21 Jun 2021 12:50 am
My counterargument to your first point is that the opinion of "the people" is irrelevant. Even if 90% of people wanted infrastructure projects like desalination plants or reservoirs that feed into the Colorado River basin or a Mexico border wall or breaking up the banks it doesn't matter unless they all march on Washington D.C. or Wall Street with weapons...THEN it might matter, but good luck getting that many people to attend - not to mention the (((media))) would immediately decry these attendees as "racists" or "white supremacists" or "terrorists" or whatever and the retarded people will believe what the (((media))) says.SJConspirator » 21 Jun 2021, 12:38 am » wrote: ↑ how did I contradict myself? Nothing in my writing exonerates billionaires or politicians, totally the contrary. I think you somehow missed my point.
I KNOW that the stalemate in DC is by design, it’s all kabuki theatre. My point is not that the parties are hopelessly deadlocked - THE PEOPLE ARE. We are incredibly divided, and that’s why nothing can get done- there is always half the population opposing any agenda just because of who brought it to the table!
it’s not that human nature cannot be cooperative, we have built the interstate highway system, the Suez Canal, Mount Rushmore, etc.. we put a man on the moon, which took enormous resources and collective will.
It’s a sign of the times that we cannot come together anymore for any good purpose. It’s a reflection of how easily people are divided once you introduce television and internet for a few decades, and sling nonstop propaganda in ways that stimulate the brains of the peons with pixelated, endorphin rushes of nonsense and lies.
If the people cannot ever come together, even on matters of facts and common sense, it matters not what the politicians do.
Human nature necessitates disagreement over how they think society should be structured. We have fascists, anarchists, libertarians, socialists, liberals, conservatives, primitivists, etc. debating what policies should be implemented. These disagreements have always existed/will always exist.
Yet there were politicians in the past (just look at Otto v Bismarck back in 1890) who ruled with an iron fist and managed to get their agenda passed as long as they were skilled and powerful enough. They didn't need "the people's opinions." They simply knew how to navigate the system and force the wealthy parasites to go along with their plan. Xi Jinping is also a master at this which is why the Chinese billionaires are scrambling to escape the country - the billionaires want to rule the countries where they are staying and not BE RULED.
The "people's opinions" don't matter unless people miss 2 weeks of meals/go hungry and can't feed their children or something (The oligarchs already have cheap processed foods like chips/crackers/bread/ramen noodles/other trash "food" as their backup plan so good luck with that as well, LOL).
This is getting way off topic but my point throughout this thread is very simple:
Contrary to Cannon's argument that "liberals need to be anti-establishment," modern liberalism amounts to a managed system with all the exterior functions and architecture of a republican system of governance. In practice it serves a small clique of oligarchs whose loyalties do not lie with "the nation," "the people," or anything of that sort. Since these oligarchs are the ones who have the most political sway, it makes sense that they get to decide what happens with the country, and you (an ordinary citizen) have no actual say other than casting a vote for a mouthpiece at the ballot box every [X] years or writing some anti-oligarch posts on LF.net/some online forum.
What the actual liberals themselves (or people claiming to be "liberals" - it makes not ONE WHIT OF DIFFERENCE in the end as they will all meet the same fate) say or do or claim they support is largely irrelevant.