14 ms·

It feels like even Western governments are becoming more and more protective of their aristocrat-class, and openly collude and steal from the people. Canada (l

• ashwagary 3y ago
  >It feels like even Western governments are becoming more and more protective of their aristocrat-class, and openly collude and steal from the people. Western governments have always openly stolen from people.
  • check89 3y ago
    > Governments have always openly stolen from people. Fixed that for you.
    • ashwagary 3y ago
      The scale and reach of western government theft make the rest look innocent.
• yieldcrv 3y ago
  this “moral decay of the West” was one of the primary observations and frustrations of Osama’s writings if you ever read it he was a scholar from a rich family before he chose violence not trying to be edgy, just reminded me that it is a recurring observation and it takes more and more candid actions for people raised within those countries to notice for themselves and consider it egregious or intolerable
  • jostmey 3y ago
    What does his background of wealth have to do with this? At least in the West, you don’t have to start wealthy to become famous, or in his case, infamous
    • yieldcrv 3y ago
      his background has to do with all the leisurely time he had to study this kind of thing and interest in doing so easy for me to forget so I figured it would be easy for others to as well
  • dmix 3y ago
    People still love Ted Kaczynski for a reason. Just because they chose violence doesn't mean everything they were motivated by was false.
    • m00x 3y ago
      MK Ultra did a number to that man.
    • Nasrudith 3y ago
      People loving him are utterly demented historical illiterates. Kaczynski's historical ideas of freedom would be laughable if he didn't kill people.
    • CyberDildonics 3y ago
      People still love Ted Kaczynski Who exactly are you talking about? doesn't mean everything they were motivated by was false. What specifically from him do you like the most?
      • dmix 3y ago
        > Who exactly are you talking about? It's very common in both alternative/anti-idpol left wing (stuidpol/Redscare) and contrarian/non-MAGA right wing subreddits. He provided one of the best and most relevant-to-today critiques of the progressive virtue-signalling strain of American liberalism that's very popular today. > What specifically from him do you like the most? These three parts in Chapter 1 always stuck in my head: - THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM - FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY - OVERSOCIALIZATION Copied the first 2 below: ---------------------------- THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM 6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general. 7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.) 8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. 9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential. FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY 10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism. 11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.) 12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families. 13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.) 14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. 15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful. 16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser. 17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment. 18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly. 19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself. 20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait. 21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. 22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss. 23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism. https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future-Ted_Kaczynski.txt https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_So...
• RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  One thing that would help is far more progressive taxation. No one in modern society should have the kind of wealth that enables leveraging politicians and public opinion.
  • smabie 3y ago
    because giving the government even more money will certainly solve the problem of government corruption!
    • RhodesianHunter 3y ago
      It's not about giving the government more money. It's about redistributing from the class that buys politicians like I buy a candy bar, to the class that works two jobs to put shitty unhealthy polluted food on the table.
      • m00x 3y ago
        They would still be bought, but by other means. Even in Communism there is class division (if not more). Powerful people find ways.
        • classified 3y ago
          "It can't be perfect, so let's not even try."
        • thumbuddy 3y ago
          In anarchistic France when someone started acting like they were better than someone else a coworker would go on a smoke break with them and shoot them in the head. At least that's what I read... Not saying that's a successful model, but there are a lot of shades of grey between and surrounding our current system and the classic bogeyman "communism".
        • pbhjpbhj 3y ago
          >Even in Communism there is class division (if not more).// What do you mean by this? We've never had a completely Capitalist system, AFAIAA, because the logical ends to that are slavery and selling body parts just to survive. Which means rebellion by the proles and it's easier to get people to work endlessly for your ends if you give them a measure of hope. Similarly, we've never had a completely Communist system because the logical ends to that are redistribution of power from those in control to the people. This means those currently in control lose most of their power; if you empower people to force a change towards communist principles ... well let's just say that has never gone well. We can squash the wealth gap, and we can redistribute political power back to the demos ... but it's a very long road and means structuring society to combat individual greed, ultimately giving up the "American dream" of having others work at your minions to give you a millionaire life-style. Honestly, the greed we humans have for that is so powerful it acts as an almost insurmountable barrier to a fairer society/World.
• kadoban 3y ago
  > The Democrats launched FBI investigations against their political opponents without sufficient legal backing. According to who? Durham? What a joke.
  • TrispusAttucks 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • bandyaboot 3y ago
      Are you aware of something specific that establishes that that’s a true statement? Because if this is about the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign, I haven’t seen a single thing to suggest that the impetus for that investigation was “the Democrats”. I think if anything should be clear, the FBI doesn’t need outside direction to abuse their power.
  • adrr 3y ago
    Same guy who lost all his cases when they went to trial for this “corruption”. Republicans have led the FBI for the last 20 years. Comey, Mueller, Wray,Freeh are all republicans.
    • fencepost 3y ago
      Republicans have led the FBI effectively since it was established. Even Democratic Presidents have appointed Republican heads of the FBI, though it's possible that there's been an acting head that was A Democrat.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • TechBro8615 3y ago
      It's such a weak argument when defenders of the FBI and democrat corruption cite the failure of its victims to prove that corruption in court (usually in front of a DC jury that voted 92% democrat). Like, that's the point. One side of the political apparatus weaponized the justice system against the other, then covered it up, and obscured any investigation into it through equally corrupt lawfare and political deflection. I see the same argument attacking the credibility of the whistleblower who was a business partner of Hunter Biden when they received money from the Chinese energy company CEFC - "oh your whistleblower was indicted by the DOJ so he has no credibility" - well, the accusation begs the question that the Republicans are complaining about in the first place, namely why wasn't Hunter Biden similarly indicted for the same FARA violations as his business partner who's blowing the whistle on his lack of indictment? It's flawed logic. You can't cover up your crimes by arresting the criminal you did the crimes with and then saying he's got no credibility because he's a criminal.
• rkagerer 3y ago
  Canada (legally) abused its judicial reach on finance institutions during the pandemic I'm similarly disgusted by that, but I thought the hearings didn't reach the conclusion it was illegal? Edit: Sorry, just realized you wrote legally, I must have misread that as illegally
  • m00x 3y ago
    They used the Emergencies Act, which is supposed to be used to keep the country safe from terrorism. This was obviously not terrorism, albeit very heavy-handed. This was a police matter to clear them, not something they should have gone through FINTRAC. The issue is that they can pretty much do whatever they want as long as they have majority, similar to the USA PATRIOT act of 2001. It's an obvious overreach of the legislation arm.
    • rkagerer 3y ago
      I watched a lot of the subsequent inquiry hearings and was struck by how classically Canadian some of the 'dissidents' came across.
• ModernMech 3y ago
  > The Democrats launched FBI investigations against their political opponents without sufficient legal backing. You'll have to expand on this. IG Horrowitz didn't find in his report evidence to suggestion what you're saying: "We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations" https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-doj-inspector-generals-report-on-the-fbis-russia-probe https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-doj-insp... Are you saying you have knowledge and evidence which contradicts the findings of the IG investigation?
  • bandyaboot 3y ago
    I don’t even think Durham suggested anything of the sort.
    • TechBro8615 3y ago
      It absolutely did, and you can read the executive summary [0] to see the details in just a few pages. I'm not going to copy/paste the whole thing here but start with page 9 (which highlights the contrast of reckless investigations into the Trump campaign compared with cautious refusal to investigate the Clinton campaign), and continue onto pages 11-12 (which describe the origins of the investigation, namely an uncorroborated document containing opposition research created by a paid contractor of the Clinton campaign). I'm not sure how you can read this as anything other than suggesting clear political bias in the handling and opening of the investigation into the Trump campaign, which - as the Durham report makes clear is its central point - was opened completely without basis in a manner divergent from all proper procedure. [0] https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
      • ModernMech 3y ago
        > I'm not sure how you can read this as anything other than suggesting clear political bias in the handling and opening of the investigation into the Trump campaign Because you haven't answered the question as to why the Durham report was needed at all given the DOJ IG was doing his job. In fact, we know Durham was full of shit because he ended up with nothing except some whining. Everything concrete thing he found was already found by Horrowitz. So he was redundant there. Where Durham was not redundant was in his "speaking indictments" which didn't actually result in a single conviction, but instead just speculated wildly outside of both fact and the law, but existed within court documents, so the patina of legitimacy was applied. But again, Durham never proved anything. We also know he's full of shit because in his final report, he tried to relitigate the cases he actually already had lost in court. Very unprofessional, worst SC since Starr. Just a lot of whining and complaining over nothing. Trump incited Jan 6 and he will be imprisoned for it. Trump stole national secrets and he will be imprisoned for that too. Trump attempted to rig Georgia's election and he will be imprisoned for that as well. Trump also, on top of all of that, colluded with the Russians in the 2016 campaign, and he will not go to jail for that, for it isn't a crime. But he did it, the Mueller report and Senate Intel Committee report proves it, and the Durham report failed to find improper predicate. This is completely in the face of Trump-world lore, where Obama illegally spied on Trump, and the Clinton campaign caused the FBI to start a "witch hunt" investigation. No. It was found the Trump campaign colluded, and he was investigated because he did the thing. The investigation was not found to be improper by Horrowitz, fire was found where there was smoke. And let's say you are correct, that there was "political bias" in opening the investigation. Does that mean instead, we should have just let Trump's collusion with Russia go uninvestigated? Meeting with foreign spies promising relaxed relations in return for dirt on your opponent? Turning over campaign data to the Russian GRU while they are waging a psyops campaign against Americans? My god, might as well just invite the Russians into the oval office and just hand them them classified information. Oh wait, he did that too. Come back to me once he's convicted and tell me again how the FBI shouldn't have investigated him. He's a career criminal and a psychopath. Also known as a fascist, and he should be nowhere near the presidency ever again. We should all be politically biased against such a person.
• sofixa 3y ago
  > France passed through unconstitutional reforms without the votes As confirmed by higher courts, including the constitutional one, the reforms were constitutional and pushed through via a constitutional measure (49.3) that gives the government the (limited in number of attempts) power to force legislation, unless a motion of no confidence brings them down. The fact that the motions didn't get a majority means that the reforms had enough votes for them, but the members of parliament didn't want to be directly associated with having voted for them, which required the maneuver. The reforms are highly unpopular, controversial, imperfect, but in the end were needed. You could frame it as stealing from the people, I'd frame it as an imperfect attempt to ensure a long-term financial stability (France spends a lot on pensions, regularly runs deficits, and the projections were pretty terrible - optimistic scenarios for 2050 had 15% of the GDP going for pensions, for a median Quality of Life 75% of that of the median active worker. That's fundamentally unsustainable, and vague populist "we'll just tax X" won't fix it. We could have had a better reform, but I'll take a poor one over none at all).
  • riku_iki 3y ago
    > I'd frame it as an imperfect attempt to ensure a long-term financial stability I somehow seriously doubt raising retirement age by 2 years (from 62 to 64, life expectancy is 82) will "ensure a long-term financial stability". There are usually many other way to optimize the system, but macron chose exactly to take from people.
    • atoav 3y ago
      Which number would you tweak to make a retirement fund financially balanced? I am not an expert, but of the top of my mind we have the following possibilities: [1] balance the bottom of the age pyramid: get more working people. Either by creating a social/financial situation that gives young people the security to get kids or by easing work migration from places with many young people. [2] balance the top end of the pyramid: make the health aystem worse so people die earlier and you don't have to pay pensions so long [3] raise the retirement age so the fewer payers raise more money and you have to pay out less over time. [4] change the way retirement funds are allowed to work with the money so they can work with the interest [5] If bureaucratic cost is an issue with the retirement system you can save some money here, but it is going to be peanuts in comparison to the other measures. [6] Raise the money from elsewhere (e.g. by taxing investment gains oe by raising wages and have a bigger fraction of the wage going to retirement funds) Option 1 either takes long (kids that will be born in a few years will not be able to work until decades later) or has cultural side effects (a significant amount of migration can lead to all kind of tensions with the local population). Option 2 is not an option on ethical grounds. Option 3 is the easy option, although it has the side effect that people who know they are never going to retire might not want to get kids so the problem gets worse without some measure to counter this. Option 4 is something scandinavian pension funds already do (investing the money for returns), although the risk has to be managed properly then. If you can't motivate people to get more kids (well paying secure jobs and a positive outlook on the future) the only number you can reasonably adjust in an aging society is the retirement age. People live longer so they have to work longer. As a fraction of the average livespan they work the same. If France raises the retirement age by two years to 64 they are still retiring earlier than all surrounding countries. Italy: 67, Spain: 66, Germany, Belgium: 65
• adrr 3y ago
  FBI is run by a Trump appointed republican and a member of the federalist society which is a conservative organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Wray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Wray
  • enlightenedfool 3y ago
    Doesn't matter. Once appointed they want to keep the job, power etc., so they kowtow to the party in power.
    • adrr 3y ago
      Its unprecedented to fire a FBI director before their 10 year term is up. Only one president has ever done that, can you guess who that was?
    • hayst4ck 3y ago
      When power is taken into account the federalist society is the most effective anti-rule of law organization in the US. The federalist society is a lynch pin in the plan to gridlock congress and then rule from the judicial branch.
  • TechBro8615 3y ago
    This argument totally misses the context of that appointment, which was the tremendous pressure Trump was under from the Democrats and DC establishment after he fired Director Comey. Trump appointed Director Wray, yes, but the appointment was made basically under duress. It was hardly his choice, and he was under immense political pressure to assuage the optics of what looked like a coverup in his firing of Comey. He had to choose someone recommended by uniparty politicians like McConnell.
    • adrr 3y ago
      Dems couldn’t do anything. They didn’t have control of house so they couldn’t impeach. It also unprecedented to fire an FBI director. More cognitive dissonance trying to say the Dems controlled a Republican controlled institution.
• dangus 3y ago
  > The Democrats launched FBI investigations against their political opponents without sufficient legal backing. This doesn’t seem true. For one thing, the head of the FBI is a Trump appointee.
  • pstuart 3y ago
    Who needs truth when just an accusation does the job?
• jrmg 3y ago
  Ah, yes, the famously non-corrupt FBI! No skeletons in its closet! There are things going wrong now, but to suggest there’s some golden incorruptible past we’ve strayed from is ahistorical. Serving the people? The good old boys network was just how things worked! Democratic government has always - to a greater or lesser extent - had to fight against the demons of human nature. This is not to imply we can be complacent, but we shouldn’t collapse into despondency either. There are good people fighting (metaphorically) the good fight just as there always have been. They need our support.
  • paulddraper 3y ago
    I'm inclined to agree. Likely there's a level of awareness we didn't have before.
  • soderfoo 3y ago
    The FBI is never a good bedfellow. The winds change and each party has their turn sharing a common enemy with the bureau. With righteousness and zeal, they claim the throne of patriotism. I'm not sure if it's dissonance or political opportunism, or a mix. I would like to think anyone with some knowledge of US history would be weary and proceed with caution whether they find themselves in alignment with authorities or not.
    • christophilus 3y ago
      > weary Nit: you probably meant wary, though I am also weary of politics. But I agree. The solution is limited power in the center of government. If you don’t want your political enemies to have the power you enjoy, then you need to abolish that power, because sooner or later it will turn on you.
• mc32 3y ago
  It's like we have become the enemy we despised during the cold war. We used to make fun of the Stasi and how they spied on everyone to have control over everyone. We touted a government of the people for the people. We highlighted how anti-authoritarian we were and how suspicious of we were of governments seeking more power... yet, here we are we are become that which we despised. These are things one might expect from a banana republic. Not “the leader of the free world.” Were just as subject to the vagaries of the apparatus in power. When is the Congress going to take back its power from the executive and rein in the abuses? Jefferson and Eisenhower were right. JFK tried and everyone knows how it ended up for him.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • lapcat 3y ago
    > It's like we have become the enemy we despised during the cold war. We were already the enemy we despised during the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
    • mc32 3y ago
      One man isn’t an apparatus in lockstep seeking to perpetuate its power for its own sake. That’s not at all the same. This is the state believing it has preeminence over the people and can ignore laws to further their own goals without public input and without discussion; without hearings.
      • lapcat 3y ago
        > One man isn’t an apparatus in lockstep seeking to perpetuate its power for its own sake. From the linked Wikipedia page: "Historians have suggested since the 1980s that as McCarthy's involvement was less central than that of others, a different and more accurate term should be used instead that more accurately conveys the breadth of the phenomenon, and that the term McCarthyism is now outdated. Ellen Schrecker has suggested that Hooverism after FBI Head J. Edgar Hoover is more appropriate."
• bboygravity 3y ago
  This is the logical end-game when you don't have a direct democracy. There's 0 reason for politicians to "do as they promised during the campaign" other than their own ethical beliefs and some laws that they can change or otherwise neutralized. And even if they do as they promise, they can still do so while enriching themselves through other unethical behavior. PS: the biggest source of stock market income for politicians isn't trading on insider knowledge. It's guys like Kenneth Griffin (the future Madoff 2.0) donating a 100 million USD a year to GOP for example. Ken is essentially paying off politicians with money he stole from households on the stock market.
  • pravus 3y ago
    The logical end-game of direct democracy is the death of Socrates.
  • johngladtj 3y ago
    Its not about democracy, direct or otherwise. It's about having no restrictions on state power and responsibilities
• gsatic 3y ago
  Weird part about the attention economy, where leaders emerge quite fast out of the blue and are capable of pulling huge attention to issues, is they all end up following the same playbook after getting popular.
• marsven_422 3y ago
  [dead]
• neovialogistics 3y ago
  Something other replies have failed to mention is that Asabiyyah typically only lasts four generations.
• nonethewiser 3y ago
  Thats a natural consequence of a large federal government. You said Western but I dont see a counterpoint outside the west. Maybe in tiny countries? But in the Us look to your local government and you’ll (hopefully )see a very responsive government that actually represents constituents. Its not necessarily even the federal government’s fault. The distance between the federal government and its constituents is far by nature. They are making laws that apply to both Texas and California - there is not much that both will want.
  • lapcat 3y ago
    > But in the Us look to your local government and you’ll (hopefully )see a very responsive government that actually represents constituents. That parenthetical "hopefully" is doing a lot of work. ;-)
  • dabluecaboose 3y ago
    >Its not necessarily even the federal government’s fault. The distance between the federal government and its constituents is far by nature. They are making laws that apply to both Texas and California - there is not much that both will want. Which arguably is be design; the framers knew that it was better for the states to largely handle their own affairs. The problem is now everyone thinks their laws are so important that they have to be federal, instead of just letting different states do their own thing.
• lapcat 3y ago
  > It feels like even Western governments are becoming more and more protective of their aristocrat-class I'm confused about how this is the takeaway from a story about how the government was spying on a US Senator, who presumably is a member of the aristocrat-class? IMO this is a story about how politicians, in the name of "security", empower a bureaucracy that becomes more powerful than the politicians themselves. The same thing happens at the local level with city governments and police departments/police unions. The politicians lose control of the security apparatus.
• NearAP 3y ago
  >> The Democrats launched FBI investigations against their political opponents without sufficient legal backing. If you're referring to the Trump investigation (during his first run), then your claim is false. No court or legal investigation including that of the special counsel or general inspector's report, has reached such a conclusion. The special counsel report did determine there was enough grounds to start an investigation but it said it should have been a preliminary investigation and not a full-blown investigation. Also, the FBI was led by a Republican (James Comey) appointed by a Democrat (Obama) specifically because he was supposed to be independent-minded (as the Deputy AG under Bush, Comey refused to sign an extension of a warantless spying program because he felt it was illegal and the program lapsed; Comey then rushed to the hospital to make sure the AG who wasn't sick wasn't tricked into signing it)
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• l1tany11 3y ago
  That’s one of the problems with politics currently. Everyone is focused on republicans versus democrats, when in my opinion it should be the people versus those in power first and foremost. While I agree that there are important issues that the different sides disagree on. Realistically they seem to be in agreement >90% of the time. I think not tolerating corruption, incompetence, and an unwillingness to make progress is the most important thing a voter can do. But we are distracted by the parties and the media and tricked into fighting each other, instead of holding those in power accountable.
• flir 3y ago
  > The UK's Conservative party misled the public about the EU to get the Brexit vote. Saying nothing about your wider point, the Conservative Government was pro-Remain - all the major parties were. There were two Leave campaign groups, and many individual Conservative MPs signed on for them. Official policy was pro-Leave but to let everyone campaign as they saw fit.