Author Topic: The God Emperor and “His” Kings: A World Divided (Perspective, 1 and 2)  (Read 807 times)

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14660
  • The GrayGod
These last few weeks, I’ve been involved in a few political discussions with people on the “other side” of the fence, ranging from those whose general political camp once hosted my own tent, and who would like to see me pitch it there again, to the more rabid sort, who unironically think I’m some sort of a far-right internet-Nazi. This post is aimed more towards the first group; those who stick with the system and hope to turn the Western political rudder back towards classical progressivism.

In today’s political climate, it’s become common for the different countries, primarily in the West, to have “their own” Trump. The Philippines were perhaps the first out with president Duterte, but the wave of anti-establishment, anti-elitist, nationalist movements have by now washed over much of the “truly-democratic” world. I intend to explore this phenomenon from my own perspective, and answer exactly why *I* ride this wave.
 
Let’s start with The Great God-Emperor Orange-Man-Bad. I think it was Tim Pool, who summed up the attitudes towards him quite nicely, by saying something along the lines of, “Those who oppose Trump, take him literally, but not seriously. Those who support Trump, take him seriously, but not literally.” There is wisdom in those words, or at the very least some basic observational skills. I’d like to expand that last group, however, to also include people like me, or, for that matter, Tim Pool himself, who neither support nor oppose the president, though they may lean somewhat one way or the other. Many world-level politicians seem to also be in “our” camp, so no, American Progressives, the World is not laughing at your country’s leadership. Maybe at the very start, there were those who tried. Their numbers have dwindled.

Yes, president Trump may be a racist, uncultured dick. I’m not saying that he is, but so what if he was? Is he an effective president? Well, the US economy is doing well, to the point of being the only part of my stocks portfolio to trend upwards in recent months, the unemployment is down, the number of bombs dropped over some Allah-forsaken Fuckyoustan remains sort-of constant, he obviously cares about securing the borders, what with the barrier being built and them soldiers being deployed as a response to the migrant caravans. And the caravans themselves? How awesome must the United States seem for people to march thousands of kilometres on foot merely for a chance at a life there? I don’t aim the following statement at any-one on this site, but those of you still suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, get your heads out of your asses and explain to me, in light of this thread, exactly why the president is bad enough to be deposed, rather than why you find the man behind the office unlikeable.

Looking forward in 2016, a Trump vote was a huge gamble. I think probably as many people voted not for president Trump, but rather against Hillary Clinton, as did the opposite, but that’s neither here nor there. Today, a vote for Trump is relatively “safe.” The man talks a lot of shit but appears to be an effective leader, and he has already managed to become a consequential president. Why wouldn’t someone like me, who disagrees with some of his policies, but opposes the far-left vote for Trump? Think about that, then turn the tables; why would someone like me vote for a Democrat, given that that would also be a vote for the far-left?

I’ve seen a lot of people agitating for blue votes in the US mid-terms, yet my prediction is that the House will go marginally red while the Senate will increase its redness. The Democrats made their bed with “their” fringe. The Republicans did not, in spite of what some more biased media houses would have you believe. Is it cold out on the fringes of politics? Well, too bad. You make your bed, then you lie in it.

***End of part one***

In my opinion, president Trump largely set the stage for the rise of Western populism. Still, he was not the cause, but rather the symptom of the rot in the global political establishment, of political trends that out-paced the regular voter without noticing, then changed direction. When enough people in a major economic, military and cultural powerhouse (I don’t think it had to be the USA, but it sure as hell didn’t hurt “our” cause) gave the smug political elitists and “their” media houses the finger, and the result of that was not anywhere near the doomsayers’ predictions – quite the opposite, one can argue, at least for “the little guy,” why wouldn’t “we” come out of it energized, thinking that if THE Trump can do it, so can “our” man?

This is where we, within the scope of this post, come to the main difference between much of Europe and the USA. We Europeans tend to have enough political parties to make it difficult to form a stable (not to mention majority-) government in the most politically stable of times, and the rise of populism (Often, it’s really Nationalism rather than populism in the case of the EU/EEC-countries) made it that much harder. Look at Sweden for an excellent example; the Sweden Democrats have grown large enough to be a formidable bloc unto themselves, and yet, none of the established, “Old order” political parties want to work with them, or even talk to them about forming a government. Why? Beats me. You see, people – regular people – in “my” camp, are willing to talk to pretty-much anybody. To challenge their ideas, to try and achieve some form of consensus, to get what we can and give what we must… To try.

Those the American Left and the European establishment of all stripes represent, however, are so firmly in bed with the “convert or die” crowd, that merely talking to the “wrong” people may be enough for them to drag you nose-first through the muck. The result of this? Well, Sweden is pretty-much fucked at this point. If no-one comes to their senses any time soon, they risk re-elections and a new stalemate, or an ineffective minority government or, much to the same end, a left-right coalition. Why? What do Sweden Democrats stand for, that the establishment is unable to swallow? Is it that they put Sweden and her citizens above all else? Well, are they not supposed to, what with Sweden being a sovereign nation? (Albeit within The Fourth Reich of the EUSSR. Ooh, the metaphor is strong with this one today. Give me a shout if you want me to do an opinion post on the EU) Another result is the smell of desperation coming from the American left. What if the direction they took in the past decade, prioritising bullshit outrage and vast, global issues before the concerns of the average Joe from Alabama, means that they will simply stop winning?

“Nah,” you may say, “people want what the establishment is selling.” To this, I give you my well thought-through perspective, which a lot of other people follow to greater or lesser degree – consciously or otherwise.

I’m what is known as a “liberal.” That does not mean that I by default stand for or against certain policies, any more than being an Atheist means that I by default stand for or against certain religious traditions. What it means in my case, is that I hold Civil Rights, therein individual freedom, and first and foremost freedom of speech, as a core value.

Another one of my core values is equality under the law, therein the principle of the presumption of innocence. That means that unless you yourself own your wrongdoings, then whatever you are accused of having done, until your guilt is established by the court of law, as far as I’m concerned in that regard, you. Did. Nothing. Wrong. I apply this principle to men, women, children, the mentally disabled – every-fucking-body, and I expect my society to do the same.

The final core value worth mentioning in this discussion, is the Equality of Opportunity. This means that you are the architect of your own destiny, and I am the architect of mine. It may be that you start a mile ahead of me, and therefore, I’ll have to work harder or be better to effectively compete with you, but as long as I am not barred from competition by other than my own choices, and the same applies to you, then our opportunity is equal.

If you propose all the “right” policies but make just one legislative attack on said core values, then I may not vote against you, but I sure as old Hell won’t vote for you. If your opponent proposes all the “wrong” policies, but holds those core values “sacred,” then they may have my vote.

As long as I have the freedom to say what I want to whom I want, I can make my disagreement over policy known. As long as I’m not “automatically” condemned merely for having been accused, I will consider my rights protected. As long as I can get to where you are through hard work, some luck and more hard work, I consider our opportunities to be equal. Whether or not you want to raise taxes, or socialise health care or cut foreign aid… I’ll forgive you a lot of going against my preferred policies as long as you are the one who preserves my sovereignty over my sweet self through sharing the above values with me. Today, the American right and the European populists do that. The American left and the European establishment do not.

***End of part two***

Part three proved to be more research-intensive than anticipated, and is therefore not finished yet. It is less of my personal opinion on the matters of politics, and more of an "academic" analysis of the situation and the growing split between the camps. I try to figure out why "Nationalism" is almost a curse word these days, analyse the rhetoric of "all" sides, speak to street-level political violence and raise my eyes "beyond the horizon" in an attempt to see where it could end and when. I will post it when ready, probably next weekend. Have another post coming out today (hopefully) on an unrelated topic.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2018, 02:52:55 PM by Asmodean »
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

jumbojak

  • Chandler's Pale Cock Slurper
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6394
  • The Iconic Iconoclast
Quote
How awesome must the United States seem for people to march thousands of kilometres on foot merely for a chance at a life there?

The United States doesn't have to be awesome for that to happen, especially when you are talking about asylum seekers. All the United States has to be is somewhat reasonably safe. A better question would be why people are willing to put themselves through something like that and how the situation in their home country reached such a point.

For better or worse, the situation in Latin American can be reasonably linked to US actions in our former "Banana Republics" which, though less common today, still occurs. Now Honduras is the big news story but not too long ago it was Nicaragua and the surrounding countries that felt the worst of it.
 

"Amazing what chimney sweeping can teach us, no? Keep your fire hot and
your flue clean."  - Ecurb Noselrub
" Please hold your high school or college math books in higher esteem than
your copy of the KJV. " - Icarus

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14660
  • The GrayGod
Quote
How awesome must the United States seem for people to march thousands of kilometres on foot merely for a chance at a life there?

The United States doesn't have to be awesome for that to happen, especially when you are talking about asylum seekers. All the United States has to be is somewhat reasonably safe. A better question would be why people are willing to put themselves through something like that and how the situation in their home country reached such a point.
I disagree. The migrant caravans in question are marching through Mexico, which reportedly offered to evaluate their asylum claims. Why do so few take them up on their offer, when the leadership in the United States made it clear that unless they apply for asylum through legal means, they are not welcome?

This is kind-of parallel to our own refugee crisis, which nearly toppled the EU. Well, not that bad, perhaps, but it was a hugely difficult affair. Why did the bulk of the Middle-Eastern refugees not want to stop in Turkey, or Hungary, or any other relatively peaceful country they crossed? You escaped the war, so why do you need to be in Germany or Sweden? Because those countries are not only peaceful, but also nicer than the former.

Quote
For better or worse, the situation in Latin American can be reasonably linked to US actions in our former "Banana Republics" which, though less common today, still occurs. Now Honduras is the big news story but not too long ago it was Nicaragua and the surrounding countries that felt the worst of it.
That may be, but that's neither here nor there. There are correct ways of moving to a new country, and there are illegal ones. Or are you suggesting that the USA ought not have full control over her own borders?
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

jumbojak

  • Chandler's Pale Cock Slurper
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6394
  • The Iconic Iconoclast
I disagree. The migrant caravans in question are marching through Mexico, which reportedly offered to evaluate their asylum claims. Why do so few take them up on their offer, when the leadership in the United States made it clear that unless they apply for asylum through legal means, they are not welcome?

This is kind-of parallel to our own refugee crisis, which nearly toppled the EU. Well, not that bad, perhaps, but it was a hugely difficult affair. Why did the bulk of the Middle-Eastern refugees not want to stop in Turkey, or Hungary, or any other relatively peaceful country they crossed? You escaped the war, so why do you need to be in Germany or Sweden? Because those countries are not only peaceful, but also nicer than the former.

Mexico is not a safe country so the argument that they should have stayed there doesn't make sense to me. Jobs aren't the only reason Mexicans head north.

That may be, but that's neither here nor there. There are correct ways of moving to a new country, and there are illegal ones. Or are you suggesting that the USA ought not have full control over her own borders?

What I am suggesting is that if people want to make changes to an existing system that they should take direct action to do so. The ballot box is, to my eye, one of the most useless inventions humanity has ever devised. It fools people into apathy.

If the government makes it illegal to speak in public, speak illegally in public. Better yet, get so many like minded people together to all speak in public that the government can't reasonably expect to stop you. This was done successfully by the IWW in California.

If the government makes it illegal or impractical to defend yourself, take matters into your own hands and obtain the means to defend yourself. This was done successfully during the Civil Rights movement here in the United States by a variety of organizations.

And finally, if the government of another country makes your country unbearable to live in, go to the offending nation, if that suits you. If legal entry is impractical, enter illegally, or at least try to. You might not make it, but you just might bring attention to why you left in the first place.

So you see, the reason people are coming to the United States are both here and there at least to me.
 

"Amazing what chimney sweeping can teach us, no? Keep your fire hot and
your flue clean."  - Ecurb Noselrub
" Please hold your high school or college math books in higher esteem than
your copy of the KJV. " - Icarus

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14660
  • The GrayGod
@mod team: weird IPs due to VPN/proxy. I have not been hijacked  ;)

Mexico is not a safe country so the argument that they should have stayed there doesn't make sense to me. Jobs aren't the only reason Mexicans head north.
It's all relative, so "not safe" as compared to what? Because Canada is probably a tad safer than the USA, and there are other countries geographically closer to Honduras which are OK, as long as you avoid the worst gang lands.

Quote
And finally, if the government of another country makes your country unbearable to live in, go to the offending nation, if that suits you. If legal entry is impractical, enter illegally, or at least try to. You might not make it, but you just might bring attention to why you left in the first place.
They'll shoot you, then be outraged about shooting, then forget you ever existed. All you will have accomplished then, is a meaningless death. Ok, maybe that's a little extreme, but in crossing their borders illegally, you are subject to their laws pertinent to dealing with such situations. The consequences are then on your anarcho-globalist ( ;) ) ass, not them. What I'm getting at, is that it takes more to have a right than claiming it. Others have to recognise it as well. That's a big part of what we do with our silly ballot boxes. 

Quote
So you see, the reason people are coming to the United States are both here and there at least to me.
Well... You are wrong as far as the world we live in is concerned, but it's an interesting perspective. In a "just" World, I may even agree as it certainly epitomises you being the architect of your own destiny on a larger scale than my own.



Actually, we should do a proper debate about this. I think it would be interesting.
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14660
  • The GrayGod
Update

By now, one has to live under a political rock not to know that I was wrong in my predictions in relation to the US House-race. Analysis of analysis is pending. Still, damned close for an amateur-at-best statistician, was it not? I'm rather impressed with myself, especially in light of some (albeit partisan - both one way and the other) predictions in the days and weeks before the US midterms.

In any case, this is not too relevant to the point I was trying to make, although it may vaguely point at a slightly different array of potential outcomes than my deliberately-darkened view of things. I do maintain that if there is to be a future for the centre-left as Left, to put it in political rather than social terms, then the Left has to disown a whole bunch of identitarians, authoritarians and... That sort, and distance themselves from a whole bunch of their ideas. You can't have it both ways, as centrists tend to lean lower-case "l" liberal, while the fringes... Do not. (Note that in this post, I say "the Left" because I am discussing the USA. As pointed out earlier, it applies to both sides of the established political houses in much of Europe)

Anyways, more on this in part three. I have been playing with some academic-like analysis for that, and think I might get it finished this Saturday.
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.