Comments by "tblbaby" (@tblbaby) on "Dave Rubin Tells Gad Saad Why He Stands With True Reformers | Gad Saad | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report" video.
-
+Anthony Serocco Really? What really results from Socialism? Poorer masses and a small group in power, Oligarchy. How would employees gain control of a store like walmart they didn't pay to build? Isn't that theft? Now if you had thieves in government which would be needed to make that work, what makes you think they'd give what they could take to a bunch of scrub workers? They'd do what Obama has done, sell out to the extremely wealthy, like Warren Buffet who contributed and gave PR and gained Billions over the death of the Keystone XL pipe line, while the idiot and or dishonest environmentalists celebrate using trains to transport the oil in stead of a pipe line which wouldn't pollute. Now, that's just one example, but the US is full of them. We've been sold out to the highest bidder and if you think it will ever be any different you're lying to yourself.
Simple, people are greedy, and those who are not will be pushed out of the way so the greedy can gain ... IF the government has discretionary power to sell. If they just have to enforce basic law they don't have that power to sell. THAT is why the Constitution worked so beautifully. I mean the US has never been perfect, but numbers don't lie. It's been about the best production based economy in world history. US people the most wealthy in the world, except maybe some places like Hong Kong, which was even more heavily capitalist based.
Socialism doesn't work as you seem to frame it, because production is what creates wealth, and means of production is expensive and or extremely hard work to create. People who won't gain their rewards won't produce.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
youngbuck189 This is excessive, and probably not welcome, BUT fuck it ... Your view that a government influenced by "Corporations" is right wing ... what is government? Actually in full effect government is that which controls law and policy. In that case government is corporations, because they've bought it. Also what is the difference between corporations and large special interests that gain power? Like Unions which assert like power in government the same way. BUYING IT.
Since when has left wing been uninfluenced by business and special interests (which as far as we are concerned amount to the same effect)?
I'm going to give you a key, not in a cool Cheech and Chong in the institution type way, but a truth, a building block of a solid foundation.
That key is that people can usually be bought. People who like to buy people who can make them money or power, influence elections through their power to get their people in. So, if you have a genuine person who can't be corrupted, they'll be pushed out of the way. Probably defamed in media and entertainment situations, that the wealthy types pretty much control or at least exert significant influence on, for the same reasons.
The left wing vs right wing thing is Bullshit. Why do we care about labels when what affects us is the effect? The dynamic? Labels delineating situations which amount to the same effect, are useful to the powerful who gain power. By dividing US.
How do we keep those powerful people / groups from buying our government? From bribing our leaders into forsaking our interests for their own? Which are served by those who buy them?
Limited power in government as far as discretion. General, simple laws applying equally to all.
If we give government the power to act unevenly, it's the little guy who loses. Every fucking time.
There is another dynamic at play. The people vs the large interests. What happens here, and the large interests ultimately win again is policy based Judo to gain support. Trick the masses by bribing key groups. Get them to give government that discretion to "do their will" and steal from others who are not as politically powerful in terms of votes. Greed is by far the best basis for a con, and that's what is being played.
Do you ever notice Socialist Billionaires and think it odd? Soros? Buffet? The assholes who end up running the world bank and IMF? like that rapist socialist billionaire world bank president who raped a woman in New York and got off? The powerful are running the game, the masses are the mark. Those who fall for it, which is many because greed is powerful, the dupes and tools.
Do you think it might be those types giving billions to Ivy League endowments? Maybe? Pretty much a given since so much comes from Europe and no one else can afford it. OH, let me cue you in. These politics are not isolated to the US. US politics are world wide.
Now with ground laid, the Key. Giving government discretionary power is giving the wealthy and powerful the means to use you like a farm animal, at gun point pretty much.
Progress has been framed to be about "change" which is framed to be a constant positive. This centered around breaching the US Constitution, which is our protection from massive government corruption. It hasn't worked perfectly, but it's been the best solution in civilized history if you can lay down preconception and look at the raw results.
We are fed a steady diet of bullshit from any sources of information, learning, credible sounding certification that can be bought. The world of civilized mankind hasn't ever been much different. Religion is a big player in this. So has any respected institution.
Most of what you've been taught, and think you know, is bullshit. Your axioms a facade.
I sound crazy, I know :) go through point by point and think about considering solid verified facts (not what people tell you, but solid factual information) it and see if I'm crazy.
1
-
1
-
sorsocksfake I think it's important to understand the origins and philosophy of Progressivism. It's a branch from the LSE group, (or LSE is an extension of) the Fabian Society. Socialist reformers with a incrementalist philosophy. George Bernard Shaw was instrumental in recruiting in the US. His words on the Fabian Window are instructive as to their philosophy of method, as are some of their axioms. Books that well describe their goals and tactics are the book Propaganda by Edward Bernays. Also Eugenics, and I don't have the author off the top of my head.
Part of the tactics they go by is mislabeling via language, so they called themselves Progressive and later liberal, which are contradictory to the aims. A huge aim of Progressivism is to get around the US Constitution.
Their symbol, the Fabians, is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A moto is "let your mouth deny what your hands are busy doing" The Window depicts men heating the earth and beating it into shape, and the caption is words to the effect of heating the world to shape it closer to the hearts desire.
Their primary method for change is propaganda and incremental change so people don't pay too much attention to the transformation.
They are still very connected to European groups. Cecil Rhodes scholarship was created with the goal of bringing the Brightest from the US and encouraging them to move the US back in line with Europeans.
Many US politicians have been educated in the LSE, London School of Economics. JFK, Soros, many others and a good % of powerful UK politicians are Fabians, who attended the LSE.
That's a small bit, but it's getting huge in type so I guess that better be it.
1
-
1
-
sorsocksfake Yeah, an organization devoted to making change through propaganda and social manipulation to sneak up on society by moving slowly (slow to boil the frog) is hard to describe without a conspiratorial tone because it is by definition conspiracy :)
I understand this is new, not something discussed much. Certainly not taught in Colleges. I am somewhat baffled by people's propensity to feel satisfied their current well of information is all that is important. Not really curious as to motives which are a mystery. There is always a reason, always a motive. What is lacking is understanding. If we get more of that, many pieces fall into place.
Things like Socialism are only ideology to those who feel that is a way to more. It's a means to gain support for some powerful people, billionaires who are not Socialist and have no plan to share :) it's basically bait to lure support from masses because people want to believe it when someone tells them they can get something for nothing. That they deserve it. Facts of predictable human behavior (especially in masses) are used for manipulation. Not a big trick. Especially if you can gain control over policy and resources.
I mean religion has much the same approach, the reward being heaven. The suckers altering their behavior and doing what is needed of them in return for that promise.
I'm agnostic, so I don't claim to know what is true out there. One thing I do know is many people have been played. If there are some getting the real, it's a small %, but so many believe in opposing views of it.
The con games, conspiracies are pretty much a constant and a few games going on simultaneously throughout history and still today.
I didn't mean the answer to be this long. It's a bit involved I guess. I do see the discussions going on without an attempt to get to the core of why, how, and who as rather pointless. I do see the history as very instructive, if the same goals are being sought.
1
-
Pandaa Bro Thanks for bringing me up to date on the latest trend of the game of definition manipulation :)
Syntax is very important and affects our grasp of ideas. Propagandists of the most modern ilk who follow Sigmund's nephew ... who is that? (It's early) like to blur syntax, so clear delineation of ideas becomes impossible. Oh yes, Edward Bernays, a progressive hero (vile add man) who actually wrote the book "Propaganda" which was requested by and given to Hitler by the Progressives who supported him at the time. Also another book asked and received, Eugenics, which kind of details their philosophy on dealing with the masses. Supporting the Nazi movement was pretty main stream at the time, later less popular so their glowing support of Hitler, was muted. The Bush family did it too, so.
Self serving definitions kind of get tossed around and changed time to time. I tend to test these because so often those who change the meaning do so to cover a weakness in logic. Kind of like those with a main goal to get around the US constitution (which was huge and extremely successful progress) labeled themselves progressive and huge intrusive government with invasive controlling laws, liberal. This while working to destroy a real progress and return to a more corruptible state in which the powerful could easily use the masses.
Theist means practicing a belief in God. Polytheist means of more than one. The idea of knowing for sure really doesn't enter into it, because no one does, except a few who claimed to see him or some manifestation.
Agnostic means acknowledging you don't know, it's the traditional meaning whether it be on the subject of Supreme beings or whatever.
Atheist; in language as it has been used, analysis of the components; A.the.ist denotes no god, the ist of course is the person practicing or whatever, no god. Atheism is a protestation against Theists. While that creates some ire among Atheists often, which leads to changing definitions, it's obviously true and reason dictates that is exactly what it is. Without Theism there would be no Atheism, because the subject would never come up. That truth being pushed in debates seems to have inspired a change in definitions. One can't prove a negative on such a subject because all of the surrounding realities can't be nailed down, so Atheism is basically a belief based on no factual basis. The flip side of Theism, deliberately as it is a protest of it. Less logical than Theism by the factor of no historical claims (witness, false or otherwise) to support it. Somewhat legitimate claims to knowledge that parts of the Bible are scientifically flawed have some merit, but claiming that would mean the protestation of God was also based on the Bible alone, and not a wider belief in no God. You can also claim that all of the religious books are flawed scientifically I guess, but that would only encompass what has been written on the subject, and not the whole scope of the question.
I don't see any way to legitimately use the word Atheist without it denoting a lack of logical basis, but a protest. Changing syntax in a self serving way seems pretty vile to me. Vandalism of clear communication which is vital to progressing in the understanding of ideas, the foundation to advanced understanding / learning.
Relabeling the philosophy would make sense, as long as the realities of it are better described. Anti Theism Agnostic is as close as I can come to a clearly defined syntax of a reasonable philosophy. Or invent a word, but to pervert the meaning of existing words is destructive for reasons I previously laid out. I object strongly to that on what I see as sound, logically based, moral grounds.
Colleges have become more institutions of propaganda than higher learning in many facets. Of course it's hard to pervert math, lol, but they've done a hell of a job perverting economics, which defy's empirical information and the math which uses this as a factor and supplants a sort of religious level component.
But ... I digress, in laying another ground for demonstrating the propagandist mentality pervasive in these institutions of higher propagandization on a foundation of a dynamic with the properties of religion rather than pure scientific method. Drunken on ill gotten "public funds" (stolen tax payer contributions) corrupted by the strings attached, much like what has been labeled the institution of "Science" Which has also become more pushed as religion to the masses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sorsocksfake If no one brought up God there would be no point to Atheism. It's not a stand alone philosophy. No one says they are A(something that's never come up)istic.
If you reject religion on factual basis, great. You have something to object to. You see religion. Important point: Religion is not God. It's organized belief in a God or whatever.
Important point of logic here, you can't disbelieve in something you've never heard of. It's a vacuum like situation. Ain't nothin there to talk about, or think about.
This stuff is very basic. I'm not getting on you, lol, BUT you (or someone you've learned from) seem to have altered the factual foundation of the argument to give yourself (or the someone who came up with this) something to stand on.
Atheism is a belief, not the absence. It opposes a belief, and does so in a way that requires faith, or bullshit to back the protest and make it seem substantive, or something lol.
Faith it is, or disingenuous rhetoric, because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove a supreme being or beings don't exist. I could buy the name Antireligionist. The whole Atheist thing is more nonsensical, than religion.
You are intelligent and I do enjoy reading your reasoning :) though I must shoot strait on stuff like this. Seems important.
1
-
Magnus Fischer according to indexes if you isolated the minimum wage it has indeed plummeted. When you add in social programs those receiving minimum wags qualify for, the money you get at that level has risen quite dramatically (value for value) it seems.
Food and fuel costs have blown up because of government interference. Though farm subsidies have been in place for some time and manipulation to keep them down until recently the net effect of the system of laws and regs, has blown the cost up.
The cost explosion has been a product of government knowingly pushing up prices, unless you buy the line that they're just idiots over what seems the obvious reality of their manipulation.
Medical has gone the same way. The costs driven up by federal government meddling, and what seems quite obviously to be corruption in medical and insurance industries.
Government now uses these increases to gain public support for control which equals power and the means to pay off donors and bribe the public with the money they've conned from the public.
Simple principal. When you give government power to control things to such an extent, you've given the wealthy the power because they will buy it.
People, the "little people" who see big government as their friend, have been victim to an extremely ugly and corrupt con.
It's much better to not have a minimum wage. It's better if corporations don't have the ability to manipulate government into allowing them to screw workers and disallow organizing, which was the problem in the early 1900s. Now we have Unions paying off government, stealing large chunks of ownership rights in companies basically. It's a different problem, but it ends up about the same ultimately. Unions won't really look out for workers if there is a quicker reward for the owners of the Union. We've seen this, killing corps and fucking workers over.
That's why general laws evenly applied without government having choices as to who wins or loses is by far the best for the little guy in the long run. Powerful government is great and even productive, but only if they are harnessed to the good of the people, but shielded from the greed (which is a weakness which will be exploited, WILL BE).
Economics is pretty simple. Complicated economics are a lie, a series of deceptions and set up on a pseudo technical smoke screen. The tactic is what the Catholics used when they wouldn't allow common people to understand the language of the bible.
Economic power comes through production. Also resources, but that's another area that's simple as hell on it's face. What increases production increases aggregate wealth. That is a good thing, even if some luck out or are extremely smart or work their asses off or some combination of the above, and do much better than others. The US has been very wealthy, and it's poorest have had exceptional standards of living compared to the rest of the world. Basically due to the Constitution keeping corruption down. Not perfectly of course, but better than anything else ever tried on such a huge scale.
Government doesn't produce wealth. Government when it's doing a good job facilitates trade and keeps the people safe from harm and exploitation. Real exploitation, not the kind where they agree to work for a wage, but others who are more valuable to the situation make more. Forcing minimum wages and bribing the workers to gain power by political shits, is exploitation of those they commit theft upon to gain the resources to bribe.
People keeping as much as possible of the product of their work is what makes production kick.
Taxes are good for the system, because government done right is valuable. Taxing to provide this in the most efficient way possible is extremely healthy and everyone should want to participate and reap the rewards.
Minimum wage violates this, corrupts it. It may seem like a good idea, but it's a destructive one to the health of the over all system.
1
-
1
-
Confirmation bias usually sides with the "things will be all right" heads in the sand types. That's the human default setting it seems.
Not that it doesn't fit with people looking for something to happen, of course it does.
I think it's better to go with what we see going on than some kind of axiom. I get what you're saying ... Hitler will be nice to us if we're nice to him kind of thing. It will be ok ;) Or people just see what they want to see, without really looking into what they see or checking out what they've checked out. Lazy is a powerful thing.
What I see I don't like. It's not what I want to see. Things going on are not random, and it's pretty obviously manipulation going on. Moves go contrary to stated goals, with a continuity to goals which are not stated.
Convergence of ideas and actions don't really make sense in what's happening world wide with Soros and governments falling into line. Much inconsistency with (again) stated goals and actions.
I don't necessarily consider what is falling in line direct collusion, many people go with motivations like money and not being trashed in media and by officials or important social forces. The motivations behind those things do seem manipulated so the forces themselves do. Global Warming ... go along, get rewarded. There is absolutely a huge profit motive behind this for the manipulators and the manipulated get rewarded with what amounts to money one way or another.
Do me a favor, in stead of applying an axiom to the situations, really look into the moves. Look into Soros involvement in Libya and Egypt. Look at Obama's reaction to events in Egypt, other countries in the "arab spring" and test that against his reaction to Iran's uprising and how he dealt with that.
Check out the manipulation that created skyrocketing food prices and how that played into "the arab spring".
We have probability to look to, and when that is consistently defied by actions, consistent happenings, something is most likely going on beyond the natural proclivities. thus influences of human kind.
Detecting what you can't see uses these principals. MO leaves a trail as anomalous to the normal flow of things as foot prints disturbing the ground. If you start to understand the goals and moves follow consistently with those goals, you can see what's going on with some degree of high probability.
1
-
1
-
sorsocksfake That interpretation had to do with the analysis of your statement that the thought of a possible conspiracy was a product not of searching information on actions, motives and such thought, but of confirmation bias.
It was sort of the same train of thought. While Churchill dug into the information and said WHOA wait a minute, this guy is dangerous, lets stop him ... the majority sharing the Chamberlain take on this, which was based on axioms and not real consideration of facts jumped all over Churchill without giving what he was saying, his work on this, much thought.
Actually that's what most people are doing now, what they usually do. Being mentally lazy and not really considering information. Confirmation bias stuck on the normal, that things will be ok, nothing bad could really happen, the notion is just crazy!
Is that not what you're doing? Or have you taken a lot of time to dig in? If you haven't an Agnostic approach would be quite wise. The poo pooing of such things is kind of knee jerk and mental laziness. Nothing risked by that, it's accepted by most people, who tend to be mentally lazy in the face of such things.
Do you know who owns the Federal Reserve Bank? The people? Did you know it was privately owned on a 20 year charter that lately has been pretty much automatically renewed. I know, talking about them is conspiracy gold, so we really shouldn't think about it or we're just conspiracy nuts. But how is it so secret? What else do these people own? Do you know their connection to George Soros? Do you follow Soros' activities? Deep into Egypt, Libya, the Arab Spring. The collapse of a few countries which he actually brags about. Do you know Obama's connection to George Soros? Wonder why Obama would attack the leaders keeping the crazies off other people? But when there is an uprising in Iran with the people angry about Iran cheating the elections, taking great risk of life to do it ... Obama did nothing. He could have helped them. Should have as Iran is a huge sponsor of terrorism and world wide shit.
If you don't care to follow things like that. Try to piece the puzzle together, it's ok. BUT if you don't and think just poo pooing it is an intelligent position, remember Hitler, Chamberlain, the idiot masses, and Churchill, who did see it coming and could have done a lot of save millions of lives.
I respect your intellect ... but remember, your known world isn't the whole world. To dismiss what is outside your area of understanding as unimportant is to stunt yourself. Too poo poo without understanding is, I don't know, foolish? Though I don't see what damage it does, except for myself, I don't want to be a herding creature. I want to know. I'm curious and I do want to see what's coming.
Chamberlain, and most of Europe at the time, were buffoons. Dangerous buffoons. Grossly negligent colossal fuck ups. Not equating that to you, because such things are not your responsibility, I hope. Not a shot :) unless they are, then ... fuck.
I do waste a lot of time, but I do pick up a few jewels.
1
-
1