They wont tho. It's up to Americans, but since people have to go to work to feed their kids, that's good enough reason to give away their futures to these psychopaths. "We can't rise up because if I get arrested my kids can't eat" crowd will be the first anti-MAGA's to report on other anti-MAGA's to protect themselves from MAGA, so either Americans have to capture these oligarchs themselves or continue holding signs above some sidewalk until they're arrested for barely attempting to make a difference. Or just admit to themselves they'd prefer fascism over a little bit of discomfort.
in4apenny
joined 2 months ago
I guess this is still preferable to protesting outside their mansions, for some reason? You might as well start going for their homes now, because if occupying a sidewalk and peaceful protest becomes a reason to be arrested then you can't protest anymore, right? What about your job and kids, your mortgage? They won't have a future if you go out and get arrested at a protest, so stay safe and stay docile.
Or, you might as well go all the way. No half measures, and all that.
But Americans have their 2nd ammendment and 11 guns per person. It's more likely they'd shoot their kids in school before turning the gun on themselves out of force of habit, before a dictatorial "solution" is implemented.
" It takes a strong effort on the part of each American Indian not to become Europeanized. The strength for this effort can only come from the traditional ways, the traditional values that our elders retain. It must come from the hoop, the four directions, the relations: it cannot come from the pages of a book or a thousand books. No European can ever teach a Lakota to be Lakota, a Hopi to be Hopi. A master’s degree in “Indian Studies” or in “education” or in anything else cannot make a person into a human being or provide knowledge into the traditional ways. It can only make you into a mental European, an outsider.
I should be clear about something here, because there seems to be some confusion about it. When I speak of Europeans or mental Europeans, I’m not allowing for false distinctions. I’m not saying that on the one hand there are the by-products of a few thousand years of genocidal, reactionary European intellectual development which is bad; and on the other hand there is some new revolutionary intellectual development which is good. I’m referring here to the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and “leftism” in general. I don’t believe these theories can be separated from the rest of the European intellectual tradition. It’s really just the same old song.
The process began much earlier. Newton, for example, “revolutionized” physics and the so-called natural science by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation.
Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these “thinkers” took a piece of the spirituality of human existence and converted it into a code, an abstraction. They picked up where Christianity ended: they “secularized” Christian religion, as the “scholars” like to say — and in doing so they made Europe more able and ready to act as an expansionist culture. Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer!.
This is what has come to be termed “efficiency” in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment — that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one — is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue. This is why “truth” changes so fast in the European mind; the answers which result from such a process are only stopgaps, only temporary, and must be continuously discarded in favor of new stopgaps which support the mechanical models and keep them (the models) alive.
Hegel and Marx were heirs to the thinking of Newton, Descartes, Locke and Smith. Hegel finished the process of secularizing theology — and that is put in his own terms — he secularized the religious thinking through which Europe understood the universe. Then Marx put Hegel’s philosophy in terms of “materialism,” which is to say that Marx despiritualized Hegel’s work altogether. Again, this is in Marx’ own terms. And this is now seen as the future revolutionary potential of Europe. Europeans may see this as revolutionary, But American Indians see it simply as still more of that same old European conflict between being and gaining. The intellectual roots of a new Marxist form of European imperialism lie in Marx’ — and his followers’ — links to the tradition of Newton, Hegel, and the others.
Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could. Part of that spiritual process was and is to give away wealth, to discard wealth in order not to gain. Material gain is an indicator of false status among traditional people, while it is “proof that the system works” to Europeans. Clearly, there are two completely opposing views at issue here, and Marxism is very far over to the other side from the American Indian view. But lets look at a major implication of this; it is not merely an intellectual debate.
The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person. And who seems most expert at dehumanizing other people? And why? Soldiers who have seen a lot of combat learn to do this to the enemy before going back into combat. Murderers do it before going out to commit murder. Nazi SS guards did it to concentration camp inmates. Cops do it. Corporation leaders do it to the workers they send into uranium mines and steel mills. Politicians do it to everyone in sight. And what the process has in common for each group doing the dehumanizing is that it makes it all right to kill and otherwise destroy other people. One of the Christian commandments says, “Thou shalt not kill,” at least not humans, so the trick is to mentally convert the victims into nonhumans. Then you can proclaim violation of your own commandment as a virtue.
In terms of the despiritualization of the universe, the mental process works so that it become virtuous to destroy the planet. Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here, the way victory and freedom are used to justify butchery in the dehumanization process. For example, a real-estate speculator may refer to “developing” a parcel of ground by opening a gravel quarry; development here means total, permanent destruction, with the earth itself removed. But European logic has gained a few tons of gravel with which more land can be “developed” through the construction of road beds. Ultimately, the whole universe is open — in the European view — to this sort of insanity.
Most important here, perhaps, is the fact that Europeans feel no sense of loss in this. After all, their philosophers have despiritualized reality, so there is no satisfaction (for them) to be gained in simply observing the wonder of a mountain or a lake or a people in being. No, satisfaction is measured in terms of gaining material. So the mountain becomes gravel, and the lake becomes coolant for a factory, and the people are rounded up for processing through the indoctrination mills Europeans like to call schools.
But each new piece of that “progress” ups the ante out in the real world. Take fuel for the industrial machine as an example. Little more than two centuries ago, nearly everyone used wood — a replenishable, natural item — as fuel for the very human needs of cooking and staying warm. Along came the Industrial Revolution and coal became the dominant fuel, as production became the social imperative for Europe. Pollution began to become a problem in the cities, and the earth was ripped open to provide coal whereas wood had simply been gathered or harvested at no great expense to the environment. Later, oil became the major fuel, as the technology of production was perfected through a series of scientific “revolutions.” Pollution increased dramatically, and nobody yet knows what the environmental costs of pumping all that oil out of the ground will really be in the long run. Now there’s an “energy crisis,” and uranium is becoming the dominant fuel.
Capitalists, at least, can be relied upon to develop uranium as fuel only at the rate at which they can show a good profit. That’s their ethic, and maybe that will buy some time. Marxists, on the other hand, can be relied upon to develop uranium fuel as rapidly as possible simply because it’s the most “efficient” production fuel available. That’s their ethic, and I fail to see where it’s preferable. Like I said, Marxism is right smack in the middle of the European tradition. It’s the same old song."
- Russel Means of the Lakota people (full speech)
It's really not though. The sky is blue, the earth is round, WW2 happened, and there was no so-called 'Agricultural Revolution' that mechanically led to urban development.
"Nah, I choose to believe otherwise." - Lath
I trust your papers as much as I trust the toilet paper in a public restroom. (Which is not at all, if you didn’t catch my drift.) …
So you're also a flat-earther, anti-vaccine, and anti-science? If you trust scientific data as little as toilet paper in a public restroom, and peer reviewed data, then you're clearly not interested in the pursuit for truth at all. So what are you arguing if not for your fairy tales? The thing about truth is it's uniting, they're agreed upon facts of reality determined by evidence and data, like forensics in a murder investigation. It allows us to not only understand what is happening in the world around us, but also set aside our differences and celebrate them. The mindset that will, as you say, never get along with others is those with the mindset that is against truth - aka you.
So I’ll stop here before I somehow manage to worsen my opinion.
It doesn't seem to take much.
Thanks for proving my point with such an "intelligent" take.
Yet they're still tricked into bombing brown kids over a WMD lie or for the religious act of patriotism. Doesn't sound very intelligent to me, it's like saying Oxford/Harvard educated math nerds making millions trading in high finance are smart because they think mathematical models of reality are more accurate than reality itself.
And many of the "smart" ones still think economic market models are more accurate than reality.
Nice theorycraft, but it’s just theory. In real life, it doesn’t work.
It's not "theorycraft" I provided scientific citations and evidence of it's basis in reality. You havent, and everything else you've written after this is unsourced theorycraft with no citations or evidence.
For one thing, by our own definitions, life is inherently evil. It takes, consumes, destroys, selfishly breaks down something else in order to sustain itself. We may rationalize it in different ways, but it can’t escape that attribute. And as long as an individual has to sustain themselves, they will have no choice but to commit evil. But we selectively view badly those who indulge themselves.
I see you're a right-winger Hobbesean, as that's what they believe - that human beings are brutish, warlike creatures that require a "better few" to monopolize the violence. Except that has no basis in reality, if that were true then everytime you see a natural disaster like a hurricane or flood and there's a societal and infrastructure collapse, you'd expect people to be raping and killing eachother en masse. Except that's not what human beings do, they come together and rebuild. You have a very pessimistic (and outright evil) point of view on human nature, and it's divorced from reality.
Accidents, logistics, incompetence, corruption and the like cannot be completely prevented. There will always be something beyond the calculated parameters that can and will eventually overwhelm a system.
So this is enough reason for you not to try and make things better for people? "It won't be perfect so we shouldn't try" what kind of braindead evil philosophy is that? What kind of lethargic devil are you?
And let’s not forget about the desire to control. Whether tyrants or the utopic society you’re implying for, it’s about control, whether to control oneself or all others. But is the mind that easily controlable and should it be? The desires we have and the willpower to pursue or restrain them aren’t that easily defined.
What about sharing food for the hungry and making sure people have a high quality standard of life considered "control"? YOU might want control and dominion, most people don't. And people who want control and dominion should be consciously removed from any sort of power, American Indians understood this notion (if you bothered to read the last link I posted you'd understand that) I provided evidence of societies that functioned without these mechanisms of control you so blindly worship, and you turn around and say "That didn't happen"? Do you realize how stupid that looks? Not trying to insult you, just pointing out what you look like by saying silly stuff like that.
We are not all of the same mind. Neurodiversity proves that people are different in thought and in feeling. The pursuits and responsibilities two different individuals can maintain for themselves over their lifetimes can go below or above the set standard and a civilization must take into account the satisfaction of its citizens in order to avoid its own downfall.
What? So you're simultaneously saying that "all minds are different" but that culture should "appeal to everyone"? What a confusing statement. Yes, there are many different minds, and a diverse community makes a strong community. I'm unsure of what you're trying to argue here.
Also, what was achieved in one society will likely not be accepted in another. So good luck expecting everyone, everywhere to accept a unitary system simply because it’s better. I sincerely have my doubts that anyone can succeed in that.
Who wants that? Who tries to do that except fascist autocratic totalitarianist cultures that fail every time? Again, a diverse community is a strong community, and cultures that welcome and celebrate differences do better than ones that fight against eachothers differences. Again, I'm confused what you're arguing for, what reality are you thinking of when saying stuff like this?
This all has to take into account the planet’s uneven geographical resources distribution as well. Our current production rates barely give a damn about sustainability. Soil nutrition, water consumption, population density, logistics and so on have to be taken into account, so this means population relocation, specialized production specific to regional conditions, limitations of product diversity and availability.
Tell me you know nothing about agriculture without telling me you know nothing about agriculture. Have you heard of rewildling projects happening all over the world? The dedesertification of Etheopia? Play-farming or lazy-farming? Are companies who drain the watertable and fill up peoples land with waste products to move them out to dig up uranium are considering soil nutrition, water consumption, population density, and logistics? What about trade networks, like moving a product from one place with resources to a place that doesnt have those resources? You realize that's how trade networks work, right? You also realize that money doesn't have to change hands for this process to work, right? Look up things like "gift economies" and how they predate money for milennia.
Anyway, what you want can’t be done and if it can be done, it can’t last because people aren’t static pieces of paper. A near-perfect distribution of basic needs requires a level of sacrifice and constant maintenance that we lack the willpower and stare of mind to accept responsibility for at this point in time.
But according to you, people ARE static pieces of paper who are all self-interested, warlike, dominion craving, power hungry fascists. Except they're also not? Which is it? Why does equal distribution of food and resources "require a level of sacrifice and constant maintenance that we lack the willpower" despite there being countless examples to the contrary, some of which I provided evidence for?
In conclusion you're cleary not coming from any evidence based perspective, you are of the dogmatic school of thought that capitalist like to preach to justify monopolizing violence. You're the type of person who wants violence and dominion, who thinks the way things currently are is the best way forward. It's very catholic, like the old medieval saying "If this is the way things are then this is how God wants them to be." What you don't realize is your mentality is not the majority, it's not "reality", but it's the minority, and history is constantly filled with stories of the masses overthrowing people with your mentality and flourishing because of it. Humanity moves forward when we reject these notions your spouting, because they're religious, dogmatic, and devoid of any evidence in reality. Take your pessimistic fairy tales elsewhere or come back with evidence to support your claims, like I provided evidence for mine. Otherwise I might as well be talking to a religious zealot, you're no different.
Instead, fill the streets in front of their offices, so neither they, nor (more importantly) their employees can get to work. It will piss off the other tenants in the building, the building owner, the buildings and businesses next door and across the street, etc. The message gets sent that it’s this Sociopathic Oligarch’s behavior that is causing all this trouble, and they’ll want him gone, too.
You're living in a fantasy world if you think people getting blocked on their way to work by protestors are going to blame the oligarchs and not the protestors, they get mad at the protestors every time. Literally zero of them go "Hey maybe they have a point" and skip work that day to join the rally. No, they go "Fucking hippies" and roll their eyes before laughing at them with their work colleagues and taking loyalty paychecks from the oligarchs that employ them. Rather than pissing off fellow workers in an attempt to convince them (which it famously doesn't) perhaps actually directing the attack towards the actual culprits. Again, it seems like everyone (and you) seem to try their best to figure out how NOT to go after the oligarchs, and that we should try every other roundabout idealistic mystical way instead.
It's a death cult. It's symbol is a half-naked tortured dying man being executed via nailed to a cross, took one look for me as a child to figure that out.