Trump Consciousness

I just found out even Tulsi Gabbard was or is a member of the CFR. It's all just a show you see, we only have the illusion of freedom and democracy.

As an anarchist, I do not believe in "electoral representative democracy" (read: more-or-less covert oligarchy). Yet I support Tulsi Gabbard, despite knowing about her Council of Foreign Relations membership... in a sense.

For me, it is her campaign, rather than her victory, that is important. Victory is something she will never taste - she won't be allowed to, by the power elite and the institutional system that it rules. Even if some unprecedented miracle would happen and she would somehow win the race, it wouldn't change much - a single dedicated and principled person cannot make the whole entrenched system work against itself, even if this person is a POTUS. The totality of the elites and the institutions will be against her, and she will be torn apart and eaten alive by them. The system simply cannot be reformed from within; it can only be overthrown from without. (And, with the possibility of the full-blown civil war being ever close to actualisation, dragged out of the Abyss of Yet-Unrealised Potentials and into the Currently Manifested World by the concordance of wills of all people willing the large-scale discordance, such overthrow is becoming quite feasible.)

Yet her campaign, openly and brazenly directed against the establishment and exposing it, can and does add yet more fuel to fire of protest against it, and increase the possibility of turning this yet-relatively-passive protest into an active resistance.

As for Tulsi herself - well, I do not think she consciously desire the overthrow of the whole power-elite-ruled institutional system. Yet neither I think about her as the institutional system's puppet and power elite's co-conspirator. I think of her as the conscientious, yet also a bit naive, renegade from her own (ruling) class, one who is disgusted by her own social environment yet also clings to belief that it can be positiely reformed without a full-blown revolution.

However, even if I misplaced my hopes about her goodness and sincerity and she is a puppet and / or participant in some dirty game, the positive effect of her campaign is real nevertheless. It is yet another nail in the institutional system's and power elite's coffin.
 
Last edited:
And no, T didn't stop a planned attacked because he became aware the Iranian casualty count would be too high. That's not how these things work and, in any case, the fact he claimed he did this almost assures that he did not.
Michael, I would be curious. How did you view this event working in reality? (I am not a Trump fan - so not defending him... just a stand alone point here)
 
Last edited:
As an anarchist, I do not believe in "electoral representative democracy" (read: more-or-less covert oligarchy). Yet I support Tulsi Gabbard, despite knowing about her Council of Foreign Relations membership... in a sense.

For me, it is her campaign, rather than her victory, that is important. Victory is something she will never taste - she won't be allowed to, by the power elite and the institutional system that it rules. Even if some unprecedented miracle would happen and she would somehow win the race, it wouldn't change much - a single dedicated and principled person cannot make the whole entrenched system work against itself, even if this person is a POTUS. The totality of the elites and the institutions will be against her, and she will be torn apart and eaten alive by them. The system simply cannot be reformed from within; it can only be overthrown from without. (And, with the possibility of the full-blown civil war being ever close to actualisation, dragged out of the Abyss of Yet-Unrealised Potentials and into the Currently Manifested World by the concordance of wills of all people willing the large-scale discordance, such overthrow is becoming quite feasible.)

Yet her campaign, openly and brazenly directed against the establishment and exposing it, can and does add yet more fuel to fire of protest against it, and increase the possibility of turning this yet-relatively-passive protest into an active resistance.

As for Tulsi herself - well, I do not think she consciously desire the overthrow of the whole power-elite-ruled institutional system. Yet neither I think about her as the institutional system's puppet and power elite's co-conspirator. I think of her as the conscientious, yet also a bit naive, renegade from her own (ruling) class, one who is disgusted by her own social environment yet also clings to belief that it can be positiely reformed without a full-blown revolution.

However, even if I misplaced my hopes about her goodness and sincerity and she is a puppet and / or participant in some dirty game, the positive effect of her campaign is real nevertheless. It is yet another nail in the institutional system's and power elite's coffin.
You make some good points here Vortex. I do like what Tulsi has to say, it really is like a breath of fresh air. The CFR thing is a bit of a red flag for me and some what confusing given what she has to say. It seems to me that even if you place a ethical person in these positions that other factors appear to impose upon them, making it look like they really have no power at all and are just figure heads for public consumption when the real power structure remains unseen. (Although I'm not sure we have seen a ethical person in a seat of power). This is a somewhat conspiratorial I know but that does not make it untrue. It was not too long ago that the concept of a deep state would have been classified as a fringe conspiracy theory. I am just cautious about claims that seem too good to be true from politicians. Trump taught me that lesson. :) I still firmly believe there is no way to vote the way out of tyranny.

To change the corrupt system you have to cut the head of the snake, all countries need to be able to print their own currencies and do away with the concept of private central banks. These are the criminals at the highest levels above that of politicians, they are not of any particular country but operate internationally.
 
The alt-right is an ALTernative to traditional American conservatism and has more in common with leftism, another alternative to conservativism.

The core beliefs of the alt-right and (the left) are, identity politics, atheism, and primacy of the group over the individual.

In fact the Alt-right has nothing on common with traditional conservatism.

Traditional American conservative beliefs include individualism, belief in God, and rejection of identity politics.



Excerpts:
The alt in “alt-right” means “alternative.” The alt-right is an alternative to American conservatism.

So, it’s no surprise then that the alt-right has far more in common with the left—another alternative to conservatism— than it does with the traditional American right.

...

Both the left and the alt-right are obsessed with race and identity politics—the belief that a person’s value is linked to their racial heritage. The left wants special status for racial and ethnic minorities. The alt-right wants special status for the racial and ethnic majority.
...
Another area of agreement between the alt-right and the left is that both ultimately reject God.
...

That brings us to the most glaring similarity between the alt-right and the left: their disdain for the individual.

The constant focus of both the left and the alt-right on group identity means that they downplay the value of the individual. This stands in stark opposition to the fundamental American value, which conservatives have long championed, that places the individual, not the collective, at the center of society. The pioneer spirit, entrepreneurial drive, the acceptance of personal responsibility—these are uniquely American ideas, uniquely conservative ideas. But they mean little, if anything, to the alternatives to conservatism: the left and the alt-right.

Put simply, the alt-right has three core beliefs: the promotion of white identity politics, the rejection of God, and the subordination of the individual to the collective.

In other words, the alt-right has nothing in common with conservatism, and is in fact much closer to leftism. Except, of course, that the left is much, much larger.

-------------
Full transcript:
What is the alt-right?

Everybody has an opinion about it, but nobody seems to know exactly what it is. So, I took it upon myself to find out.

I took a deep dive into alt-right culture. I read their books, listened to their podcasts, watched their videos, followed their blogs, and spoke personally to their leaders.

Here’s what I learned:

First, they’re really small... like, your high school reunion small. That “big” national alt-right gathering in Charlottesville, in August 2017? Yeah—that attracted all of about 600 people...and that’s on the high end of estimates. And that infamous torch rally on the evening of August 11? There were maybe 100 tiki-torch carriers.

But however small it is, the alt-right does have a belief system—a worldview. It’s right there, in their name. The alt in “alt-right” means “alternative.” The alt-right is an alternative to American conservatism.

So, it’s no surprise then that the alt-right has far more in common with the left—another alternative to conservatism— than it does with the traditional American right.

Let me try to untangle this.

Both the left and the alt-right are obsessed with race and identity politics—the belief that a person’s value is linked to their racial heritage. The left wants special status for racial and ethnic minorities. The alt-right wants special status for the racial and ethnic majority.

Since America, according to the alt-right, was founded by white Europeans, and was built by white Europeans, it should belong to white Europeans. America’s success, in their view, is a product of race and geography—or, as the alt-right likes to put it, of blood and soil.

So, in the alt-right’s view, the moral ideals of the American Founders—like, “all men are created equal”— are naive and misguided.

The man who coined the term “alt-right” is a white nationalist named Richard Spencer, who runs alternativeright.com as well as the National Policy Institute, the self-described think tank of the alt-right. According to Spencer, the movement is “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States.”

Jared Taylor, the editor of the white identity website American Renaissance, holds that, “Any attempt to create a society in which race can be made not to matter will fail.”

Other alt-right leaders include:

Sam Francis, the late syndicated columnist and forefather of the movement who famously called for a “white racial consciousness.”

Theodore Beale, the blogger known as Vox Day, who, in his manifesto, “What is the Alt-Right” cites the white nationalist motto, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

And Paul Ramsey, a white nationalist who produced and starred in a video entitled, “Is It Wrong Not to Feel Sad about the Holocaust?”

Another area of agreement between the alt-right and the left is that both ultimately reject God. The alt-right admires Christendom for uniting the European continent, but rejects Christianity for its offer of salvation to all people, irrespective of race. The movement’s favorite philosopher—just like the Nazis of yesteryear—is Friedrich Nietzsche, who famously claimed, “God is dead.”

Spencer himself is an avowed atheist who, like leftists since Karl Marx, longs for a new ideology “as robust and binding” as Christianity to replace traditional religion. That brings us to the most glaring similarity between the alt-right and the left: their disdain for the individual.

The constant focus of both the left and the alt-right on group identity means that they downplay the value of the individual. This stands in stark opposition to the fundamental American value, which conservatives have long championed, that places the individual, not the collective, at the center of society. The pioneer spirit, entrepreneurial drive, the acceptance of personal responsibility—these are uniquely American ideas, uniquely conservative ideas. But they mean little, if anything, to the alternatives to conservatism: the left and the alt-right.

Put simply, the alt-right has three core beliefs: the promotion of white identity politics, the rejection of God, and the subordination of the individual to the collective.

In other words, the alt-right has nothing in common with conservatism, and is in fact much closer to leftism. Except, of course, that the left is much, much larger.
 
I’m guessing anarchy?
It was a serious question. (And perhaps your response was serious and just over my head. I won't profess to understand a serious social system based on anarchy; I could just be ignorant here.)

To change the corrupt system you have to cut the head of the snake, all countries need to be able to print their own currencies and do away with the concept of private central banks.
I am not aware of any consensus view from academia nor the financial sectors on what you suggest. There appears to be a lot of evidence supporting the notion of smaller economies "piggybacking" on the currencies of major trading partners; that such a structure is more beneficial than printing their own money.

I'd be curious to know what you base such a strong contrarian view upon.

These are the criminals at the highest levels above that of politicians, they are not of any particular country but operate internationally.
I also don't see how the change you suggest would create a systemic system free of "criminals at the highest levels". If history teaches us anything, bad actors in positions of power seems commonplace.

I doubt there is any such system of government/community that insulates itself from such abusers. That's why, while far from perfect, I see the modern democratic republic as the best system yet. Feels like its something to be improved upon versus cast onto the trash heap of prior failed systems. Deep state and all.
 
I doubt there is any such system of government/community that insulates itself from such abusers. That's why, while far from perfect, I see the modern democratic republic as the best system yet. Feels like its something to be improved upon versus cast onto the trash heap of prior failed systems. Deep state and all.
What is the 'modern democratic republic' in your view? it sounds like an amalgamation of current (falsely-oppositioned) Democrats vs Republicans. And anyone not naive enough to believe that system corrupt might well advocate a real alternative such as Anarchism to disrupt the deeply-entrenched and apparently immoveable political position we seem to be in; and which is not a democracy, as in 'government by the people'. So 'cutting off the head of the snake' may well be necessary first.

Unfortunately Anarchy has a negative definition in people's minds (and the mainstream dictionary) so that the fear of chaos counteracts the true courage to believe that a collective of individuals can govern themselves.

Meanwhile political 'alternatives' are touted in a belief that there is 'something better'. But it is always offered as another overall option, not the true de-centralised disestablishmentarianism that will free us to create a political society based on the needs of, first the Earth, and then all people.
 
But David, it is the same prejudice under different names - Apartheid, Hitler's Nazism, the National Front, Trump's racial condemnations, not to mention various acts of racial 'cleansing' and tribal annihilation around the world. Wherever it raises it's ugly head, it is based on the same hateful policy. 'Anti-racial-differences' in skin-colour, beliefs, practices, even down to ridiculing people's different clothes and facial structure. Our culture is riddled with it, but as individuals we are only 'potentials', we do not need to go down this path. Trump is a leader, a very powerful one, so he should not be speaking in this way, he is responsible for leading others. He should be at the least neutral.
I don't consider Trump to be a racist, but some of the rhetoric from the other side has to be considered racist. For example, what is it but racist to sneer at "White middle class men". It is also sexist, and ageist as well. It is extraordinary how readily the Left have taken to using explicitly racist language. Sneers of this type are routinely used - amazing.
Any president's position is risky if they don't adhere to and implement the Dark State's intent. See: the assassination of JFK. What president has lasted long if they don't do as they are told? Open your eyes, Trump is the current 'front'.
Well I think that the Neocons don't have anything to blackmail him with, but he has had to duck and weave a bit. A good example is those two attacks of Syria that didn't actually kill anyone (or virtually nobody - I am not quite sure).
Yes, a threat. And yet the US military has the gall to call themselves 'Peace-keepers'. They are actually war-inciters, and the biggest 'packers' on the planet.
I would agree that they have been in recent years, but I am sure Trump's aim is to change that. The place would be more dangerous if Iran actually got a nuclear bomb, and I think Trump wants to do everything possible to stop them peacefully. We should all hope he succeeds.
It is also a clear sign of challenge. It is what brings on retaliation, in the form of small but crushing acts of hate in response to America's big ones.
But we must remember who the biggest bully is, it is America, it is America, it is America.
Well you may call it what you like, but the aim is to try to avoid bloodshed. I think it is Trump's reluctance to use force - except against ISIS - that infuriates the NeoCons most.

David
 
Sneers of this type are routinely used
Yes, they are all at it and I am sick of it. It is distracting and deliberate false-contention. So I am reluctant to go down the tit for tat road.

Well I think that the Neocons don't have anything to blackmail him with, but he has had to duck and weave a bit. A good example is those two attacks of Syria that didn't actually kill anyone (or virtually nobody - I am not quite sure).
Threats of blackmail is another effective political tool, invented in America in the early 20th century I have heard, when (Wayne) 'Wheelerism' used slur tactics to promote his bill (the Volstead Act) prohibiting alcohol, with all the disasters of that outcome. But he thereby set a precedent for 'dirty tactics' that seems still to be favoured today.

Again, without a clear reference, I am unsure as to your intent with 'those two attacks of Syria' comment. But 'virtually nobody' [was killed]..Please don't offend me with such apparent nonchalance as this :(

The place would be more dangerous if Iran actually got a nuclear bomb, and I think Trump wants to do everything possible to stop them peacefully. We should all hope he succeeds.
Yes, it is a nuisance when 'the other side' get similarly dangerous weapons and we hope to goodness..but really, that's all we can apparently do.

Well you may call it what you like, but the aim is to try to avoid bloodshed. I think it is Trump's reluctance to use force - except against ISIS - that infuriates the NeoCons most.
There are other ways to avoid bloodshed than driving in with a military force and that was the original intention behind the United Nations(?) but that too appears to be open for political manipulation by the superpowers, i.e. biggest (phallic) gun-toters (maybe that's what's behind it? more obsessive patriarchal overemphasis on penile-worship) - yes, there's always an exception, that's the problem, it's never-ending...until (we hope) it isn't.

ps I don't like or subscribe to the NeoCons.
 
Political correctness is hypocritical and racist.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...gressives-hispanic-latinos-column/4082760002/

Progressives, Hispanics are not 'Latinx.' Stop trying to Anglicize our Spanish language.​
...​
Ultimately, what Hispanic Americans who take pride in our heritage see in “Latinx” is progressive preening attempting to solve a nonexistent problem at the expense of a beautiful language that Chicanos and other Latinos endured corporal punishment and bigotry to defend. Liberals should also realize it is impossible to reconcile their professed values — like multiculturalism, education and pronoun autonomy — with the peculiar strain of 2019 progressivism that seeks to radically change our language, disregards linguistic practices, and disavows our right to determine how we are described.​
 
Yes, they are all at it and I am sick of it. It is distracting and deliberate false-contention. So I am reluctant to go down the tit for tat road.
Well if by 'all' you mean both sides in politics, I disagree - almost all the racist slurs come from the Left.
ps I don't like or subscribe to the NeoCons.
I am quite sure you don't, and obviously neither to I, but that is why you should be voting for Trump in a years time.

Boxing in the Iranians may be uncomfortable for them, but it is infinitely less uncomfortable that pouring missiles on their heads - as per usual.

In fact I talked to a guy who came from Iran, now settled in Britain. His view is that very few Iranians support their leaders, most go to the mosque only because they are forced to, have mostly given up on religion, and are just waiting for a chance to overthrow their leaders. He said all that in response to a question from me, "What is it like in Iran these days?" i.e. not a leading question. Trump might even be doing them all a good turn if he can pull it off.

David
 
Meanwhile political 'alternatives' are touted in a belief that there is 'something better'. But it is always offered as another overall option, not the true de-centralised disestablishmentarianism that will free us to create a political society based on the needs of, first the Earth, and then all people.
How do we go about establishing what it is you believe to be a superior system? How does this new system insulate itself against corruption?
 
How do we go about establishing what it is you believe to be a superior system? How does this new system insulate itself against corruption?
Good questions, although i asked you first..
I can't say I've nutted out the finer details, but I would begin with a change of human behaviour by reinstating the importance of high moral and ethical values from birth, instead of policies that reward the lower forms. A collective is only as good as the people that make it and group consensus can be powerfully influential.
 
Fair enough. I'm as pollyannish as anyone, but my point regarding our system in the U.S. is that its the best we've seen to date in actual practice. Doesn't seem feasible to make a wholesale change, but I'll listen to options. We have to stay grounded in reality and practicality, right?
 
Top