Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

On 5/18/2018 at 3:29 PM, turningrite said:

Personally, I find identity politics tiresome and intellectually pointless. I wonder if the proponents of identity politics understand the logical implications of the very idea upon which they rely? To promote "pride" in one group in relation to others is essentially to assert the legitimacy and interests of one group relative to others. It does nothing less than legitimize "otherness" as a basic societal principle as every distinct group will have an equal tendency to assert the legitimacy of the interests of its members. (And why not, after all?) Trudeau's bizarre speech this week in New York in which he touted the value of diversity as an end in and of itself was an example of the muddled thinking that emerges in the modern context of political correctness. This is the same Trudeau who touts open-ended multiculturalism, which in this country has become a kind of catch-all for every cultural and/or racial and/or religious group seeking to assert its singular virtues and, more importantly, interests. And often the very groups that seek the benefits of diversity seem to be those that otherwise espouse exclusivity rather than integration.  As a Muslim author noted in an article published in the New York Times ('Is Free Speech Good for Muslims?', March 27, 2017), members of his own community too often seek the benefits of liberalism and tolerance they are unwilling to grant others. I tend to think this kind of 'diverse' multiculturalism amounts to serial uniculturalism and believe it's only diversity in a very truncated, peculiar and ultimately unproductive fashion. For the most part, anybody can and should be able to associate with any racial, ethnic, religious or sexual identity group one wishes. But in a pluralistic society it's not legitimately the state's role to support or promote any of this as doing so effectively amounts to discrimination. 

 

A little verbose - but pretty accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 698
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And Muslims killed between 100 million and 200 million people in India during their invasions. They didn't consider the Indians to be worthy of living because they were polytheistics. Muslims warlords

Agreed...the white pride bashers seek to ignore history and atone for their own self imposed, guilt ridden ideologies.   White pride is all around us in tangible achievements that cannot be erased by

The USA was formed in 1776?  Slavery abolished in about 1865,  Canada formed in 1867. So chronologically speaking Canada could not stop the USA slavery as Canada did not exist as a nation. I should sa

Posted Images

On 5/9/2018 at 11:18 AM, Argus said:

A few items and articles have provoked thought of late about the deliberate division of people into separate identity groups that politicians and social activists are busily engaged in. For politicians it's a way to win votes by tailoring legislation and policies to specific identity groups and sub-identity group members. For the social justice activists, who are inspired by Marxist anti-Capitalist ideology its the division of the world into oppressor and oppressed so they can harangue the former while exploiting the latter.

Where to begin! As usual, your posts are a dog's breakfast of accusations and misplaced labels and identifications that need to be unraveled before they can be challenged.  There is almost no Marxism left in any discussion of these issues unless you conflate everything you're against on the left as being part of the same category! 

Identity politics is a creation of modern liberalism...which uses capitalist economic theory btw, not anything marxist or even socialist or anti-capitalist.

Capitalism works both sides of the aisle on these social issues and is compatible with racism like what's represented in your  white pride screeds, and works equally well with the anti-racist side as long as it talks about affirmative action and equal opportunity for minorities, and not about about ending capitalism or working towards economic equality. So don't blame socialists for social justice activists who blather on endlessly about 'intersectionality' that has no room for economic class in the intersection!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 11:18 AM, Argus said:

Or consider this blog post in the American Conservative, worth quoting at length because of the light it sheds:

I’m a white guy. I’m a well-educated intellectual who enjoys small arthouse movies, coffeehouses and classic blues. If you didn’t know any better, you’d probably mistake me for a lefty urban hipster.

And yet. I find some of the alt-right stuff exerts a pull even on me. Even though I’m smart and informed enough to see through it. It’s seductive because I am not a person with any power or privilege, and yet I am constantly bombarded with messages telling me that I’m a cancer, I’m a problem, everything is my fault.

I am very lower middle class. I’ve never owned a new car, and do my own home repairs as much as I can to save money. I cut my own grass, wash my own dishes, buy my clothes from Walmart. I have no clue how I will ever be able to retire. But oh, brother, to hear the media tell it, I am just drowning in unearned power and privilege, and America will be a much brighter, more loving, more peaceful nation when I finally just keel over and die.

Trust me: After all that, some of the alt-right stuff feels like a warm, soothing bath. A “safe space,” if you will. I recoil from the uglier stuff, but some of it— the “hey, white guys are actually okay, you know! Be proud of yourself, white man!” stuff is really VERY seductive, and it is only with some intellectual effort that I can resist the pull … If it’s a struggle for someone like me to resist the pull, I imagine it’s probably impossible for someone with less education or cultural exposure.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division

And this idiot quoted in the American Conservative is a prime example of what happens when all issues are only seen through the lens of identity politics! He self-identifies as white "lower middle class" and believes that his identity group is the one actually being persecuted/not those dark people who trend higher on poverty stats and all the other bad economic measures. So, he's going to fight for his share of the pie based on his white identity against those of other races. And the majority of the other colours see their struggle along racial lines. What neither group can see after decades of anti-communism BS and the constant repeated refrain from the disciples of Reagan and Thatcher regarding capitalism: TINA - There Is No Alternative, is that it doesn't matter what colour you are if you earn less than $30,000 per year in the US...like almost half of American working adults today, you are in poverty and are barely scraping by.

If that half of the population earning less than 30,000 thought beyond identity politics, they would put their differences aside and refuse to be divided and set against each other for the benefit of the privileged minority who own most of the capital and decide how global economies will function for the rest of us.

Edited by WIP
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WIP said:

He self-identifies as white "lower middle class" and believes that his identity group is the one actually being persecuted/not those dark people who trend higher on poverty stats and all the other bad economic measures.

People do not behave or think as groups, but as individuals. Why should he not resent being labeled 'privileged' when he has no privilege? What does it matter if 'dark people' trend higher on poverty stats? Who says that's a result of discrimination as opposed to personal behavior?

12 hours ago, WIP said:

 

If that half of the population earning less than 30,000 thought beyond identity politics, they would put their differences aside and refuse to be divided and set against each other for the benefit of the privileged minority who own most of the capital and decide how global economies will function for the rest of us.

If people think in terms of identity politics that is because the Left and even the far Left has been pronouncing it so for decades now. Why would it be unusual that some white people would start to accept this about themselves, and not simply about other racial and ethnic groups? The Left divides the world into oppressors and oppressed. If you're successful in life, you go into the oppressor column, and if not, you're oppressed. You can presumably even move back and forth. I was once oppressed, because I worked cheap, crappy, low paying jobs. Now I am an oppressor because I make a lot of money.

This, of course, is preposterous on any kind of intellectual level, but most of what the Left believes is just as inconsistent and illogical. Believe in Communism, for example is one of those nonsensical idea the far Left is attached to, despite it having been proven unworkable in case after case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WIP said:

Where to begin! As usual, your posts are a dog's breakfast of accusations and misplaced labels and identifications that need to be unraveled before they can be challenged.  There is almost no Marxism left in any discussion of these issues unless you conflate everything you're against on the left as being part of the same category! 

Marx was a Socialist. Are you going to say there is no socialism involved in political discussions?

12 hours ago, WIP said:

Identity politics is a creation of modern liberalism...which uses capitalist economic theory btw, not anything marxist or even socialist or anti-capitalist.

Whoever created it it is certainly deeply embraced by the Left and far Left.

12 hours ago, WIP said:

. So don't blame socialists for social justice activists who blather on endlessly about 'intersectionality' that has no room for economic class in the intersection!

Don't blame social justice activists for their words and actions, which mirror socialists in politics and academia? I get that the Left doesn't understand individual responsibility, but even in that light your suggestion is silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

Marx was a Socialist. Are you going to say there is no socialism involved in political discussions?

Whoever created it it is certainly deeply embraced by the Left and far Left.

Don't blame social justice activists for their words and actions, which mirror socialists in politics and academia? I get that the Left doesn't understand individual responsibility, but even in that light your suggestion is silly.

Marx created a particular brand of socialism...and also created his own version of history, since he was as much a product of enlightenment thinking as David Ricardo, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and the other early developers of economic theory. Like the capitalist market theorists, Marx had no respect for nature...viewing the natural world as just mere collections of raw materials to be utilized for human development.  Marx was also a believer in technology, whereas the earlier socialist movements created by men of action/rather than educated thought(Fabians, Chartists, Luddites etc.) rightly viewed the new technologies as primarily tools of the owners of capital to use to enslave them to work long hours in factory sweatshops. Considering that the majority of the followers of Nathan Ludd and those who were able to read his tracts were tradesmen(and tradeswomen) who had or were in the process of developing skills that gave them bargaining power to determine where they live, what they would earn and how many hours they would work, they were out of step with the capitalists, the landowning aristocrats who wanted all the people on the commons to be cleared for commercial cattle and sheepraising, and then along came the Marxists who called them antiquated and relics of the past. The only difference between Marx and the capitalist vultures who went through the trouble of buying and developing steam engine-powered mills in dirty industrial cities, was that Marx wanted the economic benefits of the new industrialism to be shared by the workers...rather than the investors who controlled capital.

A few days ago, I came across an indy radio(podcast) interview with 'Nathan Robinson' (editor of Current Affairs) who earlier this month wrote an important rebuttal to the BS about persecuted rightwingers on campus ...i.e. Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Christian Hoffs Somers, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin etc. etc. etc..  Robinson asks the simple, obvious question: how can a wimpy A-hole like our Jordan Peterson claim to be persecuted and shut out of debate when he earns an estimated $80,000 per month (US) speaking mostly on American college campuses and is all across the dial of corporate sponsored rightwing radio...not to mention frequently given a platform by self-proclaimed libertarians like Joe Rogan for example (who seems to think these guttersnipes have a point and give him cred with the alt-right). 

Pretty Loud For Being So Silenced

Robinson also points out that you won't find long time left critics of US policies like Noam Chomsky being invited to speak at college campuses, nor does he get a chance to speak on any of the NPR or PBS shows he used to do years ago, and neither are younger generations of fellow leftists given a mike except on small independent media or foreign media...if you've noticed all the sqawking about RT and Radio Sputnik hosts and show guests since Clinton fumbled the 2016 coronation....I mean election. So much for all the lathering and bellyaching about SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS!

 

Edited by WIP
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

People do not behave or think as groups, but as individuals. Why should he not resent being labeled 'privileged' when he has no privilege? What does it matter if 'dark people' trend higher on poverty stats? Who says that's a result of discrimination as opposed to personal behavior?

If people think in terms of identity politics that is because the Left and even the far Left has been pronouncing it so for decades now. Why would it be unusual that some white people would start to accept this about themselves, and not simply about other racial and ethnic groups? The Left divides the world into oppressors and oppressed. If you're successful in life, you go into the oppressor column, and if not, you're oppressed. You can presumably even move back and forth. I was once oppressed, because I worked cheap, crappy, low paying jobs. Now I am an oppressor because I make a lot of money.

This, of course, is preposterous on any kind of intellectual level, but most of what the Left believes is just as inconsistent and illogical. Believe in Communism, for example is one of those nonsensical idea the far Left is attached to, despite it having been proven unworkable in case after case.

NO, except for psychopaths or sociopaths, the past 200,000 or more years of modern human history has been small bands of hunter-gatherers more recently transitioning to small agricultural settlements and all of these people, no matter where in the world you were talking about, did not think of themselves as "individuals!'  Instead, if you ask people in pre-industrial societies, they see themselves in relation to where they fit within their extended families and local communities. In that sense, industrial civilization and the oversized cities it has created were the first step along the way of creating a sociopathic culture...which celebrates individualism over community responsibility! 

As I see the race drama today, sowing and exacerbating racial divides is a strategy used by the major oppressors who are very, very small in number. Let's just say that ...at least according to last year's T-4's, my gross income of $85,000 doesn't provide me much opportunity to oppress or exploit others...especially considering that full time wage earners in my income bracket are the ones who get stuck paying the highest amount in REAL taxes...since business owners..especially rich business owners have so many escape hatches to hide and squirrel away their money! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WIP said:

NO, except for psychopaths or sociopaths, the past 200,000 or more years of modern human history has been small bands of hunter-gatherers more recently transitioning to small agricultural settlements and all of these people, no matter where in the world you were talking about, did not think of themselves as "individuals!'  Instead, if you ask people in pre-industrial societies, they see themselves in relation to where they fit within their extended families and local communities. In that sense, industrial civilization and the oversized cities it has created were the first step along the way of creating a sociopathic culture...which celebrates individualism over community responsibility! 

As I see the race drama today, sowing and exacerbating racial divides is a strategy used by the major oppressors who are very, very small in number. Let's just say that ...at least according to last year's T-4's, my gross income of $85,000 doesn't provide me much opportunity to oppress or exploit others...especially considering that full time wage earners in my income bracket are the ones who get stuck paying the highest amount in REAL taxes...since business owners..especially rich business owners have so many escape hatches to hide and squirrel away their money! 

It's okay to be white. I don't bite. :D  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 3:29 PM, turningrite said:

 And often the very groups that seek the benefits of diversity seem to be those that otherwise espouse exclusivity rather than integration.  As a Muslim author noted in an article published in the New York Times ('Is Free Speech Good for Muslims?', March 27, 2017), members of his own community too often seek the benefits of liberalism and tolerance they are unwilling to grant others.

Actually, you are misquoting the author.  He says "This is not to say that Muslims who ask for freedom in the West must be held accountable for the lack of freedom in “Islamic” states. "

The irony is now that his point applies to your argument also.  There's a dichotomy present in using liberalism to justify accepting illiberal views, as the NYT column points out, but your dichotomy is that you demand a melting-pot model in which nothing melts, but instead cultures are excluded in the name of pluralism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Argus said:

1)  Why should he not resent being labeled 'privileged' when he has no privilege?

2) What does it matter if 'dark people' trend higher on poverty stats? Who says that's a result of discrimination as opposed to personal behavior?

3) The Left divides the world into oppressors and oppressed.

 

1) Because it means he did even worse than he thought: he got a boost and still ended up on the bottom of the pile.

2) What would 'dark people' do in terms of behaviour to make them poorer ?  And why would they do that do you think ?

3) That's a simplification and it doesn't make any sense.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WIP said:

Marx created a particular brand of socialism...

There are many variants of Socialism, but it's still Socialism.

5 hours ago, WIP said:

Marx was also a believer in technology, whereas the earlier socialist movements created by men of action/rather than educated thought(Fabians, Chartists, Luddites etc.) rightly viewed the new technologies as primarily tools of the owners of capital to use to enslave them to work long hours in factory sweatshops.

It sounds like you're recreating a unique history, too. People worked long, sweaty hours for tens of thousands of years prior to the industrial revolution. From sunup to sundown, seven days a week. That was what life was like.

5 hours ago, WIP said:

A few days ago, I came across an indy radio(podcast) interview with 'Nathan Robinson' (editor of Current Affairs) who earlier this month wrote an important rebuttal to the BS about persecuted rightwingers on campus ...i.e. Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Christian Hoffs Somers, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin etc. etc. etc..  Robinson asks the simple, obvious question: how can a wimpy A-hole like our Jordan Peterson claim to be persecuted and shut out of debate when he earns an estimated $80,000 per month (US) speaking mostly on American college campuses and is all across the dial of corporate sponsored rightwing radio.

The problem with what he wrote about, and your attitude, is they both seem to be suggesting that because these few high profile individuals make a lot of money and are able to go on speaking tours, that there is no issue. But none of these people are complaining about THEIR freedom of speech in particular, but about the broad limitations on public discourse imposed by the politically correct far left, and in particular on campu. Most of those affected are not high profile people making big money. Very, very few are, in fact.

5 hours ago, WIP said:

Robinson also points out that you won't find long time left critics of US policies like Noam Chomsky being invited to speak at college campuses, nor does he get a chance to speak on any of the NPR or PBS shows he used to do years ago,

Really? What evidence is there that Chomsky isn't being invited/allowed to speak on college campuses vs the fact he's now 89 years old and probably isn't really into world tours or such?

5 hours ago, WIP said:

and neither are younger generations of fellow leftists given a mike except on small independent media or foreign media...if you've noticed all the sqawking about RT and Radio Sputnik hosts and show guests since Clinton fumbled the 2016 coronation....I mean election. So much for all the lathering and bellyaching about SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS!

From what I've seen 90% of academics are Democrats and progressives, so I think your counter-suggestion, that there is some sort of hitherto unspoken discrimination against the left or far left on campuses, is pretty damned unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WIP said:

As I see the race drama today, sowing and exacerbating racial divides is a strategy used by the major oppressors who are very, very small in number.

Progressives, you mean?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Because it means he did even worse than he thought: he got a boost and still ended up on the bottom of the pile.

Or maybe there never was such a thing as white privilege to begin with.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) What would 'dark people' do in terms of behaviour to make them poorer ?  And why would they do that do you think ?

How about not attending school and having babies out of wedlock? 

The Black community has the highest rate of unwed mothers and the lowest graduation rate.

The Asian community has the lowest rate of unwed mothers and the highest graduation rate.

Which of these groups, given equality and a lack of racism, is going to perform better, economically? And which is going to perform worse?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) That's a simplification and it doesn't make any sense.

It might not make any sense, but it seems to be the way social justice activists work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Argus said:

1) Or maybe there never was such a thing as white privilege to begin with.

2) How about not attending school and having babies out of wedlock? 

3) Which of these groups, given equality and a lack of racism, is going to perform better, economically? And which is going to perform worse?

 

1) There is, though.  The statistics show that white people do better..

2) Why do they do that ?

3) Aren't you acknowledging an advantage for whites here ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) There is, though.  The statistics show that white people do better..

2) Why do they do that ?

3) Aren't you acknowledging an advantage for whites here ?

It seems to be you are confusing 'white privilege' with 'white pride'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Argus said:

There are many variants of Socialism, but it's still Socialism.

Like social conservatism for example...every ism is trying to engineer society to some extent.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you think that?  They are different.

Correct, so I wanted to make sure we are talking about one and not getting it confused, or conflated wit the other.  And that seems to happen a lot with arguments on this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Actually, you are misquoting the author.  He says "This is not to say that Muslims who ask for freedom in the West must be held accountable for the lack of freedom in “Islamic” states. "

The irony is now that his point applies to your argument also.  There's a dichotomy present in using liberalism to justify accepting illiberal views, as the NYT column points out, but your dichotomy is that you demand a melting-pot model in which nothing melts, but instead cultures are excluded in the name of pluralism. 

Actually, I suspect you may not have read the entire article, particularly where the author goes on to state that '"[o]ften Muslims support liberalism when it serves them and reject it when it does not," which supports the point made in my post. As for the point you appear to be trying to make, while it's true that Muslims who seek accommodation in the West shouldn't be held accountable for the lack of freedom and human rights often prevalent in their homelands, progressives often employ similar broadly associative critiques when assailing what they perceive as right-wing or reactionary views and logic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1) Actually, I suspect you may not have read the entire article, particularly where the author goes on to state that '"[o]ften Muslims support liberalism when it serves them and reject it when it does not," which supports the point made in my post.

2)  progressives often employ similar broadly associative critiques when assailing what they perceive as right-wing or reactionary views and logic. 

1) Ok, I missed that.

2) Sure, then let's all act against broadly associative critiques.  They are perhaps the worst fallacy on these boards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Argus said:

Progressives, you mean?

 

Liberals have their own games to play...collecting together all the identity-based groups discarded by conservatives, along with some guilt-ridden whites shamed into "checking their privilege."  I can't think of any examples where it adds up to a winning strategy. But, in an era when winning at politics requires lots of $$$ and currying favor of most of the same oligarchs as the other party, the costs of appealing to the great unwashed masses is too high when it includes loss of major donors...who also offer the greatest benefits to retired politicians for favors while in office!

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Argus said:

There are many variants of Socialism, but it's still Socialism.

It sounds like you're recreating a unique history, too. People worked long, sweaty hours for tens of thousands of years prior to the industrial revolution. From sunup to sundown, seven days a week. That was what life was like.

NO, the life being 'nasty, brutish and short' narrative that started with Thomas Hobbes, is continually retreaded by modern liberal and conservative tech-worshiping propagandists to make the present age look better by comparison. The real truth that can be gathered from paleo research is that hunter-gatherers universally lived better than succeeding generations who slowly and gradually took up settled agriculture...starting about 5 or 6000 years ago. Whether you're looking at skeletal remains in Europe, North Africa, or throughout Asia, the evidence is clear that people lost height and became shorter, lost brain size, lost teeth at an early age and died much younger than their ancestors living in the forests. This is why hunter-gatherers chose to stay in the forests in Africa and South America rather than take up farming like the farmers they lived in close proximity to and traded with for centuries....until recent times, when clearing tropical forests has left them no place to live in the wild any longer.

There are a variety of reasons why the Agricultural Revolution was a step backwards/not forwards, and it seems that full time farming wasn't adopted until population densities grew large enough to make it essential.  It wasn't the first choice to be dragging a hand-plow and then an ox-driven plow across the land all day!

When we get to the Industrial Revolution, it was a great leap in efficiency and profit...which went to the owners, while the peasants that had been forced into the cities to provide the mills abundant cheap labor lived hellish lives compared to when they were still living on the land. 

Quote

The problem with what he wrote about, and your attitude, is they both seem to be suggesting that because these few high profile individuals make a lot of money and are able to go on speaking tours, that there is no issue. But none of these people are complaining about THEIR freedom of speech in particular, but about the broad limitations on public discourse imposed by the politically correct far left, and in particular on campu. Most of those affected are not high profile people making big money. Very, very few are, in fact.

I never went to university, so this issue is not at the top of the list of my concerns. But, as former NY Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges has said a number of times: if your criticism goes beyond specific government or corporate policies to criticizing the system itself..especially capitalism, you soon find yourself on the outside looking in, as no mainstream media will invite you on their shows or review and discuss your books. Liberals who want to keep getting paid know where the limits are and stay within them! A real leftwing critic can never be too big not to be dropped and effectively blacklisted by the powers that run commercial and donor-sponsored public media. And of course the same thing happens to rightwing libertarians who take their critique of the state to the point that they're going past criticizing Gina Haspel to condemning and calling for the abolition of the CIA itself...as Ron Paul did yesterday in a post on his website that was re-posted on a few libertarian sites, but will never show up on Fox News, NY Post, or the Washington Times etc.

And, before I forget...at the local level, I don't agree with this policy some college anti-racist and related anti- activists have created called "Deplatforming." It would be better to let everyone have their chance to speak...and their chance to get shouted down rather than rely on university administrators to protect their rights. One Marxist critic of this strategy I heard a month or so ago, said the problem is that after Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90's, the left was in general disarray and dropped out of economic debates, while the post-modernist trendy social activists filled the void with social issues and identity politics that doesn't put food on the table, and doesn't even develop strategies to deal with rising tuitions and other costs of college education!

Quote

 

Really? What evidence is there that Chomsky isn't being invited/allowed to speak on college campuses vs the fact he's now 89 years old and probably isn't really into world tours or such?


 

Do a quick online search for "Chomsky."  He appears to be busier than most men half...or less than half his age! Problem is none of his articles, interviews or reviews are on MSM sources. When I looked, I came up with: The Intercept, In These Times, Truthout, Alternet, Common Dreams and Open Democracy on the first page of links. Only mentions from  regular sources was a local Phoenix daily reporting that Chomsky appeared somewhere with Daniel Ellsberg on a nuclear arms debate. 

Quote

From what I've seen 90% of academics are Democrats and progressives, so I think your counter-suggestion, that there is some sort of hitherto unspoken discrimination against the left or far left on campuses, is pretty damned unlikely.

Like I mentioned already, it depends whether the left is the domesticated left that doesn't challenge the system or is the radical left that threatens the system....same goes for some libertarian cranks on the other side!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WIP said:

NO, the life being 'nasty, brutish and short' narrative that started with Thomas Hobbes, is continually retreaded by modern liberal and conservative tech-worshiping propagandists to make the present age look better by comparison. The real truth that can be gathered from paleo research is that hunter-gatherers universally lived better than succeeding generations who slowly and gradually took up settled agriculture...

That simply is not true. If you look at north American natives, most of whom were hunter gatherers, you find their average lifespan to be not much over 30. 

1 hour ago, WIP said:

There are a variety of reasons why the Agricultural Revolution was a step backwards/not forwards, and it seems that full time farming wasn't adopted until population densities grew large enough to make it essential.  It wasn't the first choice to be dragging a hand-plow and then an ox-driven plow across the land all day!

If farming was an insecure way to eat, hunter gathering was much moreso. The reason agriculture spread around the world was that it gave communities and groups a much better chance of not starving to death. 

1 hour ago, WIP said:

When we get to the Industrial Revolution, it was a great leap in efficiency and profit...which went to the owners, while the peasants that had been forced into the cities to provide the mills abundant cheap labor lived hellish lives compared to when they were still living on the land. 

Or, they went voluntarily because life was better there. Not that it was anything great by OUR standards, of course. 

1 hour ago, WIP said:

I never went to university, so this issue is not at the top of the list of my concerns. But, as former NY Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges has said a number of times: if your criticism goes beyond specific government or corporate policies to criticizing the system itself..especially capitalism, you soon find yourself on the outside looking in, as no mainstream media will invite you on their shows or review and discuss your books. Liberals who want to keep getting paid know where the limits are and stay within them! A real leftwing critic can never be too big not to be dropped and effectively blacklisted by the powers that run commercial and donor-sponsored public media

What this boils down to is that the major media don't have much interest in dealing with cranks. If you're a Fascist, you're not going to be getting interviews. Why should that change if you're a Communist instead? They're both far out there on the fringes of what passes for acceptable political thought.

1 hour ago, WIP said:

And of course the same thing happens to rightwing libertarians who take their critique of the state to the point that they're going past criticizing Gina Haspel to condemning and calling for the abolition of the CIA itself...as Ron Paul did yesterday in a post on his website that was re-posted on a few libertarian sites, but will never show up on Fox News, NY Post, or the Washington Times etc.

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know We all want to change the world

...

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right?
All right, all right

The mainstream media know their audience will just roll their eyes if you interview someone who is shaking their fist and calling for really dumb things, like abolishing the CIA or FBI or doing away with Capitalism. It's accepted thought among most people that no society is going to function without Capitalism to provide the incentive for people to push themselves, work hard, or try to improve things. And so far every experiment with Socialism has proven this to be correct.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 8:43 PM, Argus said:

That simply is not true. If you look at north American natives, most of whom were hunter gatherers, you find their average lifespan to be not much over 30. 

LINK?  That's a factual claim that needs to be proven...and fwiw, most claims that our distant ancestors had short lives are based on averaging high infant mortality statistics. But once a child reached age 5 in most ancient communities, they were just as likely to live on another 50 to 70 years like people today.  Don't believe all the BS about modern medical miracles! Life expectancy has not changed much over the aeons. The difference today is that many people who would have succumbed to diseases are able to live on longer.

Quote

If farming was an insecure way to eat, hunter gathering was much moreso. The reason agriculture spread around the world was that it gave communities and groups a much better chance of not starving to death. 

And, aside from the northern latitudes, it's a dubious claim to make that most were hunter-gatherers and stayed that way until sailboats from Europe arrived on these shores. All across North America, people were planting and harvesting corn, beans and squash...usually grown close together, and population densities were ten times higher than most anthropologists were claiming a half century ago. 

In some regions that had unstable climates...like the Eastern Woodlands in the US for some reason, periodic frosts, droughts, heat waves and floods often decimated crops, causing starvation and mass migration. Archaeologists specializing in examining teeth from old burial sites noticed a pattern where people would resume hunter-gatherer living after a population crash and only resume farming when higher population levels made it necessary. So, it seems that gathering food was their first preference over farming!

Quote

Or, they went voluntarily because life was better there. Not that it was anything great by OUR standards, of course. 

Our standards of obesity, cancer, heart disease, mental illness?

Quote

What this boils down to is that the major media don't have much interest in dealing with cranks. If you're a Fascist, you're not going to be getting interviews. Why should that change if you're a Communist instead? They're both far out there on the fringes of what passes for acceptable political thought.

'Major media' is most interested in getting paid. And today they get their money churning out propaganda on behalf of their corporate overlords.  

Fascism is just late stage capitalism getting desperate...and it looks like we're almost there now. Fascism and communism are not interchangeable. I'm not a Marxist, though | agree with a lot of Karl's analysis of capitalism and desires for a better system that distributes benefits more evenly than our ridiculous age...where one man can be declared to have a net worth of over 120 billion!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 11:24 PM, WIP said:

LINK?  That's a factual claim that needs to be proven...and fwiw, most claims that our distant ancestors had short lives are based on averaging high infant mortality statistics. But once a child reached age 5 in most ancient communities, they were just as likely to live on another 50 to 70 years like people today.  Don't believe all the BS about modern medical miracles! Life expectancy has not changed much over the aeons. The difference today is that many people who would have succumbed to diseases are able to live on longer.

And, aside from the northern latitudes, it's a dubious claim to make that most were hunter-gatherers and stayed that way until sailboats from Europe arrived on these shores. All across North America, people were planting and harvesting corn, beans and squash...usually grown close together, and population densities were ten times higher than most anthropologists were claiming a half century ago. 

In some regions that had unstable climates...like the Eastern Woodlands in the US for some reason, periodic frosts, droughts, heat waves and floods often decimated crops, causing starvation and mass migration. Archaeologists specializing in examining teeth from old burial sites noticed a pattern where people would resume hunter-gatherer living after a population crash and only resume farming when higher population levels made it necessary. So, it seems that gathering food was their first preference over farming!

Our standards of obesity, cancer, heart disease, mental illness?

'Major media' is most interested in getting paid. And today they get their money churning out propaganda on behalf of their corporate overlords.  

Fascism is just late stage capitalism getting desperate...and it looks like we're almost there now. Fascism and communism are not interchangeable. I'm not a Marxist, though | agree with a lot of Karl's analysis of capitalism and desires for a better system that distributes benefits more evenly than our ridiculous age...where one man can be declared to have a net worth of over 120 billion!

I heard that the Rothchild family is worth over 500 trillion. Of course when you create a nations currency you can print just about as much money as you wish too and put that created out of thin air money right into your bank account. Some people get all the breaks and the money too. Where the hell did I go wrong?  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...