What's new

What Are You Listening to Right Now - Round 2

Seder counters dis-ingenuity with dis-ingenuity of his own. Who is Sam Seder again? where did he come from?...and why does he continue the notion of "top marginal tax rates" = be-all end-all (for some sort of correlation extrapolation) just because the MSM reporter is clearly uninformed and stupid on the exact same thing (as the MIT prof correctly pointed out the "devil is in the details")? ....any look into what AOC has brayed at any length on pretty much any subject clearly shows what kind of "devil in the details" is going to manifest as in her "plan"....as fundamentally immoral as it is in the first place (given govt has simply not approached, forget proving, realisation-wise anywhere close to what it has in the docket/extraction rate/deployment it has had ever since FDR and then LBJ ballooned it up....and wants to grab even more of the pie?....yeah no, not with the USSR having happened...and Venezuela happening right now, just to name two natural conclusions.)

I agree Davos is pretty stupid and limited superficial discussion in first palce....just like the globalist concept that Harper was talking about in first place. You dont really need an MIT professor (and there are other MIT professors btw who are pretty dumb/disingenuous too, that would not have fact checked that lady) to see that.

What does this have to do anyway with the globalist elite (incl Sam Seder's big employer) ignoring what the non-anywhere people are saying? In fact striking down Davos and other such "fora" for bigwig globalist anywhere elites (which the rest of the video proceeds to do, so I got bored and stopped) is pretty much agreeing with the notion in Harper's summary. Or were you agreeing with me?

I was pointing out that the global elite were not even listening; they think they know what's going on, when actually they are pointing to a very recent phenomenon and thinking, or mesmerising themselves to think that that is how they got to be the elite. And America became great in the first place.
 
I was pointing out that the global elite were not even listening; they think they know what's going on, when actually they are pointing to a very recent phenomenon and thinking, or mesmerising themselves to think that that is how they got to be the elite. And America became great in the first place.

OK, yes I agree!

Don't follow US politics much so can't comment on it :P

Yeah but there is stuff relevant for each country in the world. Listen to your people!...rather than just listen to yourself and only those that agree with you (i.e echo chamber).
 
Financing rebellious yanks? :P ...it wasn't so much a "smart" idea....rather quite necessary/understandable one by French.

By that point France already was kicked out of North America thanks to "seven years war" bro....which is painful chapter for Quebecois (long term) even today. @Vergennes In fact ...George Washington was loyal (though somewhat undisciplined) british army "redcoat" captain during several incidents that sparked the "Guerre de la Conquête" in the end.

US revolutionary help/assistance by France (incl. sending LaFayette over...and substantial French Naval assistance) was very much a payback to cut the British ego down to size...and set up their pant soiling later even more so at start of 19th century by the corsican "midget". :D Although French suffered as well for it given French revolution in the interim of that.

Root of the issue lies with snobbish British Ego, rather than French assistance :P US would have gotten its independence without the latter...just matter of time.

Concept of Canada (And making it great as I insinuate here, given the climax in the war of 1812) is quite different from earlier British North America (that included the 13 colonies)...which got painfully axed at by the British themselves full of their ego from 7 years war :P.

@Joe Shearer @Indus Pakistan
Not really if French didn't spend so much on foreign interference there would've been no revolution the heads of the elite would've remained intact :D
 
Not really if French didn't spend so much on foreign interference there would've been no revolution the heads of the elite would've remained intact :D

French (or any) nation = elite only? :D
 
OK, yes I agree!



Yeah but there is stuff relevant for each country in the world. Listen to your people!...rather than just listen to yourself and only those that agree with you (i.e echo chamber).

Heh.

I hear you.

Now let's get Modi to listen, although personally I think it's too late for that narcissist pack-leader of a thoroughly incompetent pack of bigots. It's not their economic or social conservatism that is worrying; those don't exist, except as stalking horses for their supporters based abroad, who have quite honestly seemingly lost their local contacts, hence have no connect to the pulse on the ground (unlovely phrase! If I had time, I'd have corrected it). It's their innate bigotry and determination to 'cleanse' society that drives them to seek power, and pick up for their purported manifesto those issues that energise the 'live somewhere', WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

It's the dishonesty. It's the incompetence to do anything other than their basic mission, to drive out the hated outsider. And even on that, they are mighty bunglers.

PS: You did pick up that, according to Harper, you are a 'live anywhere'?

Not really if French didn't spend so much on foreign interference there would've been no revolution the heads of the elite would've remained intact :D

It was too late for that. Trouble had been brewing much earlier. Just take a look at the latter-day military campaigns of the French under Louis XIV. They were fighting on a scale well beyond what they could afford.
 
Well the whole revolution was pretty much the rich vs the poor
You keep the poor fed they don't rebel and they don't chop yer head off :D

Well I am just saying whatever the cost was to the elite then in the end (and many did join the French revolutionary sides too to "better" steer all of that)....it was still the right move to help the US for greater interest of the French nation in the end...was not really smart/stupid...it just quite needed to be done....taking the opportunity afforded basically.

Somewhat ironically without (pre revolution) French elite reducing the british hold of north america so drastically....Napoleon couldn't have done what he did post-revolution to Europe (in fact he would not have risen to his station at all if some regular monarch was around and all the usual bureaucratic military "norms" back then...based on who rather than what)....and very nearly to the British too (if he didnt spread his approach so thin at the end...with his own ego heh).

PS: You did pick up that, according to Harper, you are a 'live anywhere'?

Yes...of course hah. This is why I straddle/juggle a few identities and try not to be oblivious to large groups of people as much I can. I listen a lot...a great deal more than I talk (which I reserve for just a few).

Its amazing what you can garner by simply listening...and nodding to agree where needed (whether you agree or not). People must be heard...fully and deeply. It is the essence of their existence coming out....no one should ever ignore it. Do it (ignoring/callous dismissal/echo chamber warmth only) enough to enough number of people, bad things for all follow inevitably.
 
Well I am just saying whatever the cost was to the elite then in the end (and many did join the French revolutionary sides too to "better" steer all of that)....it was still the right move to help the US for greater interest of the French nation in the end...was not really smart/stupid...it just quite needed to be done....taking the opportunity afforded basically.

Somewhat ironically without (pre revolution) French elite reducing the british hold of north america so drastically....Napoleon couldn't have done what he did post-revolution to Europe (in fact he would not have risen to his station at all if some regular monarch was around and all the usual bureaucratic military "norms" back then...based on who rather than what)....and very nearly to the British too (if he didnt spread his approach so thin at the end...with his own ego heh).



Yes...of course hah. This is why I straddle/juggle a few identities and try not to be oblivious to large groups of people as much I can. I listen a lot...a great deal more than I talk (which I reserve for just a few).

Its amazing what you can garner by simply listening...and nodding to agree where needed (whether you agree or not). People must be heard...fully and deeply. It is the essence of their existence coming out....no one should ever ignore it. Do it (ignoring/callous dismissal/echo chamber warmth only) enough to enough number of people, bad things for all follow inevitably.

That is a pretty good summary of the position of the left. That is also a pretty good summary of all that the right wishes would go away and stop bothering them as they wreck the planet, abstain from any engagement with poverty, and steer straight at the cliff, without brakes. The whole car stands to get wrecked, but the right will not give up control of the steering wheel.

Well I am just saying whatever the cost was to the elite then in the end (and many did join the French revolutionary sides too to "better" steer all of that)....it was still the right move to help the US for greater interest of the French nation in the end...was not really smart/stupid...it just quite needed to be done....taking the opportunity afforded basically.

Somewhat ironically without (pre revolution) French elite reducing the british hold of north america so drastically....Napoleon couldn't have done what he did post-revolution to Europe (in fact he would not have risen to his station at all if some regular monarch was around and all the usual bureaucratic military "norms" back then...based on who rather than what)....and very nearly to the British too (if he didnt spread his approach so thin at the end...with his own ego heh).



Yes...of course hah. This is why I straddle/juggle a few identities and try not to be oblivious to large groups of people as much I can. I listen a lot...a great deal more than I talk (which I reserve for just a few).

Its amazing what you can garner by simply listening...and nodding to agree where needed (whether you agree or not). People must be heard...fully and deeply. It is the essence of their existence coming out....no one should ever ignore it. Do it (ignoring/callous dismissal/echo chamber warmth only) enough to enough number of people, bad things for all follow inevitably.

Just to reiterate:

and pick up for their purported manifesto those issues that energise the 'live somewhere', WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

It's the dishonesty. It's the incompetence to do anything other than their basic mission, to drive out the hated outsider. And even on that, they are mighty bunglers.

'All the rest is bullshit....in my opinion.'

 
That is a pretty good summary of the position of the left. That is also a pretty good summary of all that the right wishes would go away and stop bothering them as they wreck the planet, abstain from any engagement with poverty, and steer straight at the cliff, without brakes. The whole car stands to get wrecked, but the right will not give up control of the steering wheel.

I don't agree. Left and Right monikers firstly are given by the very people who want to control the narrative and set up controlled opposition.

This is precisely why a huge number of earlier leftists have been driven underground by the in-vogue, politically correct, "assigned by the powers that be" lefties. They talk to me and others...even befriend us (as vociferously as we disagree on certain issues). Again the reality will come to light as much as is required, just like it did before nov 8th 2016 and right after it.

For example its largely agreed California is the most "progressive" "politically correct" kind of leftist brand in the US right now. One would imagine its huge big govt policies, replete with "tolerant, accept every opinion as equal" politicians that "seek full engagement with poverty" (to quote your label here) and everything else that gets fully cheery applause from the soma-induced populations of the brave new world over there.....would lead it to have the least poverty in the US.

But it has the biggest poverty (level, % and income gap) by far (exacerbated immensely by the middle class simply fleeing to other states which have much less draconian tax laws)....how strange is that?...and AOC (and her likes) wants to have that as the federal norm....Hugo Chavez style...because that totally worked out great in a massively oil surplus nation.

Right now as you read this, homeless, poor people in San Francisco (a sanctuary city, one which has Nancy Pelosi's constituency in it)...are openly defecating right in the downtown area each and every day (you can check the videos yourself if you don't believe me), used needles thrown in as freebies to step on too....and there is this ever-expanding thing more broadly in California called "tent cities". Look it all up...the media barely talks about it.

But you know who talks about it with me? Many Lefties do. The ones left behind by the politically correct, unthinking, emotional neo-liberals that call themselves as on the "left" these days. The ones that can only laugh (as they sear inside) when they see the former titans of their cause being totally perverted in use/context today by the neo-left.

Take Cesar Chavez, the avowed traditionalist leftie/socialist/democrat what have you. The guy that went about enforcing a crude vigilantism (which you can read about if you want) on what was supposed to be his fellow Mexicans/Latinos....because they had gotten into the US illegally and were stifling his trade union formations by undercutting the bargaining power of his leftist ideals (to stick it to the enterprises). If you read of all it....you would clearly know who he would have voted for this election cycle (and the next)...certainly would not be the democrats.

BUT.....get this....they (the democrats today) use his name for every single "outreach" to latino populations in CA and labelling of libraries/civic centres what have you etc....coz his name and neatly packaged identity as a democrat. :rofl::rofl::rofl: ...trust me you dont want to hear what one of my close leftist friends had to say about a recent opening of such a thing (i.e who was present at the opening and what they stood for compared to the ole Cesar).

Literally a guy that went around BURNING HOUSES/PROPERTY and BEATING up illegal mexicans (some say even lynching) so they would go the hell back to Mexico (and get in legally by the rule of law later...as decided upon by those already in CA and the US)....is now a clarion call of todays politically correct flavour of globalist open border democrat....because identity politics rules over any half-assed logic even. You literally cannot make this stuff up!

Each and every one of the true traditional leftists that have thought things over, have some basic consistency... and are not brainwashed chumps (given they knew the worst of it regarding the MSM/political windbags earlier when they were not on their side like they now have "switched" to and hijacked)...can have a productive discussion with me....anywhere, anytime. They are my friends and allies to the end...always have been, always will be.

Because they know my friend, what the democrat history is very fundamentally till it got its Saul Alinsky directioneering and requisite smoke and mirrors. It shows up every now and again if you look hard enough for the details and logical ends of the posturing.

But what can never be suppressed though, is the plantation complex that caused the democrats to veer away from their overt KKK roots to a more nuanced control of the voter groups. Every single major social policy they have right now...started under the KKK era...its just been repackaged to rely on people's laziness to read up history.

Just a few (parenthesis is what it originally was for the original democrats):

- Gun control (keeping guns away from the blacks)
- Abortion (eugenics to keep the black population down)
- Higher Taxation (destroy black enterprise formation)
- More immigration (more white immigration only, regardless of process/merit,..and policy suppression of any other sort)

These were all transmuted over time to their current rainbow-coalition feelings form that Alinsky literally prescribed (helping to whitewash KKK grand wizards into wonderful political mentors like the one for Hillary Clinton). In fact Malcolm X was already very attuned to this happening with the "liberals" when he was around....he put it quite frankly a lot of the time. But now we have sorts like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson instead....pretending to talk for his position...after they have been funded and groomed by the same "liberals". :laugh:

Basically direct polarisation/segregation gave way to a more nuanced plantation style of identity politics....and it always shows up in the snobbery in the end (that gets these leftie acquaintances of mine talking to me in the first place many times)....like "knowing" whats best for the blacks, latinos, immigrants and whoever else in the intersectional alliance of kumbaya...RATHER than trusting them to make their own decisions. (Where have I seen that fundamentally before with the democrats?....hmmmmm)

The traditional leftists/liberals fought very hard to gain control of such a party and steer it to something better. They spilled blood even. So they will definitely not stand for its lurching uncontrollably in "power for power sake" fashion....away from consensus, away from logic, away from consistent backbone.

This is what the Democrats (and similar neo-leftie powerhungry parties) do not grasp at all....in fact they are doubling down on it (and leading mobs like ANTIFA and their online + social media equivalents...all generously funded by big fat oligarchs). It will be taught a harsh lesson in the end....given it didnt learn from the most recent one. Its not about left vs right at all anymore. Its about power hungry elite vs the people now. We all know what happens to the elite eventually when they double down on their ego and powerlust. That is not for me to say to you.

Sorry if I made this pretty long in the end. Take your time to read it carefully.

TL; DR version for others (on just one example):

 
I don't agree. Left and Right monikers firstly are given by the very people who want to control the narrative and set up controlled opposition.

LOL.

It's because we don't agree that a conversation is possible. Not necessary, unless we both agree to talk to, not at, each other; but possible.

Could I get your confirmation that other people than 'the very people' don't want to control the narrative, and set up a vacant opposition? Think how happy your sweeping generalisation will be when it meets my sweeping generalisation.

This is precisely why a huge number of earlier leftists have been driven underground by the in-vogue, politically correct, "assigned by the powers that be" lefties. They talk to me and others...even befriend us (as vociferously as we disagree on certain issues). Again the reality will come to light as much as is required, just like it did before nov 8th 2016 and right after it.

Now I wonder WHO those 'they' could be.

What I get out of this is that there are a huge number of earlier leftists, currently lurking underground, threatening to be discovered every time a rightist turns a rock over; a huge number of 'assigned by the powers that be' lefties, apparently more numerous and more powerful than the underground lefties; and the remainder of the - what? - the voting population part of 325 million Americans.

So there are lots of people at every point of the compass; the point seems to be that some of these people are no longer able to speak out because of pressure.

Is that a gun pointed at their heads? Some solution can be worked out if there is a violent restriction. If there is nothing but moral pressure, who is supposed to do what about it?

Questions arise. Should we believe, from the passion and urgency that you bring to the description, that you understand the question so well because you too are a victim? Is @Nilgiri a closet leftist, forced to conceal his alignment and beliefs due to pressure from in-vogue, politically correct leftists haranguing him on PDF?

The world breathlessly awaits an answer!

More later.

For example its largely agreed California is the most "progressive" "politically correct" kind of leftist brand in the US right now. One would imagine its huge big govt policies, replete with "tolerant, accept every opinion as equal" politicians that "seek full engagement with poverty" (to quote your label here) and everything else that gets fully cheery applause from the soma-induced populations of the brave new world over there.....would lead it to have the least poverty in the US.

But it has the biggest poverty (level, % and income gap) by far (exacerbated immensely by the middle class simply fleeing to other states which have much less draconian tax laws)....how strange is that?...and AOC (and her likes) wants to have that as the federal norm....Hugo Chavez style...because that totally worked out great in a massively oil surplus nation.

Right now as you read this, homeless, poor people in San Francisco (a sanctuary city, one which has Nancy Pelosi's constituency in it)...are openly defecating right in the downtown area each and every day (you can check the videos yourself if you don't believe me), used needles thrown in as freebies to step on too....and there is this ever-expanding thing more broadly in California called "tent cities". Look it all up...the media barely talks about it.

But you know who talks about it with me? Many Lefties do. The ones left behind by the politically correct, unthinking, emotional neo-liberals that call themselves as on the "left" these days. The ones that can only laugh (as they sear inside) when they see the former titans of their cause being totally perverted in use/context today by the neo-left.

Take Cesar Chavez, the avowed traditionalist leftie/socialist/democrat what have you. The guy that went about enforcing a crude vigilantism (which you can read about if you want) on what was supposed to be his fellow Mexicans/Latinos....because they had gotten into the US illegally and were stifling his trade union formations by undercutting the bargaining power of his leftist ideals (to stick it to the enterprises). If you read of all it....you would clearly know who he would have voted for this election cycle (and the next)...certainly would not be the democrats.

BUT.....get this....they (the democrats today) use his name for every single "outreach" to latino populations in CA and labelling of libraries/civic centres what have you etc....coz his name and neatly packaged identity as a democrat. :rofl::rofl::rofl: ...trust me you dont want to hear what one of my close leftist friends had to say about a recent opening of such a thing (i.e who was present at the opening and what they stood for compared to the ole Cesar).

Literally a guy that went around BURNING HOUSES/PROPERTY and BEATING up illegal mexicans (some say even lynching) so they would go the hell back to Mexico (and get in legally by the rule of law later...as decided upon by those already in CA and the US)....is now a clarion call of todays politically correct flavour of globalist open border democrat....because identity politics rules over any half-assed logic even. You literally cannot make this stuff up!

Each and every one of the true traditional leftists that have thought things over, have some basic consistency... and are not brainwashed chumps (given they knew the worst of it regarding the MSM/political windbags earlier when they were not on their side like they now have "switched" to and hijacked)...can have a productive discussion with me....anywhere, anytime. They are my friends and allies to the end...always have been, always will be.

Because they know my friend, what the democrat history is very fundamentally till it got its Saul Alinsky directioneering and requisite smoke and mirrors. It shows up every now and again if you look hard enough for the details and logical ends of the posturing.

But what can never be suppressed though, is the plantation complex that caused the democrats to veer away from their overt KKK roots to a more nuanced control of the voter groups. Every single major social policy they have right now...started under the KKK era...its just been repackaged to rely on people's laziness to read up history.

Just a few (parenthesis is what it originally was for the original democrats):

- Gun control (keeping guns away from the blacks)
- Abortion (eugenics to keep the black population down)
- Higher Taxation (destroy black enterprise formation)
- More immigration (more white immigration only, regardless of process/merit,..and policy suppression of any other sort)

These were all transmuted over time to their current rainbow-coalition feelings form that Alinsky literally prescribed (helping to whitewash KKK grand wizards into wonderful political mentors like the one for Hillary Clinton). In fact Malcolm X was already very attuned to this happening with the "liberals" when he was around....he put it quite frankly a lot of the time. But now we have sorts like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson instead....pretending to talk for his position...after they have been funded and groomed by the same "liberals". :laugh:

Basically direct polarisation/segregation gave way to a more nuanced plantation style of identity politics....and it always shows up in the snobbery in the end (that gets these leftie acquaintances of mine talking to me in the first place many times)....like "knowing" whats best for the blacks, latinos, immigrants and whoever else in the intersectional alliance of kumbaya...RATHER than trusting them to make their own decisions. (Where have I seen that fundamentally before with the democrats?....hmmmmm)

The traditional leftists/liberals fought very hard to gain control of such a party and steer it to something better. They spilled blood even. So they will definitely not stand for its lurching uncontrollably in "power for power sake" fashion....away from consensus, away from logic, away from consistent backbone.

This is what the Democrats (and similar neo-leftie powerhungry parties) do not grasp at all....in fact they are doubling down on it (and leading mobs like ANTIFA and their online + social media equivalents...all generously funded by big fat oligarchs). It will be taught a harsh lesson in the end....given it didnt learn from the most recent one. Its not about left vs right at all anymore. Its about power hungry elite vs the people now. We all know what happens to the elite eventually when they double down on their ego and powerlust. That is not for me to say to you.

Sorry if I made this pretty long in the end. Take your time to read it carefully.

TL; DR version for others (on just one example):

 
Heh.

I hear you.

Now let's get Modi to listen, although personally I think it's too late for that narcissist pack-leader of a thoroughly incompetent pack of bigots. It's not their economic or social conservatism that is worrying; those don't exist, except as stalking horses for their supporters based abroad, who have quite honestly seemingly lost their local contacts, hence have no connect to the pulse on the ground (unlovely phrase! If I had time, I'd have corrected it). It's their innate bigotry and determination to 'cleanse' society that drives them to seek power, and pick up for their purported manifesto those issues that energise the 'live somewhere', WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

It's the dishonesty. It's the incompetence to do anything other than their basic mission, to drive out the hated outsider. And even on that, they are mighty bunglers.

PS: You did pick up that, according to Harper, you are a 'live anywhere'?



It was too late for that. Trouble had been brewing much earlier. Just take a look at the latter-day military campaigns of the French under Louis XIV. They were fighting on a scale well beyond what they could afford.
But things could've turned out differently if they spent the money they wasted on financing rebels in foreign colonies on their own people things might have turned out differently but who can be so sure changing one variable can have drastic impacts on the whole situation
 
But things could've turned out differently if they spent the money they wasted on financing rebels in foreign colonies on their own people things might have turned out differently but who can be so sure changing one variable can have drastic impacts on the whole situation

When I read this post, it was time to pause for a wry smile.

We read about the French Revolution almost exactly fifty years ago. Even at that time, the amount of literature on that subject would have taken up a full library. The most outstanding book on the subject was Georges Lefebvre's "The Peasants of the North during the French Revolution".

Trust me on this, even saving all the money spent on the Americans and their Revolution would not have helped. The rot was too deepset; 1789 was inevitable.
 
When I read this post, it was time to pause for a wry smile.

We read about the French Revolution almost exactly fifty years ago. Even at that time, the amount of literature on that subject would have taken up a full library. The most outstanding book on the subject was Georges Lefebvre's "The Peasants of the North during the French Revolution".

Trust me on this, even saving all the money spent on the Americans and their Revolution would not have helped. The rot was too deepset; 1789 was inevitable.
Granted my knowledge on that subject is limited to a few dozen documentaries but am not completely sold on their being no change if French didn't spend such a huge amount on funding foreign rebellions

Would love to read more on it so I could make a more informed opinion on it
 
Back
Top Bottom