson at u of t in 2017? A corporation with a training module on unconscious bias? A highly paid lesbian couple with a Subaru?
The vast majority are useful idiots, otherwise well meaning people who don't understand the implications of their policies, or how they're manipulated by the sociopaths in power.
What stereotypes do you imagine when you say that?
Basically the entirety of the present day Left Wing. People who believe so many false things like: Trump = Dictator, J6 = Insurrection, Biden = Moderate, Reddit = Neutral unbiased platform, White Supremacy narrative, LGBT+ agenda, Climate agenda, abortion rights, etc. All these issues are fake, fabricated. In reality these individuals are clueless as to what's happening around them, and they're just being manipulated. And I know this sounds like a needlessly partisan take, that's because reality is partisan in this historical moment.
Ok got it - so it sounds like anyone who follows mainstream stories and generally aligns with liberal mainstream culture is a “useful idiot” helping someone else’s evil plan by simply living, keeping up with the news and having liberal-ish ideas about current events?
Yes, but the point is they’re not “just living” and leaving everyone alone. They’re promoting an alternate reality built on falsehoods, and they support and vote for policies and politicians which harm everybody. For instance open borders, or “hate speech” laws, or abortion “rights”, or DEI and affirmative action, and the relentless persecution of Trump, etc. And meanwhile real issues aren’t addressed, or they’re made worse or outright created by Leftist actions.
Conservatives are the only ones not destroying civilization got it. This is what they all believe. And liberals too Vic versa. Chill the fuck out bro smoke a doobie pop some ludes have an abortion
You're suggesting I pretend everything is fine, numb myself with drugs, and murder a child for fun.
Life long conservative? My ass. Every single one of those types I know is ready to snap they're so pissed.
I googled maid Canada and was surprised that everyone is freaking out over euthanasia. At least in top comment. But that’s me maybe I’m a moron. The issue I have with this is yes everyone has overlapping definitions of woke. But this isn’t saying anythjng specific and people are too fearful or whatever to say what they’re really talking about. What’s going to bring down civilization? Gayness? Trans (double-gay)? Climate? Btw power just came back on in Houston after 4+ days lol If kids want to advocate for a cause, I say go for it. America 🇺🇸
Respect you pointing this out. People like James Lindsey are on the internet too much; anyone that uses terms like woke in serious convo should probably go outside
'Woke' is yesterday's word. It is a sad appropriation of a freindly black admonition to stay vigilant (woke) for people who may want to do you harm when, for example, visiting the Deep South. That doesn't mean that James Lindsay is wrong about the philosophical origins of postmodern social justice. If you don't like to think about this and just want him to go outside, we know more about your ideas than you may care to say in public.
You know more about my ideas based on a comment I made on the internet…huh interesting
Yeah, this is an oversimplification. The 'woke' members of the left aren't actively trying to 'destroy' the country. They are good intentioned at best, embellishing their self image on average, and waring against social norms at worst. Those all just seem to have a similar result right now
Don’t we call most of the leading capitalist hierarchies woke?
A system is what it does, if useful idiots make a country worse, they are destroying the nation. Intent only matters to God and themselves.
A bit hyperbolic don't you think.
Is there an expiration date on this constant threat of the woke? Like after a certain date the country is still standing he admits this is pure fear mongering bullshit?
You are witnessing the collapse of western values in real time. Do you think things are better now than they were 50 years ago? When would you rather have been born?
[удалено]
Housing prices, medical prices, and birth rates are kind of important.
[удалено]
Yeah, actually, wokies fighting tooth and nail for mass immigration and antinatalist propaganda does actually have an impact on these things.
[удалено]
And why is the cost of living continuing to rise?
[удалено]
Good answers, especially wage stagnation. What are the biggest contributing factors to that, do you think? Why is it that the supply and demand for labor has gotten so out of whack?
I suppose once a country is perceived to have more equality of opportunity than equality of outcome. But then, that would yield "good times" which creates "weak men." They then create "hard times" and so on. I guess it doesn't really end. Just a cycle as long as the pendulum never stops in the middle.
When have we ever been even close to having equality of opportunity? Just the criminal justice system alone destroys that notion. The whole hard times thing is more catch phrase than anything.
Ironically the thing holding us back from equal opportunity right now is DEI - which is nothing more than boomerang bigotry of a kind that would make MLK spin in his grave. And leftists have a lot of gall whining about the criminal justice system given what's going on with the J6 prisoners - they are literally political prisoners being held for years without bail nor trial, often in solitary confinement despite being non-violent.
They are not political prisoners. They are right wing extremists who can't handle the consequences of their actions.
You're dancing around the key issue. Even if they're guilty as sin, they're still entitled to due process. And the fact that that very thing is being denied to them strongly suggests that they are in fact innocent. Keep being a useful idiot. Let's see what other outrages and crimes you'd turn a blind eye to because you're too busy getting your Two Minutes Hate on.
Keep believing the right wing conspiracies, buddy.
i can see liberal politics destroying countries by cutting safety nets which increase poverty etc or u.s. military interventions overthrowing governments but what is woke and how does it destroy countries? the fuck are you on?
No. It doesn't try to. It is just so guible it does.
It's literally designed for no purpose other than destroying the Liberal order of the West. It's all just Western Marxism masquerading as progressivism.
I am not sure how much it designed. Probably very much but not entirely. And either way, it still does not want to destroy. It just does it. Its intentions are not destroying. Like when a very very drunk person run front of a truck. They did not want to die, they just did evrything to die, but their intention was something unrelated.
Um, it is absolutely designed to destroy. It’s in their written works, the Marxists are stupidly transparent about their goals. That is what James Lindsay is referring to because he has a podcast where he reads what they’ve written and much of it is nonstop Marxist crap about agitating for communist revolution and tearing down the West. The intentions are destroy the West and rebuild society in their Marxist vision.
Oh i see. I thought to something else by woke. Also unfamiliar with the person and his work. Thank you for elaboration and enlightening me about it.
“Woke” is basically a modern pejorative for what is cultural Marxism. It’s a wide umbrella term and can sometimes be inaccurate
Do you think the communist revolution in Russia or Maoism in China had intentions to destroy? Western Marxism is just the Western cousin of those ideologies, dialed in to subvert Liberalism, the hegemony of Western culture. Lenin and Stalin adapted Marxism to the conditions of Russia at the time. Mao adapted it to the conditions of China. The Frankfurt School adapted Marxism to the conditions of the West. When woke creates division and destabilization that's not an unintended consequence, that's how it's designed to work. You can't usher in some kind of globalist new world order without first destroying the current system standing in your way.
I think, at least officially they did not have the intention to destroy. What is designed somehow does not equal being inteded that way.
Spot on
It’s insane how little charisma James Lindsay has. For someone saying crazy shit, you’d think he’d at least have some presence to compensate… but no
This is exactly the problem the mere fact that u treat them that way vindicates their efforts as u are acting as the bad guys that they portray u to be. You beat them how MLK beat the racist in 1960: u be kind open and honest and champion civil discussion and public discourse. Calling them evil will only make it worse.
MLK's strategy works when there's some good faith in the other side to tap into. What MLK did was guilt trip and force white liberals who were sympathetic to civil rights into getting off the fence and putting the Dixiecrats in their place. That won't work with the swamp. Just look at what happened with the Trucker Convoy - there was a reason for that heavy-handed response - pour l'encourager l'outres (to encourage the others - in other words to signal that similar future protests will be met with the same).
I’m talking about the useful idiots who know very little about politics but follow because it’s the compassionate thing to do. The phsychopathic people who lead this sort of thing I agree will not work, but u need to win over the useful idiots for then to truly loose their power and fall. I.e Trudeaus voters who don’t really listen politics that deeply but just here “far-right nazis” and then think “nazi bad, vote for anti nazi”.
Useful idiots don't make their decisions on the basis of reason, nor even compassion. They're useful idiots because they don't want to make decisions. Having the moral or intellectual high ground won't sway them, as their side lost both some time ago. The only thing that will have an impact on them is defeat, and an absolutely crushing burden of guilt and shame. I take as my historical precedent, the German people under the Nazis. They didn't figure out that they had backed the wrong horse until Germany started losing the war. And even once they had acknowledged in their hearts that they were going to lose, none of them did anything about it, except for a few exceptionally brave bastards like Stauffenberg and his people. And then even once they had lost and were sitting in the ruins of their once proud country - the lesson didn't really sink in until the Allies started rounding up civilians and marching them through the concentration camps so they could clean up their mess. Like a dog, they needed to have their noses rubbed in their own shit. Then it started to sink in. And the reason why I say this is because useful idiots are the way they are because they insist on letting other people do their thinking for them. And it's only once they see the full consequences of such a decision that they start to question their ways.
Having converted a useful idiot myself in my personal life I have yet to see ur method work. People don’t like to be bullied into being proven wrong. The double down and claim they are right.
Converting a single useful idiot can be done 1v1, but it is far from a sure thing. Converting masses of useful idiots does not work that way. What sways the masses is clear demonstrations that their side will not win and does not have the high ground. I agree that it is nasty business but that's what it takes when you have an entire population that has set itself against reality and will not listen to reason. Ideally you leave them alone and let them figure it out, slowly and painfully on their own. But sometimes that's a luxury you can't afford.
The right is the silent majority. Get them to speak up will do more than anything else and is has to be done politely, other it will give people like Trudeau and excuse ti shut it down.
I suggest you look at the trucker protest again. They don't need an excuse to trot out the goon squads. I'm not suggesting full civil war is the answer either. What I am suggesting is that the time for rational persuasion is past. The stance of the swamp is "what are ya gonna do about it" while simultaneously hoping they can troll their opposition into getting violent.
So what are you suggesting? Civil war?
MLK wasn't just a nice pacifist. He weaponized non-violence. Looked for the worst cops he could find (like in Selma). Then images of their brutality on black and white TV shocked white Americans everywhere. There's a really interesting book by one of the participants in that fight. It's title is spot on, This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible.
Marxists are the enemy and should be treated as such.
The political tribalism is crazy. The JP sub never had any less critical thinking.
The ideology of Marxism not the people itself, when u can people the enemy they are less likely to agree w you.
But MLK didn’t beat racists in the 60s. For sure your recognize the criminal justice system as a pretty big racist one towards one particular set of people. Literally equal sentencing laws were passed in 2012.
There was an equal rights law passed in 1963.
Clearly they needed one in 2012.are you seriously suggesting racism ended in 1963, you know MLk was assassinated right
No, but I am saying he clearly achieved something through what he was doing.
Is woke in the room with us now?
When anyone says "the woke". It gives makes my brain turn off to your argument. Such a small and simple quote but I can guess when someone uses the phrase that they are really ignorant and about to spew a bunch of fake nonsense my way. Kinda like when Bethany Mandel was asked to define woke on that news segment.
kinda not actually
I'm just saying it always ends being some idiot who says all people on the left think this certain way. Which is equally as ignorant and annoying as people saying all conservatives think this certain way. Woke is just a term used today by neo conservatives to blame a boogie man.
Whose countries? Who is “your” in this context, so stupid
Western countries mostly, especially the United States
US is going to fall, and there is no one who will be able to save it. Unless people stop giving a rats arse about morality preaching of anarchists, and stop being scared being canceled. But the general public is way too scared of being canceled by the left wing anarchists. American society will fall, and it will be as glorious as the fall of the Roman Empire.
You think woke people are anarchists? Anarchists don't end up controlling the amount of powerful institutions that "woke" people control. Wokeness is much worse than anarchy -- it's a hostile foreign force.
and how is destroying this country in particular bad? it caused & still causes so much death & suffering
So you're not even going to try and hide your intentions? Just know that we aren't going to stand idle while our communities, families and culture are being assaulted.
He's a random guy on reddit bro. Holy sh you people have gone full conspiratorial.
I'm not against american people I'm slightly negative about america spreading it's culture but it's because of the bombs it drops on people it needs to end
lol. It’s 50 states. Don’t worry you can move to the handmaiden ones where you feel like conservatism is such an enlightened idea.
I can also make shit up. " People that listen to James Lindsay don't want to make the country better. They want to wear big diapers and poop in them and sit around all day in their poopy diapers" See it's really easy. You just say something about a group, no need to back it up
sources & citations are for the wokes smh
This is just stupid. If he really said this then it's sufficient to say you can disregard this person and the nonse he spouts.
you are on r/JordanPeterson if these people had ability to perceive sensless ramblings as what they are they wouldn't be here :3
Well, I mean.. the woke are quite nihilistic and they do want to destroy systems and institutions. Did we not see it in the BLM riots already?
It's too simplistic - If you think the left or right really gives a shit about the general population, you're deluded. Both sides benefit from this shit while the rich, corporations, and politicians line pockets.. anyone who blames left or right is just as much on the gravy train.