Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 1

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 1

Over the past few days, you might have heard that the Labor party in UK suffered a particularly humiliating electoral defeat in the most recent election in that country. Those who listen to dying lamestream news outlets might try to tell you that this something to do with Jeremy Corbyn and his ‘socialist’ policies. Other paid losers, might want to push the laughably bullshit narrative that this has something to do with the labor party being ‘anti-semitic’ which is now a code word for not giving carte blanche to Zionists. I plan to write, in another post, about the unpleasant blow-back brewing in most countries in response to this particular conflation. But for the moment, let us focus on why Labor lost in this election, but also why it did so well in first post-Brexit election of 2017. That is right.. Labor under Jeremy Corbyn did very well in 2017, but really bad in 2019.

The delusional losers, who constitute a rather large percentage of what passes for left-wing public intellectuals, want to pin the defeat down to anti-Corbyn propaganda by the establishment and its media lapdogs. Except that this was as big an issue in 2017 as in 2019. The few rational types among what now passes for the left have correctly pointed out that in 2019, Labor tried to go “normcore” by promising to hold a second vote which, for all practical purposes, was an attempt to negate the original Brexit vote. In contrast, the 2017 platform of Labor explicitly accepted the will of the people (in England, at least) and simply promised to negotiate withdrawal from the EU on terms which would cause the least disruption to the lives of most people. It is therefore no surprise that they gained votes during 2017 election in traditionally de-industrialized and poorer areas which had voted for Brexit, but then lost those same areas and more in 2019.

But the problems with Labor, and equivalent parties in other western countries go much deeper. The original attraction of people like Corbyn (and Bernie) was that they, unlike the credentialed neoliberal leadership class before them, could relate to the needs and aspirations of common people. Their focus on the problems of class, critiques of economic policies and understanding the needs of average people is what endeared them to their supporters. But that is not the focus of contemporary ‘left- leaning’ parties in the west. Instead, they and their cadre of advisers.. I mean credentialed circle-jerkers, spent most of time addressing “social” issues and taking ideological positions that are either irrelevant to most people or now frequently antagonistic. Confused.. let me explain. Let us start by talking about the support of the credentialed elite of these political parties for the transexual agenda, fake “wokeness” and politically-correct speech.

Tell me something.. in a country where more than half the people are struggling to survive from paycheck to paycheck (both USA and UK), how is supporting thetransexual agenda going to get the majority to support them. This is especially relevant since many people rightly see promotion of that agenda as an attempt to interfere in their personal lives and make them say ‘2+2=5’. How is blind support of the most delusionary parts of white woman feminism a winning strategy when a lot of men (white and non-white) have shitty jobs or often nothing going for them? How is a white guy who has worked in a slew of precarious and poorly paid jobs for his entire working life supposed to be privileged? How many times can you tell men who have lost their house in a divorce that they deserved that fate? How often can you tell men that they are irredeemable sexist pigs? And just how do you expect those who you sneer at, look down and belittle on a daily basis to vote for you come election day?

And it does not get any better when dealing with the ‘working class’. How many of the politicians in the Labor of 2019 (or democrats) actually have a working-class background or some real-life exposure to the realities of that lifestyle? More importantly, how many trace their roots to the petite bourgeoisie and professional types. Do they understand why these “working class’ types are opposed to immigrants who compete for jobs involving manual labor? Calling people racist, stupid and xenophobic because they are not gung-ho about polish or mexican immigrants, without credibly addressing the dismal states of many areas which aren’t parts of a few select prosperous cities is not a recipe for electoral success. Similarly, dismissing ‘working class’ cultural mores as cis-normative patriarchal or the latest “woke” epithet is not likely to win their votes.

To make matters worse, look how easily these parties crumble in the face of fake criticism from elite circle-jerkers. Did Corbyn stand up for all the politicians who had to resign because of clearly fake ‘antisemitism’ charges? Did he ever tell the elite circle-jerkers pushing those lies to just stuff it? Did he ever take a stand against the pushing the trans agenda, even though it is based on lies and will result in the mental scarring and physical mutilation of tens of thousands of kids? Did Labor pay back CONservative propaganda ads and bullshit in the same currency? Why should people trust you to represent their best interests against the rich and multi-national corporations if you can’t event stand up to a few vocal peddlers of the trans ideology? Why should voters trust political parties that do not really like them, cannot stand up for themselves and fight with one hand tied behind their back- all of which they are allegedly doing to restore the system.

See.. the thing is, the vast majority of people understand that the current system is shitty and incapable of substantive reform. They just want to burn down the whole thing and will go along with whoever promises that particular course of action. That is why Trump won in 2016 here and CONservatives in 2019 in UK. The problem with people like Corbyn and Sanders is that, though they understand public sentiments, they still want to save the system. Which is why both enter into compromises with people and vocal minorities who should instead should be subject to public ridicule. Treating political opponents with kids gloves, trying to maintain civility, bowing to whims of SJWs and worrying about your ideological legacy is how you lose to people such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. In the next part, I will go into why all that progressive talk about the “environment” and “climate change” is further alienating them from most voters.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. HuhWatt
    December 15, 2019 at 4:47 pm

    dude…. somebody else wrote this lol. Am I crazy or does it seem like someone aside from AD wrote this. AD WHERE U AT, BRO?

    Why is it surprising? It agrees with many of my previous posts.

    • HuhWatt
      December 15, 2019 at 6:01 pm

      Yeah it does but the writing style seems very different. Actually come to think of it, I’ve never seen you criticize Bernie and there’s a slightly surprising amount of sympathy for whites without the usual “but they deserved it” (which they 100% do btw).

      • Yusef
        December 16, 2019 at 12:29 pm

        Bernie’s a white guy, though, isn’t he? And how about Corbyn? If they get criticized, as you see it, that means they 100% deserve it, right?

        That’s not how I see it though and I think my position and perhaps AD’s is more logically consistent:

        SOME whites, nearly all those in power or of enormous wealth, 100% deserve it.

        Those whites who work in a slew of precarious and poorly paid jobs for their entire working life, men who lost their houses in a divorce and are told they deserved that fate, men who often are told they are irredeemable sexist pigs, may or may not deserve it, and those that do deserve it usually don’t 100% deserve it.

        Whatever these latter poor fools do deserve, they don’t deserve it in the same way those in power and of great wealth deserve it.

        Actually, these latter poor fools are getting payback, in part, but the former assholes really haven’t been touched and as long as all whites are categorized the same, they won’t be and I guarantee you this is true.

      • HuhWatt
        December 16, 2019 at 4:06 pm

        No you misunderstood me. I’m not saying all white guys should be criticized at all times for being white. The context here was me wondering if this is AD based on past posts. Here’s some text from one of his old ones that hits on my point:

        “It is, therefore, not surprising that many people living in such areas turn to drugs which blunt their perception of pain and loss (opiates, alcohol) or make them feel happy for short periods of time (amphetamines). Incidentally, that is also why rates of drug use among blacks in certain inner cities have been historically quite high. There is a certain delicious irony in watching supposedly “respectable” members of the white working class turn to high levels of drug use for the same basic reasons as all those non-white people they used to look down upon.

        The opioid overdose epidemic among working class whites should be seen as just another symptom of their progressive immiseration under the neoliberal socio-economic order. I should also point out that this class were once the biggest cheerleaders and enablers of the very same predatory capitalist practices and corporate behaviors that have now ruined their lives. It is somewhat funny to watch people go from lecturing others about pull themselves up by their bootstraps to overdosing and dying like the very people they used to look down upon.

        I should also point out that the white working class in USA has been historically opposed to expansion of the social safety net and legalization of drugs- because they though it might help those “undeserving” non-whites. I guess they never thought that they would one day end up at the bottom of the barrel.”

        And I agree with this and would respond verbatim even to what you said about not all whites deserving the same treatment, or whatever. Fuck em tbh. Not ALL (i.e Bernie etc), but collectively…? Yep, fuck em! AD in THIS post sounded more sympathetic overall to their plight, as opposed to just pointing out their relevance in terms of voter turnout for/against the left. I could just be way off though. I’m not really upset at all or anything, it was just kind of interesting. Also, like I said, he did criticize Bernie, I’ve never seen that on here (I dont care either way, personally) and there were less language/grammar errors (he usually has a few). IDK man it was just something seemed off but… meh.

      • Jarien21
        December 17, 2019 at 3:57 am

        It’s not that AD is being sympathetic, it’s more so that he’s pointing what working class whites are thinking when they here the word “privilege”.

        Most whites don’t understand what type of privilege they have. A lot think privilege equals wealth. So when they don’t have wealth, they think they aren’t privileged.

        In that sense, it makes no sense to them that someone calls them privileged while they are working “in a slew of precarious and poorly paid jobs” their entire life. And frankly, most whites couldn’t care less about how to check what privilege they actually have until they are financially set.

        But even the poor working class whites understand on some level what privilege they have. It’s one of the reasons they say “at least I’m not black” or “it could be worst…I could be an immigrant”. It’s just, whites don’t feel privileged enough.

        AD’s point is that the poor working class whites, a pretty large voting group, feels disconnected from progressive parties because the latter is talking about social issues that don’t affect their lives.

        He’s probably not actually taking their side, as much as he’s using empathy to understand what’s going through white working class minds when they hear progressives talk.

      • P Ray
        December 17, 2019 at 5:02 am

        The other part of their privilege is … actually having the job but especially when they definitely don’t meet the qualifications on paper for the post, given that the qualifications exist only to weed out the properly-qualified immigrants when they already had someone in mind for the position.

        That’s a good trick in employment, decide on someone for the job initially … then scare off or show a low salary to everyone else who applies.

        Even the white embassies worldwide do such tricks.

      • Jarien21
        December 17, 2019 at 4:12 pm

        Exactly, that’s how people still get around people’s civil rights. It seems like it would be easier to simply get along, but this understanding still eludes some people.

  2. P Ray
    December 16, 2019 at 1:17 am

    Many of these “progressive political parties” are actually putting on a show to get dollars and grants where the arena for such “performance art” is actually quite wide.

    Which is why they do and are ridiculous spectacles.

    Of course many of them also have a lot of rich kids “searching for meaning” that are unable to properly put in a days’ work, and of course can only demonstrate their virtue by spectacles and not actual duties.

    And many of these rich kids too … have no trouble spouting nonsensical ideas but not following through on them.

    A simple reality is how many of these people will actually let refugees live in their own homes, or even practice the feminism that talks about how men and women are equal, by being in a relationship or regularly fucking the guy that’s shorter than them, less educated than them, and earns less than them*
    *unless he is an alcoholic, druggie, gangster, gambler, pedophile or zealot.

    • P Ray
      December 16, 2019 at 4:05 am

      Oof, left out rapist in that list of men that women find attractive while they are still young

  3. doldrom
    December 16, 2019 at 7:47 am

    O what historical significance are the travails of a few working class nobs compared to the glorious historical vistas of those vanquishing humanity’s last frontier, rising above the banal dictates of biology and sex, creatively fashioning genders of their own making? Finally mankind is venturing beyond the tutelage imposed by nature and divining hisher own being, beyond the corporal bounds set by hisher Creator.

    • doldrom
      December 16, 2019 at 7:50 am

      »»» Doubled comment, browser stuttering «««

  4. doldrom
    December 16, 2019 at 7:49 am

    O what historical significance are the mundane travails of a few working class nobs compared to the glorious historical vistas of the heroes vanquishing humanity’s last frontier, rising above the banal dictates of biology and sex, creatively fashioning genders of their own making? Finally mankind is venturing beyond the tutelage imposed by nature and divining hisher own being, beyond the corporal bounds circumscribed by hisher Creator.

    • P Ray
      December 16, 2019 at 8:19 am

      You only need over 2 minutes extra in your life for every speech (at least for the first 60, BBC says there are over 100 genders):

      • Jarien21
        December 17, 2019 at 4:14 am

        It’s a pretty interesting political trick: list off every member to create the illusion that they’re more numerous than they actually are.

        It’s just that these political games the progressive parties are playing are the same games that are turning off the majority of people they need to vote for them.

      • Jarien21
        December 18, 2019 at 3:54 am

        Ah, I had the video wrong. I had no idea that he was mocking the idea of genders.

        Still, the fact that a progressive could have said the same thing verbatim, in a serious effort to list include all people, is telling of modern day politics. This is a game on both sides.

        In that sense, it’s not really two sides of the same coin. It’s how you interpret the hole in the center of a counterfeit.

    • plus d'un cafard
      January 17, 2020 at 11:54 am

      Gnosticism all over again, complete with castrate cults.

  5. Jarien21
    December 16, 2019 at 3:04 pm

    “How is a white guy who has worked in a slew of precarious and poorly paid jobs for his entire working life supposed to be privileged?”

    Once White people realize that their privilege goes much deeper than economic security (such as simply being given the benefit of the doubt in most social situations), they’ll start understanding how much better they have it. So much so that realizing how much they can simply live without being pestered over much other petty stuff would blow their minds, and rightly so give them a mild existential crisis.

    But that’s just an aside. Your post gets it. But it only begs the question: why are these so called “progressive parties” taking on such socially disconnected stances? That’s not a fault of what you wrote AD, it’s a genuine conundrum.

    I’m not MGTOW, but those guys raise a big point about fear of alimony, the dangers of divorce court and just being raked over the coals by a false accusation. So while the culture is promoting males transitioning into women, females are screwing over “cis-men” aka “men born as males” (a superfluous distinction at best). That system is broken and no one on either side is talking about it.

    “See.. the thing is, the vast majority of people understand that the current system is shitty and incapable of substantive reform. They just want to burn down the whole thing and will go along with whoever promises that particular course of action.”

    For the most part, yes. But this is where a distinction needs to be made. You’re right that the vast majority of people that understand this. HOWEVER, of those people there comes a certain narcissistic mindset. It’s based on culture, and not in an alt-right “racial” sense. More so individualistic and “collectivists”. Any culture that attempts to shun narcissistic behavior might not be completely healthy, but it will less likely lead to cult of personalities like Obama or Trump.

    Consider East Asian cultures. Their culture isn’t nearly as narcissistic as ours, so they don’t have the revenge at all cost mentality that is killing Western societies. Change happens over there, but they’re more reluctant to adopt the radically different proposals. So they will actually be skeptical and even “nickle and dime” proposals to make sure everything is squared away. They want to make sure they aren’t getting screwed, as well as their friends and families. All humans have their irrationalities, but in that part of the world, they understand that screwing people over in a free-fall would spell their doom.

    Western countries are too individualistic to care about that, though.

    Are people suffering the same traditionally stupid decisions as their forefathers just to maintain the status quo? Absolutely. Are populations decreasing over there? Yes. Is social atomization taking root at an almost rapid pace? Seems like it. Will Japan/China/Korea have their Trump? Not likely. For better or worse, they understand the guy claiming to burn the whole house down isn’t going to make sure everyone’s evacuated, so to speak.

    With face saving comes a lot less narcissism, or at least just not the narcissism you see in Anglo dominated countries.

    • emery
      December 18, 2019 at 2:14 pm

      You are incorrect on too many points to fully address. I will make an attempt to present a few counterpoints.
      “Once White people realize that their privilege goes much deeper than economic security (such as simply being given the benefit of the doubt in most social situations), they’ll start understanding how much better they have it. So much so that realizing how much they can simply live without being pestered over much other petty stuff would blow their minds, and rightly so give them a mild existential crisis.”

      The concept of ‘privilege’ is a necessary condition in any society that has citizens and the vaguely worded way you define it here is one of the big lies used to bludgeon the heritage citizens of the United States. ‘given the benefit of the doubt’? The US was founded and has primarily been a nation of white people – to give an example of how absurd your statement is imagine going to an African shithole and telling the natives that they are privileged because they are … given the benefit of the doubt over outsiders? Citizens, ideally heritage citizens, get goodies over outsiders in exchange for additional responsibilities (such as taxes). Incidentally the same sort of exchange is supposed to take place between rulers and peasantry but the ruler class has been so abusive and, worst of all, not fulfilling of their promises for stability safety etc that Trump supporters would like a reshuffle of the whole deal.

      And in regards to narcissism, East Asia and saving face: Saving face is about protecting your reputation over all and naturally lends itself to narcissism. The comparison to the East Asias is startling in how un-apt it is for your point. For example in China you might actually, seriously, get put in a van and dissapeared for putting up posters of president Xi as Winnie the Poo. Comparing that to the US where you can mock Hilary or Trump as much as you please, even making murals of them eating shit or being penises, as long as you don’t connect the rulership to any concrete crimes. People’s social self-protective instinct is so strong in China the government publicly gave an award to someone who DIDN’T run over someone into roadkill to try and get people to do it less.

      South Korea had a literal cult member who worshipped a goddess in charge and deposed and they’re still trying to purge insane cultists who are true narcissists, North Korea has an absolute dictator who is a god to the peasants. WTF are you on saying East Asia doesn’t have narcissism.

      “Western countries are too individualistic to care about that, though.”

      You are absolutely correct on this point. Any perceived success of the Asias comes through their solidarity of ‘us’ vs ‘them’, which is what is currently missing in the US. Your spouting of ‘privilege’ is such an insult because it’s been a big tool in disarming heritage US’s sense of solidarity, yet here you are proposing it as a solution to a problem that didn’t exist until that sense of solidarity got shattered during the boomer era! And you don’t even see that ‘privilege’ as you define it is both more rampant and yet more key to the national success of the stronger asian nations.

      • Jarien21
        December 18, 2019 at 4:38 pm

        @Emery

        You haven’t actually countered anything I’ve said. Perhaps you aren’t aware of what point I was trying to make. It is pretty clear: white privilege isn’t just based in economics or financial security.
        If anything, you actually make my point when you say that white people have privileged.

        Yet, there is an insult when I mention whites have privilege others don’t have based on their race? White privilege can’t stay an open secret for long, before others start to call it out and question why it has to stay that way at their expense. Just like most Anglo-dominated countries won’t stay majority white for long either…

        When you say:

        “Saving face is about protecting your reputation over all and naturally lends itself to narcissism.”

        Yep, it can. That’s why I say:

        “With face saving comes a lot less narcissism, or at least just not the narcissism you see in Anglo dominated countries.”

        Let me explain. East Asia might have a different type of narcissism than Anglo dominated countries. I didn’t say there isn’t any type narcissism with saving face. I say “a lot less” which implies “not as much as”. That implies “some”, not “none”.

        I also say:

        “Their culture isn’t nearly as narcissistic as ours, so they don’t have the revenge at all cost mentality that is killing Western societies.”

        I say “isn’t nearly as” to show that they are “less” narcissistic than us. That being, if they are narcissistic, they are not “as” narcissistic as us, or “at least” not in the same way as Western societies.

        Even here, you haven’t proved me incorrect.

        You say:

        “For example in China you might actually, seriously, get put in a van and dissapeared for putting up posters of president Xi as Winnie the Poo.”

        That’s terrible. And there’s a certain level of narcissism that goes with the face saving to provide a strong government image.

        But is President Xi Jinping “like Trump”? No, he’s still a card carrying Communist Party member, who essentially is still taking orders from the communist leaders before him. That’s what I mean when I say:

        “Will Japan/China/Korea have their Trump? Not likely.”

        It’s not about Communism. It’s about the status quo. Trump at least pretends to go against the status quo. Most countries in East Asia, as they are now, will shun someone like who even pretends to go against the status quo, like Trump is doing.

        So far, you haven’t actually provided any counterpoints which illustrate where I am incorrect. But with all that I’ve wrote, perhaps there is more clarification which will lead to a better understanding of what was written.

      • emery
        December 19, 2019 at 8:04 am

        @Jarien21
        “Yet, there is an insult when I mention whites have privilege others don’t have based on their race? White privilege can’t stay an open secret for long, before others start to call it out and question why it has to stay that way at their expense. Just like most Anglo-dominated countries won’t stay majority white for long either…”

        You get so close to the point and miss it somehow. You acknowledged that the ‘white privilege’ is a function of majority white nations, yet don’t make the connection that ‘privilege’ is a function of heritage citizenship! You literally cannot have a distinct nation without it, Mexicans have Mexican privilege in their home countries, Chinese have Chinese privilege in China, etc. Why would it need to be something ‘called out’ as if you could have a nation without citizenship privilege? It is a logical impossibility and only serves to erode the US national sovereignty.

        “Let me explain. East Asia might have a different type of narcissism than Anglo dominated countries. I didn’t say there isn’t any type narcissism with saving face. I say “a lot less” which implies “not as much as”. That implies “some”, not “none”.”

        You have not shown that they have ‘less’. In what universe is having actual god(dess) emperor rulers who rule by divine right passed down through blood or the decree of a goddess less narcissistic than having President Trump? How is having a citizenry that has a casual disregard for human life less narcissistic than the western degenerates?

        [“But is President Xi Jinping “like Trump”? No, he’s still a card carrying Communist Party member, who essentially is still taking orders from the communist leaders before him. That’s what I mean when I say:

        “Will Japan/China/Korea have their Trump? Not likely.”

        It’s not about Communism. It’s about the status quo. Trump at least pretends to go against the status quo. Most countries in East Asia, as they are now, will shun someone like who even pretends to go against the status quo, like Trump is doing.”]

        You should really stop talking about the East Asian nations if you don’t know what’s going on over there. Xi declared himself president for life in 2018, there are no more elections, Xi answers to no one. There were even rumors that this is the end result of Xi struggling for supremacy over the nominal ‘communist leaders’. You and I will never know the truth since we’re too far removed but Xi is more of a nationalist dictator than Trump ever was.

      • Jarien21
        December 19, 2019 at 8:25 am

        Also @ Emery

        You say:

        “The concept of ‘privilege’ is a necessary condition in any society that has citizens and the vaguely worded way you define it here is one of the big lies used to bludgeon the heritage citizens of the United States.”

        So, privilege is essential, just not the way I define it. Well, you actually agree that it is the way I define immediately afterwards, when you say:

        “to give an example of how absurd your statement is imagine going to an African shithole and telling the natives that they are privileged because they are … given the benefit of the doubt over outsiders?”

        Implying that they should be given the benefit of the doubt because they are native to the country.

        In order words, citizens, in your mind, are given the benefit of the doubt. Which means the way I define it isn’t a lie. Are they given the benefit of the doubt? Yes. Should they? Well, that’s another question altogether. But if you are a citizen of the US, no one should be given more privilege over another due to race, sex, religion, etc. Of course, you say:

        “Citizens, ideally heritage citizens, get goodies over outsiders in exchange for additional responsibilities (such as taxes).”

        There is no such recognized term as a “heritage citizens”. That’s a made up phrase. Every citizen has a heritage, so what you’re saying is redundant.

        When you include the word “heritage”, it sounds like you want to say whites are the only type of citizens that deserve privilege in Western countries. White people aren’t the only ones with a heritage. Creating a country doesn’t give you the only heritage in that country. You must not know what the word “heritage” means. I suggest you read this:

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

        You will find that none of the links agree with you, especially the links you think will make your point. Whatever your point is, you have not made a well formulated one.

        To recap, you have not made a point. You have not provided a counter to anything I have written. Your post was, at best, a superfluous ramble disagreeing with nothing I’ve said, while at the same time providing nonsense to things I don’t even touch.

        Emery, you sound confused as best.

        I suggest you read this link below, so that the next time you have an objection to what I write, you can know what you’re talking about:

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

      • Jarien21
        December 19, 2019 at 8:47 am

        “You have not shown that they have ‘less’.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2287670

        https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/124377

        We have cults in the West too. The studies show that East Asians are still lesser on the narcissism scale.

        “You should really stop talking about the East Asian nations if you don’t know what’s going on over there. Xi declared himself president for life in 2018, there are no more elections, Xi answers to no one. There were even rumors that this is the end result of Xi struggling for supremacy over the nominal ‘communist leaders’.”

        He’s still essentially following the Communist doctrine before him. Maybe he’s not directly taking orders from Mao, seeing that Mao is dead and all.

        I’ll try to be more clear for you in the future. By the way:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

        Also:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidium_of_the_National_People%27s_Congress

        Or do you not know how China operates? Don’t worry, I had to look it up to make sure it validated my overall point. It does for mine.

        China has checks and balances, so yes even though President Xi Jinping is “president for life”, he still can’t do whatever he wants:

        https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2115497/chinas-political-system-has-effective-checks-power-even-xi

        And that’s just China. We haven’t gotten to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. All distinct governance.

        I look forward to your next counterpoint.

      • Yusef
        December 19, 2019 at 11:04 am

        You acknowledged that the ‘white privilege’ is a function of majority white nations, yet don’t make the connection that ‘privilege’ is a function of heritage citizenship! You literally cannot have a distinct nation without it, Mexicans have Mexican privilege in their home countries, Chinese have Chinese privilege in China, etc.

        I think you may be confusing the concepts of privilege and of right and what it means to be a citizen. Also– and I am trying mirror back to you what I see in what you’ve written– whether the advantages of having been in a place longest are or should be preserved.

        No citizen in a democracy is supposed to be privileged over any other citizen in that democracy. That kind of privilege is supposed to have been eradicated with the eradication of aristocracy. Citizens are supposed to be equal with each other. A mayor or a governor, a senator or a president is not supposed to be privileged over other citizens. They’re endowed with a temporary position by their fellow citizens who should be able to also take that position away again to give to another citizen. Those people are absolutely not supposed to have rights other citizens do not have nor are they supposed to be above the law, as they would be if they were privileged. Compare any of this with a King or a Queen in a monarchy.

        What you call heritage citizens aren’t supposed to have any more rights than recently naturalized citizens. There’s no doubt there are advantages to growing up in a nation and having family going back there in time, There shouldn’t be factitious barriers to newer citizens acquiring these advantages too, in their time. If there are such barriers then the heritage citizens could be said to be privileged but these would actually be illegal in our democracy and that’s a good thing.

        Mexicans have Mexican citizenship, Chinese have Chinese citizenship and so on. I couldn’t function very well in China because I don’t speak Chinese. If I naturalized to China I wouldn’t suddenly speak Chinese any better than before naturalization. I’d be subject to Chinese laws, though, and no longer protected by US laws. None of this has anything to do with privilege.

      • doldrom
        December 19, 2019 at 2:41 pm

        Eradicated aristocracy? Aristocracy is rule by the best. That’s why we hold elections, to elect the best. Aristocracy is a similar concept to meritocracy. The founding fathers took great pains to found a republic (aristocracy) and were afraid of mob rule (democracy), that’s why there’s a senate and an electoral college. You sound confused.

      • emery
        December 19, 2019 at 3:40 pm

        @yusef
        [“No citizen in a democracy is supposed to be privileged over any other citizen in that democracy. That kind of privilege is supposed to have been eradicated with the eradication of aristocracy. Citizens are supposed to be equal with each other. A mayor or a governor, a senator or a president is not supposed to be privileged over other citizens. They’re endowed with a temporary position by their fellow citizens who should be able to also take that position away again to give to another citizen. Those people are absolutely not supposed to have rights other citizens do not have nor are they supposed to be above the law, as they would be if they were privileged. Compare any of this with a King or a Queen in a monarchy.

        What you call heritage citizens aren’t supposed to have any more rights than recently naturalized citizens. There’s no doubt there are advantages to growing up in a nation and having family going back there in time, There shouldn’t be factitious barriers to newer citizens acquiring these advantages too, in their time. If there are such barriers then the heritage citizens could be said to be privileged but these would actually be illegal in our democracy and that’s a good thing.”]

        You bring up a very good point that before the law all are supposed to be equal. It’s beautiful, noble, virtuous and the dream of many to have people judged by their actions and merits without titles or blood. However in practice the rulership class have their own set of laws they live by and it goes downhill from there in many more separate spectrum pieces. Humans create hierarchy despite any social system, usually descending into blood and bone nepotism in any case.

        This is a hypothesis I’m making, not something certain, but it reflects the fact that no human (as in run by human hearts and minds) society can have a truly blind system of justice. Throughout most of human history closed borders and distrust of outsiders is the norm and open borders, along with the concept of law applied equally to a Jew Muslim Christian Atheist White Black Chinese that necessarily comes with it, is an aberration and even worse links directly with the downfall of the society that tries it. Consistently.

        The assertion changes from ‘heritage citizens should not be treated better than neo citizens’ to ‘a citizen is necessarily a heritage citizen’. The failure of every blind justice neo-citizen program is like the failure to raise dogs as cats and wondering why the system is unsustainable – it simply doesn’t work by definition. Neo-citizen is a category error like dog-cat.

        [“Mexicans have Mexican citizenship, Chinese have Chinese citizenship and so on. I couldn’t function very well in China because I don’t speak Chinese. If I naturalized to China I wouldn’t suddenly speak Chinese any better than before naturalization. I’d be subject to Chinese laws, though, and no longer protected by US laws. None of this has anything to do with privilege.”]

        If you will allow an anecdote: in China if there is a legal dispute between a Chinese national and a foreign white guy the cops side with the Chinese guy without question, law be damned, unless you have a ton of bribe money or influence. A chinese man can walk up and beat your dog to death while you’re walking it and, if you’re a foreign ex-pat, the police will simply ignore your complaints. It’s not codified in law like Jim Crow (at least Jim Crow was straightforward about it) and it’s definitely a fit for the term ‘Chinese Privilege’. Language comprehension has nothing to do with it, though if you can’t speak it certainly doesn’t help.

        If you go to Mexico and look like a white man your prices for goods and services will be higher. It’s not listed in any books and isn’t any law, they simply decide that since you’re not one of them you have to pay more money.

        In Egypt a foreigner got raped and murdered in a hotel and the government tried its damnedest to cover it up in favor of the Egpytion national. Some of it was to preserve the tourist friendly image, but if it was a tourist killing Egyptians the response from the police would be fast and brutal instead of trying to hide it.

        Heritage privilege is the norm. Any attempt to do otherwise, no matter now noble, fails under its own internal contradictions. ‘Why’ is a whole other mess of free loaders, ethnic self interest, bribery and organizational capture, etc.

      • Yusef
        December 19, 2019 at 8:53 pm

        “Eradicated aristocracy? Aristocracy is rule by the best. That’s why we hold elections, to elect the best. Aristocracy is a similar concept to meritocracy. The founding fathers took great pains to found a republic (aristocracy) and were afraid of mob rule (democracy), that’s why there’s a senate and an electoral college. You sound confused.”

        There weren’t elections in aristocracies. Aristocrats were considered the best, not because they won elections, but because of their bloodlines. They were born the best based on the family they were born into. Where did you get the idea aristocrats were elected?

        Aristocracy has as far as I know nothing whatsoever to do with meritocracy. An aristocrat didn’t rise through the ranks based on merit: aristocrats are born at the top. Do you really believe Kings and Queens were born commoners and through their recognized merit came to be elevated from commoner to King or Queen? Let’s look to Britain or you take your pick elsewhere. Prince Charles…. He’s the best, a prince, based on his merits? Which ones? From the earliest age the guy has suffered scorn and shame, a lot of it undeserved, but certainly if he hadn’t been born to the royal family in the first place he had and has all the familiar markings of a loser. Period.

        Republic and aristocracy are also not the same thing. You have a great point if you contrast the concept of republic with democracy, but if you do what you just did and say republics are aristocracies, you’ve got nothing. We can look at the current rosters of US senators if you like. Which ones are the best? (Better than the rest?) If you name some senators, please also describe their superiority, as you see it. Please base their superiority to any mental retard celebrities, if you will. It has to be based on honor and virtue. If you use “credential” instead…. Well, you have enormous company there, indeed.

      • emery
        December 20, 2019 at 10:06 am

        @Yusef
        “Aristocracy has as far as I know nothing whatsoever to do with meritocracy. An aristocrat didn’t rise through the ranks based on merit: aristocrats are born at the top. ”

        The theory is supposed to be that aristocrats are raised from birth to fulfill the role of rulership, so they’d be good at it. Similar to how if you raised a man to be an electrician for 20 years from birth he would be a better electrician than some layman. In practice…ehh….not so much.

        @Jarien21
        “We have cults in the West too. The studies show that East Asians are still lesser on the narcissism scale.”

        Do the cults openly rule the government? My point was never your strawman that the west doesn’t have cults. I will concede that it’s as bad in the US if Hilary’s satanic/spirit cooking rumors end up being true, of course. I was directly responding to at least two of your statements:

        [All humans have their irrationalities, but in that part of the world, they understand that screwing people over in a free-fall would spell their doom.

        Will Japan/China/Korea have their Trump? Not likely.]

        The existence of cult-presidents and deity rulers who rule by personal whim and goals over the welfare of their people defies your assertions.

        As for your studies the first looks at college students, presumably in the west, and the second is about second generation asians also presumably in the west. Shall I extrapolate on how Mexico’s cartel government runs based on the children of people who have moved to California, who have never seen nor set foot in their parent’s homeland? There are so many problems with doing such a thing that it would be a whole other post. I don’t even know why you presented them except you thought I wouldn’t look at them.

        To make it even more straightforward the East Asians are not uniquely less narcissistic in a manner that spares them from the problems facing the West. Any avoidance of Western style decline comes from tribal loyalties (race, religion, those sorts of things) still being strong there while they are very weak in the west.

        “China has checks and balances, so yes even though President Xi Jinping is “president for life”, he still can’t do whatever he wants:”

        Your article comes from the South China Morning Post, owned by Alibaba. It is an unreliable source, to say the least, for critiquing the Chinese Government. It would be more fruitful to look for criticism of the Deep State from the New York Times. The reason I said you and I will never know the full truth about the matter is for the same reason it was hard to get news about life beyond the Iron Curtain in the Soviet heyday. Unless you can talk to actual people there it’s mostly smoke and mirrors.

        Since you may be interested, I will present some wordbites for those other places.
        Japan: Rulership mostly descends from the old imperial rulers, ‘free’ elections are a sham much like in the West with our Bush and Clinton dynasties, maybe worse
        South Korea: Goddess Cult keyword Megalia
        North Korea: God Emperor
        Taiwan: Old survivors of Chinese communist government purge

        They’re not that different in terms of level of corruption, and certainly not in terms of heritage ‘privilege’. If the term heritage is disagreeable to you then use the word blood, family, kinsmen, clan, native stock, whatever floats your boat.

      • Yusef
        December 20, 2019 at 10:36 am

        Emery, it looks as if your attempt to bring clarity and logic to these complex issues fails, in my opinion, due to some conceptual confusion. I agree with Jarien such ideas as “heritage citizen” are not very useful and I think they are messing you up.

        This seems like a good example:

        “The assertion changes from ‘heritage citizens should not be treated better than neo citizens’ to ‘a citizen is necessarily a heritage citizen’. The failure of every blind justice neo-citizen program is like the failure to raise dogs as cats and wondering why the system is unsustainable – it simply doesn’t work by definition. Neo-citizen is a category error like dog-cat.”

        What I think you’re criticizing when you say “a citizen is necessarily a heritage citizen” is the governmental attempt, through the justice system and other branches of government, to extend everything citizens of long standing have earned through effort and sacrifice on the behalf of a nation to those who haven’t contributed much or anything to the nation because they just arrived.

        You are using the term “neo-citizen” which contains the word “citizen” so I assume you are confining your discussion to citizens, those who are here through proper legal channels and naturalized through them also, and not people who are here illegally.

        If someone has obtained citizenship through proper legal channels, it means a decision has been made they have something substantial to contribute to this society and will not become a burden or criminal, In return they are actually guaranteed certain kinds of treatment such as, in the US, equal protection under the law. It can’t be people immigrate to the US just to enjoy Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms and do wish at least for the opportunity for prosperity. We have to give them that, don’t we? We also have to say that within our competitive economic arrangements if they are the winners, they are the winners and too bad to the “heritage citizens” who didn’t play the current game well.

        I think this way, but as far as the neo-s getting advantages? No, I don’t favor that so maybe we have agreement. Part of the problem, though, is what’s an unfair govt given advantage. Take the case of access to quality education for black Americans. (Heritage citizens, right?) They were excluded so did they have opportunity for economic advancement? Yet it was argued giving them access to higher education privileged them. They hadn’t earned that access. (See, it was a perversion of the meaning of the word privilege.)

      • emery
        December 20, 2019 at 2:02 pm

        @Yusef
        You do identify the fundamental conflict, heritage citizen vs the idea of any other sort (besides 2nd class citizens and down). My assertion, and it’s not a common one, is that a necessary (not sufficient) condition for a strong nation is when the important majority are of a single stock. When it is watered down or subverted the nation weakens then fails to some future stressor. To put it down to as few words as I can manage: Trust requires sameness. If one does not accept that premise then everything else I’ve said is rightly tossed out.

        “If someone has obtained citizenship through proper legal channels, it means a decision has been made they have something substantial to contribute to this society and will not become a burden or criminal, In return they are actually guaranteed certain kinds of treatment such as, in the US, equal protection under the law. It can’t be people immigrate to the US just to enjoy Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms and do wish at least for the opportunity for prosperity. We have to give them that, don’t we? We also have to say that within our competitive economic arrangements if they are the winners, they are the winners and too bad to the “heritage citizens” who didn’t play the current game well.”

        You would be an ideal US citizen and lawmaker in the 60s and I salute your noble view of humans. Unfortunately time has shown that most people do not believe in your idea that citizenship means not being a criminal, not being a burden, not showing up to freeload, not subverting the US institutions in favor of your own tribe, etc. In short only white Americans, truly in their heart, believed as you do and when you get a bunch of people of like mind together you end up with the American high trust Juggernaut.

        Americans didn’t ‘have’ to give outsiders any opportunities and, until the last half century-near full century, did not see any need to. Isolationism and avoidance of foreign entanglements was a founder warning from the beginning, loosely followed as it has been.

        “Part of the problem, though, is what’s an unfair govt given advantage. Take the case of access to quality education for black Americans…”

        Yes, the government is a big player. The right to free association may have been enough to keep america going for another 50 years but police come by and gun you down for that now. What is happening now is that battle lines have been drawn and different tribes are at war inside the US. Turf war. To speak of black americans specifically the ideal solution would have been to send them all back to Africa to the slavers who enslaved them, as Lincoln desired. Second place would be an assimilation but we clearly see that the black population does not want it in 2019, they want their own piece of the pie for themselves.

        “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.” has changed to “BLACK lives matter”.

        ““It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.”” has become “Pigs in a blanket fry ’em like bacon.”

        Welp, back to tribalism we go.

      • doldrom
        December 20, 2019 at 3:13 pm

        @Yusef Aristocracies don’t hold elections. Untrue. Elections are simply the selection mechanism. Inheritance is another selection mechanism (Bush Jr, Clinton wife, etc.). War prowess is another. But in Athenian democracy, they decided that electing the best meant you were ruled by the people who most love power. So they decided to nominate people by random selection. The term democracy was pejorative, dems referred to the country hicks that made it into the councils of power.
        Up until the time of Rousseau, the literature unanimously considers a system with elections to be an aristocracy. In modern times the term democracy has been assimilated by political parties and the powers that be.
        Want to break the control of big money over politics? Elect representatives by random selection.

      • Yusef
        December 21, 2019 at 9:35 am

        Doldrom,

        “Up until the time of Rousseau, the literature unanimously considers a system with elections to be an aristocracy.”

        Please provide a few specific citations of the literature which unanimously considers a system with elections to be an aristocracy.

        I think your error may be in believing because elections were held in countries governed by aristocracies, e.g. England’s House of Commons, the aristocracies themselves were chosen by elections. This is just not true. The aristocrats sitting in the House of Lords may have been forced to listen to what the House of Commons had to say, and the powers of the monarch may have been checked to some extent by this arrangement, but the power of say so and decision wasn’t really shared and if there was serious disagreement and the commoners didn’t succeed in chopping off the monarch’s head, the commoners had to sit there and suck it up no matter how unjust or stupid and destructive. In other words, serious disagreements were not resolved through elections, nor was power generally distributed through elections.

        I got some hint of this thinking when you claimed senators were aristocrats. I think it is true the U.S.’s bicameral house of representatives and senate is modeled on Britain’s House of Commons and House of Lords, and that the senate play the role of the House of Lords and this has tended to tilt the American democracy to the favor of the wealthy citizens and in effect creates a system of privilege negating the system of rights, but this doesn’t mean senators are thereby aristocrats. Are they de facto aristocrats? I think we very well may see them become so in the future because we may also see neo-feudalism.

        “In modern times the term democracy has been assimilated by political parties and the powers that be.
        Want to break the control of big money over politics? Elect representatives by random selection.”

        I don’t see what would prevent big money from subverting that , too.

      • Yusef
        December 22, 2019 at 9:24 am

        Emery,

        This has to be a clue to our misunderstandings:

        You would be an ideal US citizen and lawmaker in the 60s and I salute your noble view of humans. Unfortunately time has shown that most people do not believe in your idea that citizenship means not being a criminal, not being a burden, not showing up to freeload, not subverting the US institutions in favor of your own tribe, etc.

        I haven’t been referencing or even thinking of the ’60s in what I’ve been saying. Probably the most succinct way to reference what I’ve been trying to get across are the ideas of the historical Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. These thinkers provided the ideas upon the basis of which eighteenth century white Americans attempted to form “a more perfect union.”

        It is obvious these white Americans didn’t actually intend to share power and authority with more recent arrivals and I would say they never did, even now (or in the 60s.)

        In my opinion there was a period of time where the more recent arrivals got a piece of the pie, and as the pie grew larger, that little piece of the pie got larger, even though its percentage of the total pie never increased.

        Since the seventies, however, the percentage of their pie has been chipped away at (vacation time, health benefits, pensions, quality of education, and very little sharing of the vast increases of national wealth all going to “the one percent.”)

        It has reached a threshold of misery demanding action and none is forthcoming. Why none is forthcoming is the topic of discussion here.

  6. Gern Blandersong
    December 18, 2019 at 11:40 am

    The current crop of progressives around the world hate patriotism and display a contempt for their own countries. The Labour party displayed their contempt and hate for Britain by opposing Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn displays his hate for Britain by refusing to sing his national anthem and supporting known enemies of Britian. In America, we have our progressive institutions banning American Flags, and banning patriotism. The NFL, the NBA and whoever else will applause when their athletes kneel during the national anthem, however they will chastise and censor any athletes who would kneel in support of the Hong Kong protesters. They hate America, but love China.

  7. Jack Sparrow
    December 20, 2019 at 2:02 am

    This post is so different from the previous posts by the AD who would not admit that SJW, Leftist, Progressive propaganda had infiltrated the whole Democratic Socialist movement. AD wouldn’t even admit to it that Bernie Sanders had turned into the scrooge of the far Left SJW trash. I mean, look at his endorsement – the SQUAD!
    It’s funny to see the AD finally admit it that the social democrats / democrat socialists have destroyed any meaning with their useless wokeness! Nationalism and America First is the way forwarded. And I don’t mean MAGA – Trump is a buffoon. I mean real conservatism – close the borders, enforce our immigration laws, no more H-1B visas, no more corporatism, wealth tax, etc.

  8. P Ray
    March 25, 2020 at 8:47 pm

    Tell me something.. in a country where more than half the people are struggling to survive from paycheck to paycheck (both USA and UK), how is supporting thetransexual agenda going to get the majority to support them. This is especially relevant since many people rightly see promotion of that agenda as an attempt to interfere in their personal lives and make them say ‘2+2=5’. How is blind support of the most delusionary parts of white woman feminism a winning strategy when a lot of men (white and non-white) have shitty jobs or often nothing going for them? How is a white guy who has worked in a slew of precarious and poorly paid jobs for his entire working life supposed to be privileged? How many times can you tell men who have lost their house in a divorce that they deserved that fate? How often can you tell men that they are irredeemable sexist pigs? And just how do you expect those who you sneer at, look down and belittle on a daily basis to vote for you come election day?

    Well … those men send a message in their own way. Like this:
    https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-03-16/mississippi-judge-shot-critically-wounded-near-courthouse
    Mississippi Judge Shot, Critically Wounded Near Courthouse
    Police say a judge has been shot and critically wounded outside a courthouse in Mississippi.
    By Associated Press, Wire Service Content March 16, 2020, at 3:13 p.m.
    More
    U.S. News & World Report
    Mississippi Judge Shot, Critically Wounded Near Courthouse

    More
    The Associated Press
    Police block off streets following the shooting of Lauderdale County Chancery Court Judge Charles Smith outside the Lauderdale County Courthouse, in Meridian, Miss., on Monday, March 16, 2020. Smith was shot and critically wounded in the parking lot outside the courthouse. (Dave Bohrer/The Meridian Star via AP) THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    MERIDIAN, MISS. (AP) — A judge has been shot and critically wounded outside a courthouse in Mississippi, police said.

    Chancery Judge Charlie Smith was shot Monday morning in the parking lot outside the Lauderdale County Courthouse in downtown Meridian, WTOK-TV reported.

    it would be ironic if he was smacked by a Smith & Wesson

    • P Ray
      March 26, 2020 at 12:12 am

      Somewhat related, the movie “Law Abiding Citizen” is a very good reminder the legal system is for the redressing the wrong suffered by the victim, not for the success of the lawyer.

  1. December 23, 2019 at 8:41 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: