At any rate, I now have a tentative date at a cafe in Kolkata. It's the logistics that will prove problematic -- my phone is on airplane mode and won't have wifi (I'll probably just turn on data and take the $10 charge from Verizon), and my family are all going down for a day trip, being driven by hired drivers by my bil's family.
It's so sad to read this old thread and rediscover @Bickendan's final post. We never heard from him again!
Thank you! It took me a while, but I've finally had a chance to watch this. I found it very clear and helpful, and I think many in this thread would profit from seeing it as well.
I’m assuming you have some thoughts on the subject else you wouldn’t have started the thread. Why not share them?
True. Nevertheless, Donald Trump is no Hitler. He is much too self-centered for that, having no real program except the promotion of Donald Trump. He is a classic demagogue who will say whatever people want to hear in order to keep himself in power, but too short-sighted to really make a big program out of it. Nevertheless, the enthusiastic support he receives from so many Americans shows that even if he could never be a Hitler, the stage is being set for America to descend into fascism. Gone are the days of "all men are created equal" and "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Today, it is all about building walls to keep out the "furriners", who look funny and talk funny. IOW: Donald Trump is no Hitler, but he could very well be a precursor to a Hitler. And the uneducated masses are gobbling it up.
Absolutely. I'd never claim Trump is Hitler, but the success of his methods indicate we haven't learnt from any of the mistakes we were so determined not to repeat. To an extent Obama could be said to have followed the same pattern, he was much more palatable as a politician but he also relied very much on a platform of slogans and unrealistic hope, as did Blair here (and look how that turned out) and more recently Johnson. Around the world populist leaders are once again becoming the standard by which democracy operates and that is by no means exclusive to the right. Trump might not personally be the end of the world but he represents a tendency which history has shown rarely ends well and uses the process of democracy to undermine it's own purpose, placing individual popularity before the likelihood of creating a better, fairer society, style before substance. When questions which have been debated by the most thoughtful, intelligent and scholarly human beings since the dawn of recorded history, whose weight and import have shaped the very experience of being human for billions of people and the very world we inhabit the idea that we can desirably reduce that conversation to single line catchphrases and snarky tweets is truly depressing. It can't be done and all that we are doing is highlighting just how far removed we are from the ideals we pretend we can ascribe to ourselves. Frankly there are times when I wonder if as a species we actually deserve the power we wield at all, or even to survive on the evolutionary scale. But hopefully @Bickendan will find true love, cause little victories matter all the more when the big picture is out of our reach, or so Sam Cooke would have us believe.
Populist movements, however, are not inherently evil. (Though they certainly can be turned for evil purposes.) Both the Civil Rights movement and the union movements in the US were populist movements. And populist movements can take root in any society if the conditions are right. The biggest failure of the world after WWII was to recognize all the elements which allow a populist movement to take root and turn toxic. It is not merely certain forms of government, it is the failure to address the needs of the populace by that government as well. Much has been made of various trade agreements and how they include provisions for the retraining of workers who've lost their jobs due to those agreements. Almost no mention is made of the fact that the retraining programs are rarely funded or that the bar for qualifying for those programs is placed so high that few people can meet them.
Neither the civil rights movements nor the unions are means by which people are put into political power, which is a key difference. Populism can create positive outcomes (#metoo, Pride, suffragettes) but in most cases that relies on the people leading those movements to be genuinely interested in the people who make up their following and the issues affecting them, not using them as a means to an end. I'd suggest that populist leaders in the political realm are rarely such people. They may be using the process but by and large in a disingenuous manner in that their promises are by and large means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves. There are exceptions to every rule but for the most part people seeking power o the basis of mass movements without a well thought out set of policies are a very dangerous proposition. By definition they will be putting their own interest above those of the people and whilst the same could be said of any politician the problem here is that their campaigns will be based on whatever fears will unite and incite a mob rather than a reasoned case which can be evaluated. All political candidates seek power but populism is inherently about appealing to that mob rather than treating the voters as individuals who can research and make informed decisions. That leads a number of places beyond the obvious dumbing down of political debate, it lends itself to an unthinking fanaticism and we are moving further towards that model of politics year by year. Blair and Obama were arguably populist but it was a warning sign of the dangers to come, they still presented sober and reasoned cases for their strategies and policies. Trump and Johnson are further along the road, they are purely about the slogans and gaining power off the back of public sentiment and that scares me because there's no way of reasoning with a mob.
Unions must work a lot differently in the UK than they do here (probably true), either that or you don't know much about the deep politicizing of unions that goes on (likely true or you'd never have said what you said).
Of course, I'm an ex union rep, I've organised industrial action (pm me if you want actual details or examples). It's a ball ache and no fun at all. Unions are different here and rarely produce politicians or people who personally wield power outside of that remit (certainly I didn't profit, I just spent a great deal of time essentially doing voluntary work on other people's schedules and letting my other responsibilities suffer). In fairness I did find myself becoming a de facto spokesperson/recruiter for the local Labour party but my impact was negligible in an environment where virtually everyone is left wing by default. A public service whose unskilled labour force drew heavily on the already culturally unionist ex mining community doesn't tend to have too may conservatives in it's ranks. Didn't get any offers to join government or get involved with organised crime, although on a couple of occasions I had to break up fisticuffs . Some people have made a lot of money and gained influence outside the sphere of unions but they are the exception rather than the rule and would likely have done so in any walk of life. The highest my profile ever went was to be part of a case raised in a minor Parliamentary committee after it went to court and AFAIK I wasn't personally mentioned. Most of the time was spent mediating petty disputes over rotas, dress codes, illness and personality clashes. Unions can be weaponised, that's not in question, but the idea they are about power over others is disingenuous, at least here. Politics is explicitly about such power, who wields it and how they use/gain it. A union is reliant on it's membership having a vested interest in supporting the organisation's activities within a specific sphere and they are (or should be) able to easily opt out without censure. One cannot so readily opt out of citizenship or rule of law. So in a sense I'd agree, there are potential dangers associated with an imbalance of the union/employer power relationship, not to mention the influence they can wield as lobby groups, but that is nowhere near the dangers posed by a populist politician whose interest only lies in finding a memetic way of saying something lots of people like the sound of regardless of the wisdom or feasibility of those promises. Likewise unions are an unreliable route to political power at best and the vast majority of union officials get nothing out of it than headaches, sleepless nights and a lot of enemies who are happy to draw the daggers if they find themselves becoming management themselves.
So this topic was brought up in the white nationalist podcast of a former member. https://angrywhitemen.org/2017/05/1...-out-because-men-are-starting-to-use-sexbots/
Ok. I may read this entire thread later, but for now ... I believe, because of our economic situation, millenials and gen Z are opting out of the "old fashioned" dating scene - as well they should. People should not be looking for a partner based on looks or financial success, rather compatibility and common interests. I could even go a step further and throw in how libidinous a person is and any fetishes. Incels, it seems, are looking, not for someone with whom they may be compatible, but they are looking for an object to which they can talk at, have sex with, and keep them from being alone. And, the is why they are alone. No one wants to be an object for someone else. Everyone wants to be one half of the center of their relationship. Ok, not everyone. Some people are poly-amorous. But, that included in the compatibility and fetishes.
Well done! I can now say the same for Shantiniketan, so if and when you want to double date, lemme know.
Actually, I think it is a chart going towards sanity. The insanity was putting way too much emphasis on sexual activity as a indicator of a good life.
