America has one political party — The Plutocracy Party

[ivwshane]

Another ad hom. If that's all you're going to offer don't expect replies.

Like you ever had any intention of having an honest conversation. Get bent.

 

[agent00f]

Another ad hom. If that's all you're going to offer don't expect replies.

Just a heads up you don't seem familiar with what ad hom means. It's a logical fallacy whereby someone attacks the unrelated attributes of the adversary instead of anything relevant to their argument.

---
As to that argument, in general you're correct that centrist democrats are half-conservatives, which is clear enough even by definition, but that implies they're also half-liberals. I don't believe there's much actual disagreement here except over the semantics of presenting that reality.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Indefinite preventative detention

NSA expansion, infrastructure, more advanced/spread tech, and legal loosening (a Sesame score dossier for every citizen — better than FICO)

paramiliarization of police — LRADs, bearcats, SWAT teams, tanks, grenades

new bans on public protest (e.g. Secret Service can declare any place off-limits at any time, far worse than "free speech zones")

social programming (pedophile or terrorist; you have no right to privacy and you're made to know it)

crackdown on transparency

If you think the elites aren't taking steps...

touchee

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The democratic party was made centrist by the clintons in order to win elections. There were simply too many white people who crossed over to R after desegregation otherwise.

It's no big secret that centrism means they're half-conservative by design.

Bigots, but who they hate is different. Could be working class whites or blacks and Mexicans. Neither side has true merit it seems.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bigots, but who they hate is different. Could be working class whites or blacks and Mexicans. Neither side has true merit it seems.

Bullshit. Bigotry is a minority position.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

for a period of time, perhaps. but once the disparity is too great, you get the french revolution. and this is what elites in america totally do not see. history repeats itself.

The main thing holding Americans back today is poor upbringing/family, and overpopulation. The government is complicit in that (anti-birth control laws, anti-eugenics laws, extra welfare benefits for people with children, etc), but it's more surface appeasement (to Christians and the bottom class) than any kind of plutocracy. If the "elites" (a rather vague group to begin with) could have their way, they'd just have Haitians and Chinese manufacture all of their goods and ignore over-priced, over-loved Americans entirely. The middle-class is growing nearly everywhere in the world aside from developed white countries, and your typical "working class" voter is just someone wanting to hold onto their beloved jobs which America protects at the expense of people in developing countries. Loss is relative by definition though, so any decrease in American wages is seen as unacceptable by Americans.

 

[raildogg]

superstition, what you are saying is sane and makes sense in many ways; therefore, it will get rejected by the masses. Our society has been conditioned to pick sides and identify with that side.

Most people who identify with liberalism or conservatism are by default totally ignorant of the reality. These people are dangerous because they are passionately ignorant of anything presented to them. All they see is a world through their liberal or conservative lenses. They view things as political assets or liabilities.

The system is designed in such a way to give you a choice. It is always the choice between the D or R, or a liberal or conservative. This keeps the people passified and feeling good about voting. It makes them feel like they've made a difference. These people don't realize they've been conned. Do you think the fate of a nation will be allowed to rest on the ignorant voting masses? How stupid do you think the elites are? We are talking about trillions of dollars that are at stake. We are talking about fate of the world possibly (in terms of wars, economic policy, social change).

Sure you may get a stooge who is supposed to be the President every 4 or 8 years. Sure your party may win some of those elections; what does it change? Your little liberal cause is advanced? Your little conservative cause is advanced?

What we have is a total illusion. It's a system designed to keep you totally unaware of anything of substance. And it is working really well because you have bought into it.

 

[superstition]

Like you ever had any intention of having an honest conversation.

Speaking for yourself.

Get bent.

Get banned.

 

[superstition]

superstition, what you are saying is sane and makes sense in many ways; therefore, it will get rejected by the masses. Our society has been conditioned to pick sides and identify with that side.

The system is designed in such a way to give you a choice. It is always the choice between the D or R, or a liberal or conservative.

Divide and conquer. Political football.

 

[ivwshane]

Speaking for yourself.

Get banned.

Go to your safe space.

 

[superstition]

I know where yours is. The web already has one 4chan. Your posting is one note angst and doesn't impress anyone familiar with that site.

 

[agent00f]

Bigots, but who they hate is different. Could be working class whites or blacks and Mexicans. Neither side has true merit it seems.

I'm not the audience for the "both sides" talking points; that's for gullible dummies who can't discern between things very well.

 

[superstition]

The main thing holding Americans back

back from dropping wages even more with respect to productivity, eh:

your typical "working class" voter is just someone wanting to hold onto their beloved jobs which America protects at the expense of people in developing countries.

any decrease in American wages is seen as unacceptable by Americans.

I'm sure there are plenty who are in favor of getting rid of golden parachutes.

The middle-class is growing nearly everywhere in the world aside from developed white countries

The middle class is typically overrated. They're a talking point for elites when pandering. The goal of a rational culture is to have a larger elite class not a larger middle class. And elite in that rational definition is intelligentsia not economic hoarders. We don't benefit much from having a bloated middle class full of mediocre minds.

 

[Jhhnn]

The middle class is typically overrated. They're a talking point for elites when pandering. The goal of a rational culture is to have a larger elite class not a larger middle class. And elite in that rational definition is intelligentsia not economic hoarders. We don't benefit much from having a bloated middle class full of mediocre minds.

Please. The goal of a rational culture is to spread the benefits of civilization to as many members as possible.

As you seem to realize, economic hoarding won't do that but it's been the goal & the result of 35 years of trickle down Reaganomics.

No matter what else happens, I'm confident that Trump & the Repubs can agree to cut taxes for our biggest economic hoarders & to reduce regulations over their behavior in the financial markets & elsewhere.

 

[superstition]

The goal of a rational culture is to spread the benefits of civilization to as many members as possible.

Something that the middle class has typically opposed due to its narrowmindness. Guess who gave the Puritans power in Elizabethan England?

The middle class is typically a self-serving entity that "does business" to enrich itself and its offspring with minimal concern for people beneath them and contempt for the innovative thought of the intelligentsia. (Sadly, the concept of intelligentsia has been bastardized to the point where Chomsky is probably mostly correct when he says "academia is the handmaiden of power". Purging and suppressing intelligent people is a hallmark of all regimes. How they do it differs but the result is the same.)

I know worshiping at the fount of the mystical "small business" (>50% of "small business profits are for anything but "small" people or their businesses, btw) and "middle class" is programmed into the American brain by decades of political messaging but it needs to be taken with a big grain of salt.

Of course the middle class has positive qualities. However, the notion that the middle class is the best source of cultural advancement is highly questionable. It makes more sense to redefine elite in terms of intelligentsia and work toward including as many people in that as possible — rather than continuing to chase the folly of net worth as the defining characteristic in terms of ranking people for quality.

As you seem to realize, economic hoarding won't do that but it's been the goal & the result of 35 years of trickle down Reaganomics. No matter what else happens, I'm confident that Trump & the Repubs can agree to cut taxes for our biggest economic hoarders & to reduce regulations over their behavior in the financial markets & elsewhere.

I guess the reason you took issue with my post is that you missed the last part:

And elite in that rational definition is intelligentsia not economic hoarders. We don't benefit much from having a bloated middle class full of mediocre minds.

 

[Jhhnn]

.

 

[superstition]

.

I take it by that response that you don't agree with this:

It makes more sense to redefine elite in terms of intelligentsia and work toward including as many people in that as possible — rather than continuing to chase the folly of net worth as the defining characteristic in terms of ranking people for quality.

Care to explain why?

It's interesting to see how the Landlords' Game became Monopoly and which one kids grow up playing in our culture.

 

[agent00f]

Something that the middle class has typically opposed due to its narrowmindness. Guess who gave the Puritans power in Elizabethan England?

The middle class is typically a self-serving entity that "does business" to enrich itself and its offspring with minimal concern for people beneath them and contempt for the innovative thought of the intelligentsia. (Sadly, the concept of intelligentsia has been bastardized to the point where Chomsky is probably mostly correct when he says "academia is the handmaiden of power". Purging and suppressing intelligent people is a hallmark of all regimes. How they do it differs but the result is the same.)

I know worshiping at the fount of the mystical "small business" (>50% of "small business profits are for anything but "small" people or their businesses, btw) and "middle class" is programmed into the American brain by decades of political messaging but it needs to be taken with a big grain of salt.

Of course the middle class has positive qualities. However, the notion that the middle class is the best source of cultural advancement is highly questionable. It makes more sense to redefine elite in terms of intelligentsia and work toward including as many people in that as possible — rather than continuing to chase the folly of net worth as the defining characteristic in terms of ranking people for quality.


I guess the reason you took issue with my post is that you missed the last part:

I think these are very good posts which offer a valuable perspective, but also suspect it's lost on americentric politics. The next gen of "middle class" are basically indebted to the state from the moment they graduate with the degree necessary to get a respectable job, to a life of servitude aka wage slavery.

These are the sort of bigger issues a responsible country should be talking about, but you can see it's largely preoccupied with what the degenerate just elected to highest office might do next.

 

[Muse]

I had to look up plutocracy.

Well, the GOP intends to reduce taxes on the rich very considerably while the Democrats vowed to increase them. So, very arguably the GOP is the party of plutocracy. Get it?

 

[superstition]

I had to look up plutocracy.

Well, the GOP intends to reduce taxes on the rich very considerably while the Democrats vowed to increase them. So, very arguably the GOP is the party of plutocracy. Get it?

The Dems vow a lot. lol

 

[Jhhnn]

I had to look up plutocracy.

Well, the GOP intends to reduce taxes on the rich very considerably while the Democrats vowed to increase them. So, very arguably the GOP is the party of plutocracy. Get it?

Facts don't matter in the face of a commitment to truthiness.

 

[superstition]

in the face of a commitment to truthiness.

Or punctuation.

Thanks for the drive-by banality, though.

 

[repoman0]

Of course the middle class has positive qualities. However, the notion that the middle class is the best source of cultural advancement is highly questionable. It makes more sense to redefine elite in terms of intelligentsia and work toward including as many people in that as possible — rather than continuing to chase the folly of net worth as the defining characteristic in terms of ranking people for quality.

I agree with this. How do you accomplish this with political policy though? You can give people the best schooling but you can't force them to think. It's easy to convince them that they should work hard to make money, though.

 

[superstition]

I agree with this. How do you accomplish this with political policy though? You can give people the best schooling but you can't force them to think. It's easy to convince them that they should work hard to make money, though.

I'm a fan of eugenics. It won't do everything, of course, but having a higher percentage of intelligent people means a larger pool of potential rationality. Yes, there will be more smart crooks but I bet there is data to support the idea that more intelligence in humans is actually better than less, even though it's our intelligence that's responsible for our ecological destructiveness. What we need to do is rise above our current level of consumption/waste/exploitation ideology and that takes more than education. It takes the intelligence to make use of it and improve upon it.

Like communism, eugenics has been horribly misused. Involuntary sterilization, warehousing, and things like that are all unnecessary. Things like encouraging high-IQ people to donate sperm, changing the laws so that such donors who donate privately aren't ripe for child support predators, and many other changes can be helpful. Change the tax code to incentivize sperm donation and parenting by high-IQ men. Do the same for reproduction and egg donation for high-IQ women. Make gifted education mandatory in schools. It's not. It's mandatory to provide educational intervention for stupid kids but not mandated to provide improved educational opportunities for smart ones. (This is, in my view, a way of dumbing-down public education so that privately-educated elites have less competition and so they can grab more tax money with voucher programs.) Stop celebrating sports "heroes" in schools and celebrate smart people instead.

Reduce the working day so people can spend more time tutoring their kids and stimulating their minds. Research has shown that the eldest child tends to have the highest IQ because of more time with parents (and probably improved sperm and egg quality due to the youthfulness of the parents).

Encourage teenage boys with high IQs to donate sperm as well as teenage girls (to donate eggs). Both are at their peak of quality when people are young. Our Puritanical fear of teenage sexuality needs to be put aside in favor of rational policy. Yes, we don't want teenage girls to get pregnant but they should stockpile eggs if they have high IQs for their own use later even if they don't allow others to use them. But it's a good idea to do that as well. The same goes for sperm. The older a man is the more defects his sperm will have, defects that can lead to lower offspring IQ. High-IQ boys should be able to store their sperm for use later in life, particularly since intelligent people tend to put off child-rearing so they can complete a lot of education and career development.

One thing education can do is stop enabling people to erroneously believe in the virtue of "normal" and "average". Little girls who want to be princesses don't yearn to be normal or average so why is it that the first thing people do when faced with something different, like gayness, is to argue in favor of whatever the average is? There is a lot of cognitive dissonance in culture about this. Simultaneously people worship the average and hope that they're better than it (and their kids, too).

De-fund school contact sports like football. Football causes brain damage and is a colossal waste of time and money. Soccer also needs to ban "heading" the ball. Only sports that don't cause brain damage, like tennis and swimming, should be part of school sports programs. I would also require that everyone who is a member of a school sport be the member of an academic team, like the chess team. Ironically, weight lifting is correlated with improved intelligence because exercise increases capillary blood flow. However, one should avoid polluted protein supplements. Chinese whey, for instance, is laden with heavy metals that impair IQ.

Institute prohibition for public college campuses. Binge drinking has no place in higher education. I favor a zero tolerance for alcohol at universities for undergraduates. I've seen my local university. It's deplorable. Sorority chicks vomiting against the sides of buildings, people dying from drinking too much water, and people constantly falling into bushes and passing out... It's not education. It's a farce. This is one thing Mormons have right. It's too bad about the silly religion thing, though.

Legalize genetic engineering for the purpose of enhancing IQ — but in a way that is designed to not legitimize greatly risking things like schizophrenia with experimentation since that is highly unethical. (I say greatly because schizophrenia is already correlated with high IQ, particularly in people who are left-handed and especially in the smaller subset of those who process speech in the opposite side of the brain as 80% of everyone else.)

Anyway, there are a lot of things that can be done to enhance our collective intelligence. Minimize pollution. Minimize people not getting enough sleep. Increase the importance of the extended family (e.g. research shows that kids that spend a lot of time with their grandmothers have higher IQs). Improve nutrition. Improve exercise levels. Reduce commutes. Improve television with things like academia channels (we have C-SPAN but no academia equivalents). Get people involved in educational gaming instead of having most of that be boring or superficial. Stop condemning teachers/education in order to promote policy that takes tax money out of public education and puts it into private pockets. etc.

And, yes, higher education should be free for anyone below an upper-middle class wealth level. All undergraduate programs should be liberal arts, too. People can, and should, specialize in graduate school. Courses in logic, critical thinking, brainstorming/inventiveness/creativity, world history, international ancient-to-present philosophy, psychology/sociology/anthropology, biology... Everyone should take these. However, I would ban double and triple majoring — excessive credit hours. Quality, not quantity, should be the imperative. College students should not have to be sleep-deprived to chase As. I would dump the A-F grading system and make everything pass-fail.

America would also be better-served by having the federal government be broken up. Geographical isolation makes Washington far too insulated from people in places like Oregon. Unless you're rich you can't influence policy by going to stand on Capital Hill to protest, can you? An isolated bureaucratic machine is likely to be out-of-touch with the needs of the general population — more likely to serve itself and a smaller subset of people. We should look at the Scandinavian model — small nations that invest in their people.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm a fan of eugenics.

Which means you're a fan of elitist fantasy.