Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BlightedFox

  1. 19 minutes ago, beecee said:

    If I may, and as a poor old retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder, why do you act as if the whole world is your nail and all you have is a hammer? Life is short matey, take it easy, enjoy and respect and learn from the many professionals we do have here....put your hammer away. There are many different types of nails. Or if you like, take an aspro, and have a good lie down before you chose to interact on the forum. Have fun!!!


    What a load of illiterate dribble. (yes I cut most of it, no that doesn't really matter, I'm referring to the entire lot of garbage)
    Contrarian from ignorance?

    I add, you subtract. 
    I add, you subtract.
    I add, you subtract.
    I add, you subtract.
    I add, you subtract.
    I add, you subtract.
    I add, you subtract.
    I add, you subtract.
    I add, you subtract.
    I add, you subtract...

    Rinse and repeat!

    Intelligence uses the additive method.
    Considering at no point in being here has anybody added [thing 1] to anything I've written (or bothered to engage with any of it substantively), you can understand how I think you're all a bunch of ignoramuses.


    I love the inferred ad hominem argument...
    I am neither retired, nor old. And I have been many things beyond just that which you proclaim is the profession of a lesser individual.
    I am better read than you. That is plainly obvious. And you continue to prove it repeatedly. With whatever BS semantic posturing trash this is.


    You mock philosophy even though politics is almost all philosophy. (perhaps you should go find a hobby you can actually comprehend)
    Or did you miss that part where almost all political ideations originated from the best philosophers? Yeah, that's apparently lost to those who don't know how to read.


    Thank you for proving the entire point I was making without missing a beat. You are incredibly obtuse.
    I doubt you know the orthodox theories, much less being able to engage with heterodox ones... That much is obvious.
    Why are you even in here? You pretend to know better having never read anything...

    Is this forum nothing but the ignorant and illiterate, so far reaching from even a basic reading level on political theory? I mean, good gawd WTF?
    You people are wholly disappointing. No wonder political ignorance and stupidity is propagating so feverishly in the world. Nobody reads a goddamned thing about any of it. And somehow, you think you know what you're talking about...

    Maybe when professors complain about the level of ignorance shown by their students to refrain from uncomfortable topics, this is how they feel.


    Go ahead, and nit pick some more stupid, for the semantic dumb again... I no longer care.
    Literate people are apparently a problem for you... (and that's rather telling)

    I apologize for speaking too far above your reading level. I understand that this can be difficult.
    But you don't deserve respect that you didn't earn (nobody does). Not engaging with topics and information in a substantive way kinda makes your disrespect inevitable. You earned it.

    Have fun in your echo chamber.
    Don't pretend you're actually engaging in intelligent discourse, nobody who has read more than you will ever be allowed in.
    And that's pretty much a recipe for stupid.

    They can moderate the hell out of me, I certainly don't give a damn. I know how much I've read, I know how little you've read. And I can plainly see how ignorance defends itself from knowledge.

    Adios Monsior Cupcake!!!! (I'll go back where intelligent and literate people reside now, it ain't here!)

  2. Heterodoxy,

    I had a conversation with someone who manages engineers (owner operator, of a small prosperous firm), and I couldn't help but ask why they can be so incredibly ignorant, and how more than a few of them could support the political aspirations of imbeciles, con artists, and grifters. His explanation was right to the point.
    They were never trained, nor need critical thinking skills. They are trained in a very hard set of rules as to the way the world is, and that those rules are not to be questioned. They aren't scientists, and have no need for hypothesis, and testing. they are there to implement already known factors, and do so with high effectiveness. Material science as it turns out, is not an engineering field.

    To reference "Real Genius." Laslo believed that the answers were the answers to everything.

    Politics is philosophy. There are no perfect answers, and there are no concrete answers. There is only philosophy.
    And as one might realize, the more literacy in the various philosophical positions as such, the better equipped to understand it you become.

    Without an ideal form, you have no aspirations, and no path forward. You are incapable of construction, and incapable of meaningful repair. You lack the requisite tools.
    However, the old addage applies, "If all you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail."


    Do you know what they all believe?
    Do you have a meaningful understanding of the various ideal world's people are trying to construct? Their conflicts? Their inadequacies? Their Material and Cultural Interests?)
    Can you construct a version of your own reading? More contextualized as a result of having read the many other prescriptions?

    Heterodoxy, as it turns out, is being able to ask questions that make other people uncomfortable. Breaking the molds.
    Does this forum even come close to showing that ability?
    If you don't know what the heterodox opinions are, can you really even suggest you have managed to climb past the first peak of the Dunning Kruger model? I would argue, absolutely not!
    I understand completely that the political establishments of the world are inherently conservative in their general maintenance of the status-quo-ante. And that serves their systems of power well. Perhaps thinking that there is nothing else is a form of ignorance. That change is inevitable, and even required. And that understanding change is infinitely more important than discussing the narrow pigeon hole that is the overton window of political establishment. Have you read anything else? Do you know about anything else? Or do you perpetuate this notion of political discourse as written by those who have not, and are occupying the interests of those who would see them removed entirely?

    Liberalism, Classical-Liberalism, Neoliberalism
    Conservatism, Classical Conservatism, Neo-Conservatism
    Anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Socialism, Anarcho-Capitalism
    Socialism, Libertarian-Socialism, Democratic-Socialism (Fabian Socialism), Ricardian-Socialism
    Capitalism, Crony-Capitalism, Laissez-Faire-Capitalism, Social-Democratic-Capitalism
    Classical Economics, vs Neoclassical Economics, vs Keynesian Economics, vs Neoliberal Economics
    *Post Keynesian, Georgist, Minskian, etc...



    Political Ratchet Effect, (how to manipulate overton windows and blind a populous to possibilities)
    Horseshoe Theory, (how to convince the illiterate that they know better) *How to maintain ignorance in the populous.
    Political Pragmatism, (how to make the argument that only killing 5 is better than killing 10, when the answer is obviously zero)

    All designed to ensure you maintain somebody else's power, and are ill-equipped to do anything else.
    *Unless of course, you actually believe that everything is just PEACHY. (I doubt that very much)

  3. The answer to this question lies entirely in US history.

    Native American Genocide (what humble beginnings)
    US Colonialism/Imperialism began pretty much the moment we were no longer under British control (it has never stopped)

    Expansionary practices always involved atrocity, mass murder, and the cultural/social/economic rape of the ensnared nations.
    If we were going to criticise the Brits/etc... For their misdeeds, we would instantly be hypocrites to not acknowledge our own atrocities that were committing at that time, and have continued to this day.
    German mass genocide was too public and too exposed to be ignored. So the hypocrisy was necessary. The whole debacle happened as the whole world watched, and regular people were never going to take a different stance on such vile, and wretched crimes against humanity.

    Britain and the colonialist nations also existed in a different time in information dissemination. In those times, it was a lot easier to control the narrative.
    And atrocity after the fact doesn't seem to gain public interest nearly as much. Conservatives can pretend it never happened, and liberals can ignore it. Pictures coming from cameras taken last week are a lot harder to ignore, people feel connected to events happening in the now.
    Germany also, was a total failure. They were perfect scapegoats for right-wing trash across the planet. The evil enemy that isn't "US." The fascism of the 3rd Reich could be hand waved at political opponents of any flavor, and the meme's could roll for a hundred years.

    Controlling the information as it seems, is more important than the truth, when an uninformed populous is concerned.

    Maybe we really ask the bigger question?!
    How is it that Americans are so ignorant to our nation's long history of atrocity and human rights violations to many, many nations around the world? (spanning our entire history)
    It's almost like people go to Banana Republic to buy overpriced t-shirts, and they completely miss the irony. #UnitedFruitCompany

    US foreign policy has been almost entirely human rights violating for our entire history. Maybe the moral of the story, is that ALL of the violations are of equal evil, and bad. And the bad-faith disgusting argument "Daddy, Daddy, they did it too." is wretched!!!!


    Consider the bad-faith argument about the impending doom of "refugee caravans at the border."

    El Salvador

    Maybe, just maybe, you go read about US interventionism and actions towards those 3 nations for many, many years?!?!?!?
    The propping up of mass murdering militia groups,
    The propping up of puppet dictators and despots,
    The wholesale rape of indigenous peoples' lands and resources (not to mention the rape and murder of those people)
    -And that is just the tip of the iceberg that is the history of US foreign policy affairs... (You won't find many Latin nations we didn't fuch over)

    Spreading Democracy, as it seems, is just a phrase they use when they actually mean "You will do as we say."

  4. 13 minutes ago, beecee said:

    A 2 hr video and you want, no demand people to watch it? I did do the next best thing though and googled this Hedges turkey....yeah just as I thought....a bloodt presbyterian minister, and worked at the christian science monitor. Yeah thatnks for your preaching but no thanks... I'm here for the science and to learn, not to listen to some damn mythical hysterical nonsense. 

    Just STFU!
    Consider me not in this topic anymore. You people are insufferable.
    Are you drunk? Yeah, yer probably drunk. (spelling and such poor searching is kinda an indicator)


    IDK, maybe this guy's writing history makes your response look vapid, and wanton too...

    Such Titles as:

    -American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America
    -The Death of the Liberal Class
    -America: The Farewell Tour

    He has spent the better part of his career (after being a long time war correspondent) studying this political culture self annihilation occurring in the US. You quite clearly have done none as such. *Hedges is a very well traveled journalist.
    And your search abilities are almost non-existent. Don't pretend you know what you're talking about with that level of critical approach.

    Adios, I will be responding to no more of you folks in here... (I don't debate ignoramuses) *I know better than to scream at walls.

  5. Okay, so maybe a full selection would be a little ridiculous. Insead of even trying to select only those perfect top 10, of which I absolutely could not do. I'll just spit-ball and add a few authors and some of their works I consider important reads for a better heterodox understanding that most people do not possess.

    David Graeber,

    Thomas Frank,

    Naomi Klein,

    Michael Hudson,

    Yanis Varoufakis,

    Slavoz Zizek,

    Noam Chomsky, and Edward S Herman,


    Obviously, I would recommend the standard fare for more popular ideologies, aka...
    Ricardo, Smith, Marx, Mises, Hayek,Keynes, Friedman
    Adorno, Gramsci, Kropotkin
    Hume, Descartes, Plato, Aristotle
    Locke, Montesquieu, Paine
    Hobbes, Burke

    But I consider those to be in the "Well Duh!" of requisite readings.
    And obviously, in terms of the populars, there are plenty more that could (and probably should) be added.

  6. On 11/20/2021 at 2:05 PM, Phi for All said:

    I thought I did acknowledge your damn essay with my reply about lecturing and blogging and soapboxing. I remember saying something about discussion, and how it's preferable to being lectured to. 

    I will admit I dislike video as a means to learn about something from someone's words. I love video for entertainment, and for learning how to DO things by having someone show me how. But when it comes to raw information that I need to assess for validity and accuracy, the written word is far more trustworthy. I'm not being distracted by presentation, and I can instantly re-read anything I don't immediately understand. With video, we're predisposed to suspend a certain amount of disbelief, which I think is detrimental when you're trying to stay informed. I don't listen to lectures, I don't watch the news on video. I read what I want to know, and I read what others take the time to write out thoughtfully and concisely. 


    I don't care about your likes, and dislikes for information dissemination. That is entirely irrelevant. I don't care about your desire for your dictatorial rules in the exact and only means of which you will engage with information. That is also irrelevant.

    You refused to engage with what I wrote after attacking the notion of addressing a video lecture, and THEN proclaimed everything I wrote as saopboxing, so you could entirely ignore that as well. IGNORANCE. Perfectly acted out.

    I have never seen anybody so ignorant and wantonly, act as though their ignorance is defensible, and that it makes them the more intelligent and virtuous person. Such amazingly incompetent dismissal and pathetic hand waving.
    I will NEVER submit to your RULES. I will never engage under you criterion. I'm better read than you, and your wanton ignorance is the proof of that. You did an excellent job of of outing yourself.
    You didn't even bother nit picking, as you didn't even bother reading a damn thing. You are not a debater. You act in bad faith, and ignore anything which might challenge your less literate preconceived notions of reality. You are not an intellectual. Stop pretending you are.

  7. Just now, Phi for All said:

    For you.

    Perhaps instead, you could try to refute the stance I have on the subject, which is that part of the growing movement to deny reality in the US is based on reading/listening to too few sources, and that the average person is falling to populist opinions which can be outlandish, extremist, and unreasonable. You can hopefully see why your focus on a single presenter sparked my replies.


    I didn't, and don't need to read your hypothesis. It is severely lacking in all respects.
    But you didn't bother to read what I wrote either, so why should I care?

    Good on you to try and change the subject to "your poorly constructed argument."
    You refuse to even acknowledge I wrote a damn essay under that link...
    Nice job, 

    If you had actually read it, you would know how I represent "centrist" ideologies, and how ignorant I state they are.
    And yet, I also give credence to contextualized ideologies, as being the only ones worth a damn. Which is significantly different than centrism, as the contextualized are significantly better read than centrists. (centrism is worse than what you accuse these "ignorant people" of)

    I'm 100% sure you cannot distinctly lay out the dominant and sub dominant ideologies at play in US politics. Much less the fringe and radical ideologies. And absolutely cannot explain the how and why of said ideologies. That history is almost mandatory to discuss how we got here, but apparently simpleton arguments about people deciding to ignore that "grand ole information" is apparently better?! There are many factors which caused them to be susceptible to the demagoguery and snake oil. You have to address the actual causes and not the symptoms.

    Don't consider the expertise of a presenter, don't even engage the idea that he could be an expert, and instead, ignore everything and pretend you already just know better... I would have respected a 5 second criticism of who the presenter is, more than whatever this ignorance is... Without the watch party. But hey, now I get to know the egoisms of the various loud mouths. And that's fine too.

  8. 3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    And you wish us to wade through two hours of somebody's opinion.

    A journalist and researcher, whose opinion is a thousand times more credible than yours?
    Yes, in fact that is exactly what I expect. (all are opinions, sciencey or otherwise)
    *I also did not state it was a requirement to address all of the things I WROTE. But clearly you're more interested in deflecting from that which directly attacks whatever ideological position you might blindly follow...

    Yes, the lecture does go into specifics as to what I was referring to, he goes into great detail as to a number of aspects of our political and economic realities.

    The very fact that you cannot differentiate prescription from description and objectively watch a lecture tells me that you are not an academic. Or have since lost whatever skills were involved in being an academic.


    You are not giving me any faith that this site actually holds people with critical minds...

  9. 1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

    That's NOT a discussion, that's a lecture. We prefer discussion as opposed to lectures and blogs, because these fears usually stem from listening to too few sources. Chatting around a table rather than sitting in an audience, as it were.

    Ask a question that almost certainly requires 100 hours of reading context, and the best you will ever get is a lecture...
    And the lecture only covers the "why in the immediate." I added many very abstract and non-specific elements to try to give more context, but even that's not a great explanation. And sure, I intentionally threw fire on several poorly thought out political and ideological positions. But that was very necessary.

    Hedges perfectly explains the very question being asked by the OP.
    I could instead just post reference to entire books, and many of them, but you would absolutely hate that more.

    It isn't as though I ONLY posted that... But if people really want to learn something about why, instead of pretentiously acting like experts already, they're never going to get anywhere without reference to those in expertise. (The trope of engineers who think they have all the answers to all other aspects of society is rather pointed)
    These are randoms in a website, I wouldn't take anybody calling themself an expert seriously. And certainly no more than a known individual whose expertise can be quantified.

    Maybe I don't understand how this method has any useful function. It seems more like it's just going to enfranchise fools and idiots.
    Debate does not favor truth. Debate is performative, favoring the rhetorician and the deceiver. (but that ties perfectly back into why our political system is a pile of hot garbage today...)

  10. Do we criticize Peterson for his illiteracy of political theory and ideology, that he inaccurately criticizes, and espouses?
    Post Modern NeoMarxism? Or shall we just move forward to "Cultural Marxism?" When Peterson directly shows his fanaticism for conservative anti-semitisms (no, I don't think he even knows about their origins... Yes, I think he's that illiterate), and a total lack of literacy on any of the subject matter?

    Or do we attack him for his poor works involving his "credited expertise?"
    Whereby he essentially writes books to defend and espouse conservative authoritarian views, and project them onto the unsuspecting inexperienced in need?

    Would anybody who defends this charlatan ever both to reflect on a comprehensive analysis of his "great book?"
    I think not! (To call Peterson anything else would be dishonest)

    Many make bad arguments about how Peterson continues to move outside his own area of expertise, the problem is, that he is also a pile of steaming crap "in his area of expertise."

  11. Honestly, I think these fears are best discussed by Chris Hedges...

    However, to understand the rising elements of "fascism" in the US, you have to understand how skewed and ignorant US politics has become. How almost nobody understand the political landscape, and how the information available is so well bleached that few comprehend even a basic understanding of the landscape that is the various ideologies on the playing field. (when if ever have you heard "journalists" discussing political theory? Attempting to teach people the how and why of political ideology? I have never seen as such, and I suspect neither have you)

    So many use terminologies they know absolutely nothing about, parroting the words of whichever useful idiot they borrowed from. Those who are paid well to provide rhetorical dumpster fires for those programmed into gullibility. (and lest we forget the 5 filters of mass media, thank you Noam)


    A history of those in power lying to keep it, and lying to gain more. (A fundamental truth of political power)
    They pollute the narrative, and poison the historical contexts with verbal diarrhea. And those who came after, can pretend as though their predecessors are celebratory of some grand truths. So and, and so forth, until we find that the only thing we don't know, is the truth.
    History is fraught with those seeking to maintain power (right-wing) lying to the masses, to sell their morally and ethically corrupt policies.

    Social issues and the culture war are "free." They cost those is power nothing. They need not concern themselves with bigotry, poverty, and the like... The liberties of the people holds no value to them.
    They do however, need a social cudgel with which to maintain control, and the narratives of anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia, and bigotry have always held great power for those seeking to divide and conquer a populous, garnering the interest of those susceptible to demagoguery, and fear-mongering.

    It should be more apparent, but the nuclear dumpster fires that are the current culture war have blackened the skies so we might not see what is right in front of our faces.
    Neither political party in the US has any motivation whatsoever to act in the interests of the people. They have constructed a system in which the wealthy may purchase their favor, in a mutually beneficial way. The only losers, are We The People. (This indicates a non-democracy/republic, and denotes an oligarchy) *It also indicates that both parties are inherently "right-wing." It should also be noted that governmental bodies that are non-democratic, are inherently conservative by their very nature. To maintain their hierarchical hegemonies and maintain the status quo is their primary objective. [aka right-wing and conservative]


    You hear the lesser of two evils argument every 4 years or so, and the culture war escalates ever more. Democrats (not to be confused with democrats) happily sell everything wrong with the nation when not in power, and do everything in their power to fix nothing when in power. Republicans (not to be confused with republicans) do nearly the same thing, except when in power engage in radical anti-democratic practices, and attempt at every turn to steal everything not nailed down. *Thereby verifying Democrat voters fears about 'evil.' (Add in the culture war, and those fears of evil are even more validated)

    There is a saying, that "Democrats hate their voters, and Republicans fear theirs." this tends to track when you look at how they interact with their "constituencies." Republicans have the never-ending task of keeping their base in a state of perpetual anger, anybody with half a brain would have the good sense to fear such hostility to some extent. And Democrats are constantly having to kick down their voter bases ideals in wanting a more egalitarian society, selling whichever bad faith economic lie is necessary to stamp out the narratives. And they never see an end either. As one falls, another takes its place, and you can see the blatant irritation on their faces when asked about such issues. They absolutely and unequivocally hate the people they are tasked with appealing to.
    (yes, these are generalizations, and yes you may find an outlier here or there, and no, I do not care about outliers, they are not representative of their parties) *perhaps outliers represent future change, but that's not the discussion for the here and now, on why such dangerous culture war anti-democracy, fascistic nonsense reaching further and further into US politics...


    As to specifically the how of the Republican Party to have moved so far right, and become the proto-fascists of our time?
    One might look to the cooptation of the Christians into radical right wing fundamentalist conservatives. A path which perfectly aligns with the Southern Strategy, and the direct appeals to the racist south. (What, you've never heard of Jerry Falwell?) *platforming reactionary demagogues has been the Republican bread and butter for a VERY LONG TIME NOW.
    For the wealthy and powerful elite, this was a move motivated only by power, and the possibility to capturing more audience and support for that power. The actual radical right Christian movements are just good strategy if you have no morals, no ethics and are more than likely a psychopath or sociopath in search of infinite power.
    I always wonder what happens if the Christian right ever realizes how much their beliefs have been used to abuse them? How they might react if they ever see through the thick layer of demagogic human excrement that has been controlling them for decades... I cannot imagine there is a place on earth a person could run, that they would not follow for the kind of vengeance that would ensue. (And yet, they may simply all double, triple, quadruple down on fascism, and go in whole hog, only realizing after they have good and collapsed into oblivion) *Imagine being so abused and resulting in your own personal shame? I don't wish that on anybody. Least of all, an entire culture of people.

    Should we be afraid for the future? Unless the culture war can be curbed, and the oppressors engaged instead, we're probably in for some real hell on Earth in the coming years.

    The brainwashing and training into extreme ignorance, with excessive use of emotional word training, as a direct replacement for actual literacy, it may be damn near impossible to appeal to anyone following in such ideological agendas. It is almost a certainty that every single one of us has at some point, and currently are in the controls of such linguistic programming, and we are certain to not realize it. Propaganda from those who "speak our history, propaganda from those who "won the war."
    How do you deprogram those already write protected minds? When the lock has been on for more than 40 years? We're in the second generation of right-wing demagogic radio... Does nobody understand what that actually means for society? (yes that was rhetorical)

    Just remember, the whole political pie is there to prevent you from bettering the future, it is there to maintain power as they are. Partisanship is the mark of ignorance in today's political climate, and "centrism" is a direct admittance that you both know almost nothing about our politics or history, and think yourself superior at the same time. (don't be that "guy")

    If you fear a word, and have never read anything about it from the "horses mouths," (those who actually pioneered it) perhaps you're not as rational as you think...
    Consider the dialectical process, always view an issue from multiple lenses, especially opposing ones. And understand that context is realizing that people lie, history cannot and should not be understated, and there are more motivations than you think. You will never know the "truth" but you can find yourself closer and closer to it if you try hard enough.

    Understanding human ideology will probably be my lifelong obsession.
    A-contextual ideologies are a danger to society, a danger to the future, and are inherently infantile when compared to those more literate, and with greater context.
    I would posit that the age old saying "The young are more liberal, and age begets greater conservatism" is really just a bad-faith argument for fools. But appeals to the mind as you realize context begets less blatant idealisms. And so people fall for it more often than they should.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.