• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Random political thought thread.

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Among the currently deployed and former combat veterans, this is what the new aesthetic of war looks like.


War footage has gone from garish to produced. With the new stuff in excruciatingly High Def.


In all of the videos you feel a since of loss not just for fallen friends, but for war itself and the blissful simpleness of life it demands.


This was posted right before the 2020 election (of the afg war) and gives a similar vibe (if not musically) to the Ukr vid above. On the Shield of an M134 Dillon Aero minigun you can see a Trump sticker in one clip at 1:09 of the vid.


The vids from people in war currently, like the Ukr and Afg war vids above, are more energetic and basically hype music to bump shooting some dudes in the face.

The other vids from, folks returned from war and reminiscing on it have a sadder and much more poetic feel to them.

Both styles of vids are popular among the former service folks I speak with on twitter, most of whom saw real combat.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
WWI and the failed (communist) German revolution of 1918 put test to the communist theory that the workers of the world would unite to fight a class war on the rich instead of the state and ethnicity focused conflicts since time immemorial.

Marx's outline for Communism in Das Kapital was descriptive. It was him describing the way he thought the world would go, not coming up with a plan to make that thought happen. WWI showed the left, Marx's followers, that this glorious revolution wouldn't just happen, the social paradigm (culture) had to be shifted in such a way as to make the revolution possible. This is where the Frankfurt School comes in. Founded (like all communist projects) with daddy's money.
Screenshot 2022-09-01 113610.png


This theory about changing the culture is what the right today describes as "Cultural Marxism". It from this spring that our modern concept of critical theory welled.

They basically started the grievance based identity political discussion that has dominated US politics since the 60's.

Back to Weimar Germany.

The Frankfurt School's coffee house philosophy session couldn't defeat Nazi theory in Germany.

With Hitler's rise in '33 they left Germany for Geneva then decamped for Greener pastures at Columbia Uni. in NYC.

Their theories became popular with NYC's intelligentsia.

It is this movement that augured the lefts long march through the institutions in the USA. It started with Academia, then spread to media, politics etc etc etc.

This history and how clearly it draws the line from Marx' pen to the modern American left is why the term "cultural marxism" is such a thorn in the side to the left.

Any serious engagement with the history shows the intellectual history of the modern left not as some organic and fundamentally American theory space, arising from the unique characteristics of American life.

It came into being by fighting the right with billy clubs in the street of Germany after 1918.

Now the question becomes. Did America need this theory to overcome some of its hurdles in the 20th century.

This is where I depart from ideologically blinded rightwing folks and say yes, I do think the nation needed SOME of what they were selling.

Roosevelt had already started the New Deal by the time they got to Columbia in '33, and the country had recovered mostly by 1937. I don't think their philosophy played much role in American politics until you get to the red scare after WWII. Interestingly their presence in the country and their coming here in 1933 led to the kind of widespread elite adoption of communist thought that in turn led to the Red Scare.

America had to deal with its race issue to move forward as an ongoing political project. I'm not sure that happens as soon as it did or in the way it did without the salience critical theory. This goes as well for Womens issues around the same time. Generally we needed a shift in our thinking about race, and these theories provided the headspace for that to happen in America.

The problem that is now currently rearing its ugly head for the left, is the success and dominance of these ideas around critical theory. Yea we needed a little bit of that kind of thinking to get over our issues in the 20th century, but with the legalization of Gay marriage with Obergefell in the 21st, critical theory is now an answer in search of a problem.

The new problem it found was trans issues, which for a host of reasons has turned off the public to the cultural inclinations of the left.

The battles the modern left was born to deal with have been won. The problems in large part now stem from the dominance the left has had politically and culturally since FDR.

Just as FDR was and the left was needed to deal with the excesses of the era before it, our new political era requires an ideology tailored to mend the issues of the one before.

Which is why the political moment now feels so weird. Why our parties are now realigning (ie hispanics moving rightward, along with working class whites, and the rich moving leftward).

My personal issue with the left stems less from what their ideology is, though I do have massive problems with that, than their inability to see how dominant their cultural world view has been and is. My political life on the right has been an uphill slog. I suspect that eventually they too will know what that slog feels like.


TL: DR I hate the Frankfurt School of Philosophy, but I think any honest reckoning with it has to admit it was foundational to getting America to deal with civil rights issues that we had to in order to move forward as a going political concern.
 
Last edited:

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Medieval Europe using Jews as front for getting around the Christian crackdown on usury totally didn't have any negative externalities.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
The speech was scheduled the same night as the opening of college football. Biden has a well sorted group of voters he doesn't want to see the speech.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
The most foundationally ruinous thought to the left is that there can be sexual selection preference FOR violence like in the Yanomamo tribe from Nobel Savage. Humans can't be a perfect blank slate capable of utopia if there are selection preferences for violence.

On Napoleon Chagnon's second day with the amazonian tribe two members started fighting with axes for 10 minutes. What seemed initially like a fight over accusations of incest turned out to be the latest in a long string of provocations between two groups. One group was a family thats part of the tribe, the other were visitors from a neighboring village. Chagnon later determined that this kind of violence causes villages that have too many people to split, with the losers forming a new village. This manner of village splits (not always due to violence) into two new villages is the manner by which the Yanomamo people expand. These villages are constantly at war with one another. Alliances can happen between villages augured by the two villages feasting with one another. But the nature of the Yanomamo people is such that even with an alliance they can never trust one another.

Fully half of Yanomamo men die in combat.

This is the same reason that the academic reaction to Jane Goodalls study of the Gombe Chimpanzee War was what it was.

To give you an idea of the reaction to Goodalls work.

Screenshot 2022-09-02 064512.png

I haven't combed through the scientific reaction to Nobel Savage yet, but I expect at least one peer reviewed "study" using wacky statistical methods to discount the sexual advantage of Yanomamo men who've killed an enemy that Chagnon observed.

They didn't feel the need to try to kill Goodalls findings in the same way because the inherent warlike violence of apes doesn't negate liberal assumptions from first principles. It does hint at them strongly though hence the reaction.

With these two pieces of study we had proof that violence is endemic to man and animal kind.

TL: DR Rousseau posited that man had a good soul but was corrupted by our social institutions. A sentiment rather common today. If these apes and the tribe display behavior corroborative of endemic violence in (higher) primates, it completely dissolves Rousseau's thesis. Though I think there is something to the idea that man writ large is on the whole better than it is worse. I don't think a species survives if it weren't so. But, there can be positive sexual pressure for our worst behaviors. How many locked up serial killers have ladies writing to them?
 
Last edited:

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
If man is morally flawless in a state of nature, like Russeau said, it's not much of a leap to then assume that the perfection of nature itself lead to the perfection of man in a state of nature. Skip a couple hundred years and you have people hugging trees.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,272
If man is morally flawless in a state of nature, like Russeau said, it's not much of a leap to then assume that the perfection of nature itself lead to the perfection of man in a state of nature. Skip a couple hundred years and you have people hugging trees.
A bad person is someone who believes they deserve what others have and others don't deserve what they have. It doesn't matter what setting the person is in so long as there are other people around. They end up robbing others of their toys and don't want to share their toys with others.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
The environmental debate boils down to: Do you want to go to Mars or do you want to live in a teepee?

Those are questions for all mankind not just you.

I propose going to Mars, but doing so in an environmentally friendly way that doesn't put too much strain on our economy. Like nuclear energy for example. France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Germany has huge coal deposits and is committed to denuclearizing for green purposes. They all buy natural gas to heat their homes from Russia. Russia is shutting that pipeline down due to Europe's support of Ukraine. France is going to be able to heat its homes this winter. Germany is having to increase coal consumption to make up for the loss, while also giving way on de-nuclearization. They don't have the nuclear to make up for the loss. They may freeze this winter.

The fact that the Green faction of American politics won't adopt nuclear energy, speaks to nuclear energy's ability to actually dissolve the problem of anthropogenic carbon emission. If nuclear energy solves the problem that gives environmental activists a paycheck, they have a personal incentive to make the problem as scary as possible while also limiting its damage. This explains the support for pie in the sky renewables, they'll never solve the problem of global warming/climate change. They can be effective in helping with peak consumption of electricity, but they are too unstable to be relied on for base load power, unless you can develop a battery that's an order of magnitude better than lithium in the next 5 minutes. Right now, the green movement is mostly a jobs program for environmental activists. Im much more concerned with the plastic in the ocean (and increasingly our bodies), and cleaning up environmental disasters. Im for taking a look at what the human race needs from Earth to get off Earth. Figuring out the relative impact of taking resources from here vs there, and balancing that against the real needs of humanity. I'm not for looking at all domestic national resource claims we have, and denying the right to act on any of them through burdensome regulation and bureaucratic practices.

In the end I support continuing the human project of exploration and not the assumption that the world will end at some unknowable point in the future if we don't ban the sale of gasoline powered cars by 2035.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
To corroborate my thoughts re: apes here's a study Killing conspecific adults in mammals

4. Conclusion​

Our study shows that adulticide is more prevalent in mammals than previously thought. In males, adulticide seems to be the mere consequence of the injuries caused by intraspecific aggression mediated by reproductive interactions. When adulticide occurs in this context, it is mostly incidental, death happening from two males fighting so intensely that they may fatally wound each other. By contrast, in females, adulticide appears to be driven by the defence of offspring. This suggests that the evolutionary pathways underlying the evolution of adulticide differ between sexes in mammals.

It even explains the difference in killing tendency between men and women.

I'm sure glad evolution exists, because it'd be plenty tough to explain this without it.
 
Top