How To Stop The Alt-Right

[SIZE=11pt]George [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Thing is they cannot say that people were not telling them that what voting against their own and there countries best interest would result in.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The misdirection on that is astronomical [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It was mainly those on the left that were warning about the free market neoliberalist model along with its globalization policies. They were not been attacked for being ‘racist’ they were attacked by the right for being ‘socialists’ and ‘communists’.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You could try Roger and I by Michael Moore was highlighting what outsourcing meant back in 1989 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Globalization and Its Discontents[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] Joseph E. Stiglitz 2002[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What's the Matter with America? The Resistible Rise of the American Right[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]by Thomas Frank (2004)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A brief history of neoliberalism[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] by David Harvey 2007 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And on and on [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’ve written about it for year right here in this forum. here is just a part of one -[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It seems to me that the political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, and decent living wages. The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. Many people saw their wages grow and in the period between the end of WWII and 1970 many in Europe and the US gain middle class status. [/SIZE]

But from the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had.

In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Eye[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So what is your point?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A few people -‘fringe crazies’ - in a few colleges are doing things you admit they have every right to do and you are making a real big song and dance about it as if it was some huge left wing conspiracy – which you admit it isn’t – so what is your point.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Is this really the big threat to American society? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Was this the reason for the hollowing out of American manufacturing, the decline in social mobility, or the huge increase in inequality?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]To me this whole thing seems like a distraction – making something to be angry about that isn’t that important to stop people from thinking about what is important. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Eye[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Why?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Can you cite the bit’s you thought ‘rubbish’ so we can examine them and your reason for dismissing them? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]No I didn’t and neither did the things I linked to - it seems to me that you must not of read them if that’s what you thought I was saying. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]My point is that it shouldn’t be as difficult as it is and that right wing neoliberal policies have made it even more difficult.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And I never said it was impossible, but that it harder because of right wing libertarianism. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And again I’m not saying there is no hope I’m saying that it is as difficult as it is now because of right wing neoliberal ideas. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So ALL people that are in poverty are there because they don’t want to ‘find a way out’?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Those on the left were warning what would happen when the US moved away from Keynesian ideas toward neoliberal ones.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Keynesianism is based on the idea of trying for full employment and sees welfare as part of the social contract and distributive taxation as a means of spreading the economic benefits of a society. Neoliberalism actually like unemployment as it pushes down wages and for the same reason does not like welfare and tax cuts (the famous trickle down).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The problem was that Americans kept voting for neoliberal politicians and they still are. Oh I think many were bamboozled right wing people often pushing the ‘god, guns and gays’ line or later ‘identity politics’ and political correctness’ and now it seems this whole ‘everyone hates white men’ gig.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Thing is they cannot say that people were not telling them that what voting against their own and there countries best interest would result in.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Well I think a model that was complicit in the hollowing out of American manufacturing, the decline in social mobility and the huge increase in inequality had the majority of people’s interest at its heart. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As I’ve said right wingers often bamboozled voters by distracting them from important issue with minor ones that they knew would make them angry things like ‘identity politics’ and ‘political correctness’. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Ever heard the story of elephant and the three blind men?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Interesting my instinct when confronted with something I didn’t know would be to go and find out – your instincts seem different, you are quite happy to be in the dark, I suppose you’d never know if I didn’t tell you.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]There are numerous versions but basically thee bind men come upon an elephant and each feels only a certain part of it, one the tusk another the leg and the last the trunk. Then when asked to describe the elephant each gives a different description (one that it has a hard shell, another that it is like a tree and the third that it is like a snake)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The parable implies that while one person’s experience can be true, that does not mean they can get the whole picture.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Your antidotal evidence that social mobility seems healthy to you may seem true from your perspective but statistical evidence of the whole picture says a different story. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Eye[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]THE LEFT – as I say this is disingenuous at best and at worst out and out dishonest – one moment you admit it is a really small amount of ‘fringe crazies’ and the next you say it is ALL left wingers. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Well that doesn’t answer my question it’s just evasion - so I’m still wondering – you claim that white men need to be championed in the same way that disadvantaged groups are but I’m still unsure as to what help you think white men specifically need? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Yes I brought it up, me a left winger brought it up and it has been noted by many other often as not left leaning gun control advocates. To me it is both a gun issue and a suicide issue and that involves many people that are not white. It might be targeted at white men bu it would not be just specific to that one group.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What help do you think white men specifically need. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I mean I’ve already pointed out that many groups such as the [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]LGBT community have people in it of many colours, those ‘identified’ as say dyslexic have groups and institutions helping them but dyslexics can come from of any race. A lot of ‘identified’ groups are open to all people irrespective of colour or whatever yet it is the ones that are ‘race’ orientated that some seem to be drawing attention to. [/SIZE]

 

I think this hits the nail on the head. It was Rush Limbaugh who made a career of railing against the "Feminazis", and there were indeed "fringe crazies" who fit the description. I've occasionally read something by some radical red hot that "demonizes" white males. I think this reflects the tolerance of a free society for kookie ideas and the post-Kennedy policy of de-institutionalizing the mentally ill. But what right wing outlets like FOX and Breitbart do is to take such incidents and blow them out of proportion so that the atypical seems typical to those who rely on such media for their world view. And the purpose is obviously to stir up anger, discredit progressives, and divert attention from the real problems created by the coporate elite.

 

I checked back a few posts, and I stand corrected; you did not say social mobility was impossible.


The social mobility discussion all came from my statement when I said Your socioeconomic status at birth does not determine your outcome in life.

That's when you said something along the lines of socioeconomic status at birth being the most influential factor in a person's outcome in life. Now, I can agree that it can be a heavy influence for a person's life decisions and what opportunities come available to that person. However I still stand by my statement that socioeconomic status does not determine anyone's outcome in their life regardless what statistics say. Some people make good life decisions, others make bad ones. I don't deny the path to success is harder for some than it is for others. It is all a matter of what you can do with the talents one is blessed with. In the end, life is what you make of it.

I've known a number underprivileged people who rose up with great careers and have built a lot out of nothing. And I also know plenty of people who came from wealthier families who suffered from the MC Hammer affect and are now financially struggling. Those numbers provided in your links seem to paint too dreary of a picture for what people could achieve if they had the right ambition and attitude to make their dreams a reality. And I think the worst thing anyone could do to another person would be to try and stop someone from achieving that dream. Just like the crabs in the bucket analogy: When one crab tries to escape, the one beneath keeps pulling it down.

Please explain why it's all the libertarians' fault as the scope of government social programs have grown progressively bigger and bigger over the last 100 years.

Quote me where I said ALL those in poverty are there because they want to stay there. This is just Balbus' all-or-nothing game he likes to play.

Do you not agree that their goals should be to find a way out? I think a lot could be done to help assist them in finding a way out without the help of government. I do believe that government exploits the poor because they are easier to control when they have more people relying on governmental hand-outs to survive.

 

If only the sensible left would empty out the race baiters and misandrists from their side, maybe they wouldn't be having this problem. Don't'cha think?

Gimme a break. I've been trying to get you to elaborate your whole opinion on identity politics for the last 8 pages and you have the gall to call me evading?

Whether or not you think everyone should have equal identity politics all around. Or keep it as it is by having identity politics for everyone except straight white men. Or just do away with identity politics forever and judge people not by the gender, sexual preference, or color of their skin, but rather by the content of their character.

Girls are performing better in schools in western countries than boys because the education system is structured in favor of female learning styles. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10616/Is-school-biased-boys.html
Young men and boys are 10X more likely to be put on behavior control psychotropic drugs than girls http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/part-3-are-we-medicating-a-disorder-or-treating-boyhood-as-a-disease/article4330080/?page=all
And all the other countless anti-white anti-male double standards I've listed in this thread. I hate MRAs because they often whine, bitch, and play the exact same woe-is-me victim game that feminists do. But often they are right.

Now it's your turn. Defend identity politics for everyone except for straight white men. Go!

 

Eye


Sorry but it’s often hard trying to work out what you mean as you seem to contradict yourself so often

So you agree

And then you disagree

Regardless what statistics say - Oh the statistics doesn’t fit in with what I believe, no problem I’ll just ignore them BUT ignoring something you don’t want to hear doesn’t make it go away

You agree

Then you disagree

Can a baby make the good life decision to be born into advantage rather than disadvantage?

This is the old deserving and undeserving con again.

[SIZE=11pt]The deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The undeserving are those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are lazy scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This version seems to be if you made ‘[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]good’ life decisions you wouldn’t be disadvantaged and wouldn’t need help so if you are disadvantaged it must be because you made ‘bad’ life decisions, which makes it your fault and so undeserving of help.[/SIZE]

You agree

Then you disagree

The child born into advantage is more likely to have their talents nurtured and encouraged than one born into disadvantage.

You agree

Then you disagree

BUT ignoring the statistics doesn’t make them go away

The child born into advantage is more likely to have their ambitions nurtured, encouraged and assisted with than one born into disadvantage.

It seems to me you are trying to put the blame on the individual, to imply that those living in disadvantage are only there because they didn’t have the right attitude and ambition to get out of it.

As a left winger I want to help people fulfil their potential the problem is that right wingers policies have often stood in the way of that.

Well the right have basically built a fire under the bucket and have slowly cooked the crabs.

 

Eye

NOT LIBERTARIANS – there are many types of libertarians some left wing others right what I’m talking about is NEO-LIBERALISM.
Sorry but do you not have Google?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[SIZE=11pt]It seems to me that the political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, and decent living wages. The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. Many people saw their wages grow and in the period between the end of WWII and 1970 many in Europe and the US gain middle class status. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But from the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc. [/SIZE]

 

Eye

So ALL people that are in poverty are there because they don’t want to ‘find a way out’?

[SIZE=11pt]OK to quote you - [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]If you're in poverty, your goal should be to find a way out. Not sit there and suffer as the government subsidizes your glum existence. [/SIZE]

That seems to imply ALL those in poverty, and so I ask for clarification and you get huffy?

Can you stop playing and actually debate honestly?

 

Eye

Their goal – can a baby choose to be born into advantage rather than disadvantage?

That doesn’t seem backed up by most of history – governments have mostly been controlled by wealth and worked in the interests of wealth, mostly to the detriment of everyone else.

It wasn’t until the 20th century when people in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, and decent living wages. The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed through governmental mandate.

The problem today is that wealth in many places around the world has gained back control by bamboozling many into voting against their own self interests by getting them to be distracted by such things as ‘identity politics’ and ‘political correctness’ and that ‘government’ is the problem and can never ever be a solution.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Eye [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]LOL[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If only the sensible right would empty out the race baiters and misogynists from their side, maybe they wouldn't be having this problem. Don't'cha think?[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Eye [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You say this then follow it with another evasion - so I’m still wondering – you claim that white men need to be championed in the same way that disadvantaged groups are but I’m still unsure as to what help you think white men specifically need? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As I’ve explained I’m not sure what you mean – you want white men to be championed but as pointed out many groups have white men in them, so again it comes back to the question - you claim that white men need to be championed in the same way that disadvantaged groups are but I’m still unsure as to what help you think white men specifically need? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But a lot of groups have white men in them so what help do you think white men specifically need?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But that is the problem – the reason why such groups were formed was because people did judge others by their gender, sexual preference, or the colour of their skin and even acted on it by discriminating or harassing such people.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Now you seem to feel that white men need championing in the same way that disadvantaged groups are but I’m still unsure as to what help you think white men specifically need? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

OK well the route of this is again in part down to neoliberalist policies – neoliberalism emphasises competition and successive UK governments have following that idea have brought in competition to education with league tables (with financial resources going to the ‘winners’) and those league tables organised by test result and so the emphasis on box ticking results with a curriculum that emphasis literacy and numeracy and formal, classroom-based teaching. in a race teachers are not given the time or resiources to elp those that are falling behind. Those that are disruptive bring down league table points so are more likely to be excluded (and it effects boys more that girls). I think that system needs dropping and the emphasis put on helping those that need it.

Think is that the Daily Mail is a right wing propaganda sheet that has long championed neoliberalism

 

I'd be happy with equality.
Equal chance of getting a job Vs any minority, equal chance of being believed when a woman screams and points. In court I'd like same rights of evidence and anonymity and an equal chance of getting custody of my kids and keeping my house during divorce.

I don't want special treatment, just equality.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Dude[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You believe minorities are more likely to get a job than a white person? That doesn’t seem to fit in with the statistical evidence.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This has happened to you, if so what did you do to cause her to scream – I’ve never had this happen to me. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Is this just white men? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In the UK we have a campaign group (an identity group) called Fathers for Justice, here is what they say on their website[/SIZE]

Men and boys urgently need an equal voice representing their interests. We ask the government to act now to ensure men and boys receive the support they deserve and need.

[SIZE=11pt]BUT it is open to any man boy or father of any colour.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]**[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]OK as I have already said in this thread in the UK and I presume the US there are groups that are campaigning for the interests of men but as far as I know they are open to men not specifically white men [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So I’m still wondering – Eye claims that white men need to be championed in the same way that disadvantaged groups are but I’m still unsure as to what help you think white men specifically need? [/SIZE]

 

Only if you pay their fees. It isn't free, you have to pay before you can even view their forum!
Joining fee $60 ......... https://fnf.org.uk/forum/

And they're completely useless ......... same old pleading and begging in multiple court visits, which mum is free to ignore, because it's different court rules for women in the UK.

(I was a member for a while, but I'm not much good at begging, which is essentially ALL their advice)

 

I worked for some big UK corporations looking to tick minority boxes .... positive discrimination they called it.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Dude[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But it exists and it is open to anybody irrespective of colour. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Sorry I believe positive discrimination is against the law in the UK –

Equality Act explained

[SIZE=11pt]It will mean that employers can choose to hire candidates from under-represented groups provided that they are as qualified for the role as other applicants.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A manager will be able lawfully to hire a black man over a white man, a woman over a man, or homosexual man over a heterosexual man, if they have the same skill set.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It is not the same as filling quotas or giving someone a job just because they are a woman, disabled or from an ethnic minority – that would be unlawful. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Positive action is also not the same as positive discrimination, which gives applicants from disadvantaged and under-represented groups preferential treatment in the recruitment process, regardless of their ability to do the job. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]An employer cannot offer the job to a woman, or someone from an ethnic background, purely to improve the company’s gender balance. [/SIZE]

In that case it would mean favouring one candidate over another which is illegal. Positive discrimination has been, and remains, unlawful in this country.

 

[SIZE=11pt]So I’m still wondering – Eye claims that white men need to be championed in the same way that disadvantaged groups are but I’m still unsure as to what help you think white men specifically need? [/SIZE]

 

Yeah, it was. I was there, I was doing it (unlawful, I was only obeying ze orders).