Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[alhoon]

As the above evidence suggests, highlighted part is simply not the case. With population's purchasing power dwindling, while cost of life is increasing along with raging hyperinflation caused by decades of neoliberal incompetence, there is nothing that can really answer "what's in it for the average Joe?" question.
I'm not even talking about the current state of the environment. So yeah, majority stands to gain nothing from status quo, at least as far as objective numbers are concerned. And when that happens, revolutions/regime change are not that far away.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see a peaceful change, where ruling class resigns itself and gives way to monetary and political reforms, but I doubt that it is likely. At the end of the day, its only in human nature to rather act and change things, then just let things stagnate.

As the above evidence actually shows, purchasing power is not dwindling, it is actually stable.
Furthermore, purchasing power (which is stable and not increasing) is not the end-all.
People that abandoned the Weimar Republic over actual and hard drop in purchasing power (=inability to buy food, not inability to buy a new iphone every 2 years) found themselves under the Nazi regime, HH.
People that were waving the flag of revolution in 1917 found themselves under Stalinist USSR soon after. And People that rode the tanks with Yeltsin in the death-throes of USSR... found themselves sending their daughters and wives as strippers and prostitutes in Europe later on.
People that wanted to overthrow the corrupt and inefficient Kazrai Regime are living now under the Taliban.

Long story short: No. What you say is dangerous and more often than not, leads to disaster for the average Joe.

[Coughdrop addict]

As the above evidence actually shows, purchasing power is not dwindling, it is actually stable.
Furthermore, purchasing power (which is stable and not increasing) is not the end-all.
People that abandoned the Weimar Republic over actual and hard drop in purchasing power (=inability to buy food, not inability to buy a new iphone every 2 years) found themselves under the Nazi regime, HH.
People that were waving the flag of revolution in 1917 found themselves under Stalinist USSR soon after. And People that rode the tanks with Yeltsin in the death-throes of USSR... found themselves sending their daughters and wives as strippers and prostitutes in Europe later on.
People that wanted to overthrow the corrupt and inefficient Kazrai Regime are living now under the Taliban.

Long story short: No. What you say is dangerous and more often than not, leads to disaster for the average Joe.

"But this time it'll be different because I'll be there!" -Every revolutionary ever.

And even more so than the average Joe, it tends to not go so well for the fanatical followers.

Every revolutionary movement attracts fanatical followers; the true believers who see the cause as everything and devote their whole lives to it. They are most useful before and during the revolution. Once the revolution succeeds, those in power no longer need ideologically committed purists. On the contrary, precisely because they are committed to ideas and not leaders, they are a threat to power.

Remember what happened to many devoted revolutionaries during the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution. Remember what happened to true Nazi believers in the SA during The Night of the Long Knives. Remember what happened to committed Communists during Stalin’s purges.

You can point this out to every would-be revolutionary today, and they might even acknowledge the possibility it will happen to others, but they'll claim it won't happen to them. Fanatical followers universally regard themselves as special and indispensable, assuming that their sacrifices for the cause or constant repeating of propaganda or special relationship with the leader will somehow exempt them from such treatment. Arrogantly certain of their ability to scale the new order's hierarchy, they imagine that they will rocket to the very top of the pyramid once whoever they believe is oppressing them now has been overthrown. No fanatical followers ever imagine their most likely fate will be a bullet and a shallow grave.

[Heathen Hammer]

As the above evidence actually shows, purchasing power is not dwindling, it is actually stable.

Again, this is simply not the case. I posted about US monetary system extensively in PA.

Furthermore, purchasing power (which is stable and not increasing) is not the end-all.

It is for the population. Average Joe cares not for how well Bill Gates or some other billionaire is doing.
Purchasing power has been decreasing, as per the metrics I sighted in that thread.
Overall, I don't think "it could be worse" argument really justified the monstrous and inhumane neoliberal oligarchy that is currently in place all over West.
If anything, a regime change via proactive citizens could prevent adverse consequences, both military, political and environmental, to which neoliberal demagogues are taking our nations.
My other point, is that the ice has already been broken, so to speak. Anti-globalist populism is steadily gaining ground across the West, and this process won't be stopped and at this point its simply worth it to try something new then continue on an already doomed path.
At the end of the day, liberalism today is as old as Absolutism was when French Revolution happened. Maybe its foolish to resist the currents of history? Let the neoliberal vestiges die off and something great could replace it.
If society didn't recycle its ruling classes and state systems overall, from time to time, we'd still be in caves.

[alhoon]

Again, this is simply not the case. I posted about US monetary system extensively in PA.

And what you posted, is not supported by sources that take into account the housing, education and medical expenses.
That you believe, perhaps correctly, that the above are more important and that homelessness increases, people not able to afford education are increasing etc doesn't change that by the official metrics it is not declining.

Overall, I don't think "it could be worse" argument really justified the monstrous and inhumane neoliberal oligarchy that is currently in place all over West.

If you don't think it could be worse, then why don't you move to a non-Western country? At least in my opinion you have a better time as a citizen of a Western country than a country $$$$ed by the West, or an authoritarian Eastern oligarchy or an authoritarian anarchocapitalist Far East society.

My other point, is that the ice has already been broken, so to speak. Anti-globalist populism is steadily gaining ground across the West, and this process won't be stopped and at this point its simply worth it to try something new then continue on an already doomed path.
At the end of the day, liberalism today is as old as Absolutism was when French Revolution happened. Maybe its foolish to resist the currents of history? Let the neoliberal vestiges die off and something great could replace it.
If society didn't recycle its ruling classes and state systems overall, from time to time, we'd still be in caves.

You are not wrong that the ice has been broken, but there is a difference on how things would change if the whole system comes down within 3 years or 30 years and if the change is gradual instead of rapid.

And while I completely agree that if society didn't recycle its ruling classes and state systems overall, from time to time, we'd still be in caves, I would also add that the recycle that ended the Roman Empire led to the chaos of the middle ages that was around till the plague overturned it 1000 years later.

But in the end of the day, I agree. The system must change. I disagree with the options given though as they are, at least in my opinion, clearly suboptimal.

[Heathen Hammer]

And what you posted, is not supported by sources that take into account the housing, education and medical expenses.
That you believe, perhaps correctly, that the above are more important and that homelessness increases, people not able to afford education are increasing etc doesn't change that by the official metrics it is not declining.

Um, what? It was there, IIRC, that I provided statistic proving that education costs grew 1400% (not exact figure but is ballpark).
Few things here and there, but overall average person in the West is worse off then average person in the West 3-4 decades ago. Things are going worse, hence why "extreme" ideas are more popular now.

If you don't think it could be worse, then why don't you move to a non-Western country? At least in my opinion you have a better time as a citizen of a Western country than a country $$$$ed by the West, or an authoritarian Eastern oligarchy or an authoritarian anarchocapitalist Far East society.

Well, if Western ruling classes don't like riots and attacks on their properties, then they should go rule another country then.
See, both sides can make such silly arguments.

You are not wrong that the ice has been broken, but there is a difference on how things would change if the whole system comes down within 3 years or 30 years and if the change is gradual instead of rapid.

And while I completely agree that if society didn't recycle its ruling classes and state systems overall, from time to time, we'd still be in caves, I would also add that the recycle that ended the Roman Empire led to the chaos of the middle ages that was around till the plague overturned it 1000 years later.

But in the end of the day, I agree. The system must change. I disagree with the options given though as they are, at least in my opinion, clearly suboptimal.

The bold part is a simiplistic view.
It wasn't that Romans were changing governments too much, it was a combination of factors, which can be, in fact, directly projected to the current declining Western civilization, be it border-line psychotic oikophobia of the ruling classes, destructive cults (christianity back then, woke lunacy today), demographic factors, foreign invasions and long-term economic issues.
Having said that, it would also depend on the nature of regime change itself.
My concern is that power-mad elites won't leave people no choice but to chose harsher methods. I guess time will tell. My point is that all negative consequences of the future calamities/civil wars/revolutions aren't on the people, elites would be at fault here.

[alhoon]

Um, what? It was there, IIRC, that I provided statistic proving that education costs grew 1400% (not exact figure but is ballpark).

Indeed they are and indeed it is. But the purchasing power metrics that I quoted DO take that 1400% into account.

Few things here and there, but overall average person in the West is worse off then average person in the West 3-4 decades ago. Things are going worse, hence why "extreme" ideas are more popular now.

I am not sure this is wrong, but I am not sure this is correct either. We tend to remember the good ol' times and by nature the past seems better than it was. Still, 3 decades ago we didn't have the pandemic, social distancing etc.
We didn't have to take seriously people with pink hair telling us about 90 genders (and yes, I consider that as bad as the pandemic) and people were (as far as I remember) less polarized.
Education was cheaper and better. Entitled snowflakes that would require forward notice about things that may make them feel down would be rightfully ridiculed and told to grow a pair. A black muslim lesbian woman was not guaranteed to get all As in the progressive universities whether she turned over her assignments or not, or get the Teaching Assistant fired.
Education has really got more expensive and really got worse.
Sure, people couldn't afford to buy a new computer every 2 years and we didn't have iphones to buy a new one every 2 years.

So, to be honest, I am not sure "purchasing power" is a good enough metric. I said it before: Purchasing power is not the end-all.
However, people do like to change their car every 3-4 years instead of 6-7 and like buying new iphones and more food than they should eat and made-in-china cheap gadgets and so on. So... perhaps purchasing power is among the right metrics.


(4 decades ago it was 1982, with a nuclear Armageddon a real possibility and USSR and USA supporting any kind of brutal warlord and forgiving any kind of crime as long as he wasn't of the other side. So I won't take the 4 decades thing).

Regardless: Purchasing power, that includes many more things that just housing and education, has remained stable.

Well, if Western ruling classes don't like riots and attacks on their properties, then they should go rule another country then.
See, both sides can make such silly arguments.

Neither of the arguments was silly. My argument was correct and your counter argument was correct too. It is exactly as you said: If Western ruling classes don't like riots and attacks on their properties, they shouldn't be buttholes or go rule another country.
If they (In EU) don't like immigrants from the Middle East, they shouldn't create immigrants by bombing them or enabling the USA to bomb them.

My concern is that power-mad elites won't leave people no choice but to chose harsher methods. I guess time will tell. My point is that all negative consequences of the future calamities/civil wars/revolutions aren't on the people, elites would be at fault here.

I agree that the elites won't simply go rule another country or stop being buttholes. And I agree that revolutions are caused by reaction to the ruling elites being buttholes or ineffective.

But I don't think we need to actively promote and call for violence, as things are not that bad. The alternatives would be worse. You will just replace a ruling elite with another and our current ruling elite is bad, but better than most ruling elites in history. Pax Romana / Pax Americana works.


Anyway, that said, I like your posts quite more when you present your arguments in a coherent way, even if I disagree with them.

[alhoon]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-could-...060039799.html

Prediction of USA's democracy imploding and a populist authoritarian taking control by 2030.

@HH:
That's the usual alternative to centrist elites pulling the string: Rightwing dictators pulling the strings.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-could-...060039799.html

Prediction of USA's democracy imploding and a populist authoritarian taking control by 2030.

I'd say there's a good chance of it in 2024 thanks to Putin's help and Republican's new laws that allow them to take control over election boards and disqualify voters for no reason, which basically means they can overturn election results if Democrats win.

2022 will be a trail run. They will declare all Democratic wins fraudulent and overturn them with their new laws. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if these bloodsuckers decide not even to wait until 2024 before installing Trump as dictator for life and/or surrendering to Putin.

[alhoon]

I'd say there's a good chance of it in 2024 thanks to Putin's help and Republican's new laws that allow them to take control over election boards and disqualify voters for no reason, which basically means they can overturn election results if Democrats win.

2022 will be a trail run. They will declare all Democratic wins fraudulent and overturn them with their new laws. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if these bloodsuckers decide not even to wait until 2024 before installing Trump as dictator for life and/or surrendering to Putin.

ehmm... how can they do that? I don't think they have the numbers of brainwashed drones in positions of power to pull that off.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I'd say there's a good chance of it in 2024 thanks to Putin's help and Republican's new laws that allow them to take control over election boards and disqualify voters for no reason, which basically means they can overturn election results if Democrats win.

2022 will be a trail run. They will declare all Democratic wins fraudulent and overturn them with their new laws. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if these bloodsuckers decide not even to wait until 2024 before installing Trump as dictator for life and/or surrendering to Putin.

You sound like a r/the_donald member just before the 2020 election.

[Coughdrop addict]

ehmm... how can they do that? I don't think they have the numbers of brainwashed drones in positions of power to pull that off.

Who needs brainwashed drones when you have raw greed?

They will declare all 2022 dem wins frauds, allowing them to send hardcore Trumpist (the only kind of Republican left) to congress where they will have a majority. Then they could either appoint Trump speaker and impeach and remove Biden and Harris (as they have openly said they will) to give him the presidency, or try an outright coup if they have enough military support and help from Russia.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Russia Russia Russia. Change the record.

[alhoon]

Who needs brainwashed drones when you have raw greed?

They will declare all 2022 dem wins frauds, allowing them to send hardcore Trumpist (the only kind of Republican left) to congress where they will have a majority. Then they could either appoint Trump speaker and impeach and remove Biden and Harris (as they have openly said they will) to give him the presidency, or try an outright coup if they have enough military support and help from Russia.

And you seriously, seriously think they will find... 60 senators to do that? Or even that their slim majority in the house would allow them to do that?

[Lord Thesaurian]

And you seriously, seriously think they will find... 60 senators to do that? Or even that their slim majority in the house would allow them to do that?

The Russians will find a way.

[Coughdrop addict]

Russia Russia Russia. Change the record.

See, that's what we on the left call a thought-terminating cliche. Right-wind media/Putin's propagandists don't want you questioning what they've told you to believe, so they've trained you to chant "Russia Russia Russia" or other slogans whenever you hear things that contradict them, allowing you to dismiss these inconvenient facts without addressing them and keep you nice and oblivious to the threat Russia poses to the western world.

And you seriously, seriously think they will find... 60 senators to do that? Or even that their slim majority in the house would allow them to do that?

Of course, if they get a solid enough majority. Hence why they will declare all dem wins frauds and overturn them.

[Infidel144]

The Russians will find a way.

I had been reliably informed that Adam Shifty Shiff had all the receipts proving the whole Russia narrative. Some how it was never forthcoming.
Who was it that kept going off about it...

[nhytgbvfeco2]

See, that's what we on the left call a thought-terminating cliche. Right-wind media/Putin's propagandists don't want you questioning what they've told you to believe, so they've trained you to chant "Russia Russia Russia" or other slogans whenever you hear things that contradict them, allowing you to dismiss these inconvenient facts without addressing them and keep you nice and oblivious to the threat Russia poses to the western world.

Imagine still thinking that Russia was behind Trump winning. That was in 2016, and endless witch hunts failed to prove anything. It's time to let it go.
I'm not pro-Russia in any way (even though I'm of Russian descent). Neither are Republicans. To think that the Republicans would welcome a coup, and one orchestrated by Putin of all people, is absurd. It was not under Republican rule that Putin was allowed to annex Crimea and create separatist states in eastern Ukraine.
And for all the threat Russia may pose China is 10x that, and it's the Democratic party that turns a blind eye when its members are found to be in relationships with actual Chinese spies, or when the president's son sells "art" to the Chinese for ridiculous sums of money.

[Infidel144]

Neither are Republicans. To think that the Republicans would welcome a coup, and one orchestrated by Putin of all people, is absurd.

Absurd?
No... They want a coup and if successful, will lockdown the nation, and any assembly to protest will be met with martial law, participants will be declared terrorists subject to summary arrest and put in prison camps. Even simply speaking unfavorably of it will result it their children being taken away, just like any communazi regime...

[Cyclops]

...
I'm not pro-Russia in any way (even though I'm of Russian descent)...

друг!

You're right of course, the Russians stirred the pot a bit in 2016, but the idea they made Hilary unattractive as a candidate is extremely sexist, a woman is just as capable of being a dreadful nepotistic candidate as a man. They were just another part of the ****-show, the main act was US voters absolute exhaustion in the face of business as usual. It was such a tiny margin I suppoe a case could be put together that they might have been the difference, but there were so many ingredients piled up to bake that cake to cherry pick one small one is to ignore the heap of others.

I'm pretty sure Clinton's massive failures as SecState counted for more for a start. The vile taste of her team's racist attacks on Obama and Sanders probably played a bigger part too. She was a whole pile of nope. The fact a reality TV star even got the other nomination gives you the tip: it was an unreal election with two clown candidates.

Accusations of foreign corruption are not new either, BJ Clinton (his initials...OMG I only just realised) was accused of being a Chinese pawn in the 1990s. Did he accept money from China? I have no doubt he's extremely broad minded and tolerant about who he accepts cash from. Did he run Washington for Beijing? Absurd. They just got a little help with a little matter and a few hundred thousand US citizens lost their jobs. Capitalism isn't treason, this isn't Soviet Russia.

Trump personally was intimidated by Putin, and rolled over for him like a lap dog in Reykjavik, but that was because he's a spineless dog, not a red sleeper agent, and the deep state sat him down and got him to walk back his gutless blathering when it mattered. A Russian agent would have closed the CIA, not rebranded a few missile batteries as SpAcE fOrCe!

[Heathen Hammer]

Indeed they are and indeed it is. But the purchasing power metrics that I quoted DO take that 1400% into account.




I am not sure this is wrong, but I am not sure this is correct either. We tend to remember the good ol' times and by nature the past seems better than it was. Still, 3 decades ago we didn't have the pandemic, social distancing etc.
We didn't have to take seriously people with pink hair telling us about 90 genders (and yes, I consider that as bad as the pandemic) and people were (as far as I remember) less polarized.
Education was cheaper and better. Entitled snowflakes that would require forward notice about things that may make them feel down would be rightfully ridiculed and told to grow a pair. A black muslim lesbian woman was not guaranteed to get all As in the progressive universities whether she turned over her assignments or not, or get the Teaching Assistant fired.
Education has really got more expensive and really got worse.
Sure, people couldn't afford to buy a new computer every 2 years and we didn't have iphones to buy a new one every 2 years.

So, to be honest, I am not sure "purchasing power" is a good enough metric. I said it before: Purchasing power is not the end-all.
However, people do like to change their car every 3-4 years instead of 6-7 and like buying new iphones and more food than they should eat and made-in-china cheap gadgets and so on. So... perhaps purchasing power is among the right metrics.


(4 decades ago it was 1982, with a nuclear Armageddon a real possibility and USSR and USA supporting any kind of brutal warlord and forgiving any kind of crime as long as he wasn't of the other side. So I won't take the 4 decades thing).

Regardless: Purchasing power, that includes many more things that just housing and education, has remained stable.


Neither of the arguments was silly. My argument was correct and your counter argument was correct too. It is exactly as you said: If Western ruling classes don't like riots and attacks on their properties, they shouldn't be buttholes or go rule another country.
If they (In EU) don't like immigrants from the Middle East, they shouldn't create immigrants by bombing them or enabling the USA to bomb them.



I agree that the elites won't simply go rule another country or stop being buttholes. And I agree that revolutions are caused by reaction to the ruling elites being buttholes or ineffective.

But I don't think we need to actively promote and call for violence, as things are not that bad. The alternatives would be worse. You will just replace a ruling elite with another and our current ruling elite is bad, but better than most ruling elites in history. Pax Romana / Pax Americana works.


Anyway, that said, I like your posts quite more when you present your arguments in a coherent way, even if I disagree with them.

I think you misunderstood the point.
I'm not saying "revolution will be 100% a good thing with 100% good outcome".
My point is simple Revolution of some kind in the West is inevitable.
I think it will gradually affect all of Occidental world, from North America and Downunder to Eurasia.
The underlying reason for that are the actions of the current elites, which seem to be more greedy and less smart then the elites from century ago that spawned them (in case of Rothschilds and Rockefellers quite literally lol): they are stuck in echo chamber, a lot of them are fiscally illiterate, and spent most of their lives during an unprecedentedly long period of stability (which was a whim of circumstances which they probably ignorantly explain with their own inherent genius and virtues, I wouldn't doubt), without realizing that merely a century ago, Europe was an epic battleground of wars and revolutions as it was throughout its existence and only a fool would think that current period of stability is forever. Essentially our elites are going to have same fate as a preppy rich trust fund kid, after being dropped off unsupervised in projects somewhere in Detroit.
Another major aspect is that for majority of population, there is very little to gain from preserving the current order, especially younger generations.
I get why boomers and Xers even, would want to keep their retirement funds and such, but what do millennials and zoomers have to gain? Their income is slashed by taxes and hyperinflation, and unlike boomers they never got the chance to buy property when it was 1400% cheaper in 1970s. Nor they had an opportunity to gain post-secondary education without lifelong debt enslavement.
Then we have additional factors. One of them is rapid technological growth. Archaic state institutions simply won't keep up with how technology develops, and blockchains and 3d printers will largely erode Big Government's control over society, where anyone could just print an automatic firearm or make stupid amounts of money by investing into right crypto-currency or NFT. Even government surveillance becomes a lost cause as we see in example of anti-tyrannical Resistance groups in Germany, China and Australia using encrypted software to communicate.
So the point is that regime change in Western nations is an inevitability. Pax Romana works... until it doesn't, which is the point. I'd rather have controlled demolition of the neoliberal order then it collapsing and causing lots of damage with the debris, so to speak.