Left and right are terms that have been redefined by the ruling classes to place each of their talking points within the realm of acceptable conversation.

No longer is a leftist argument one of worker rights or nationalization of industry. Leftist themes revolve around the non-revolutionary issues that don’t rock the boat. Also, conservative dialogue is no longer about sustainability or the environment or appropriate allocation of public resources. Rightist dialogue is now inflammatory but innocuous to the oligarchy

Great power comes from fomenting hate among the people over things that don’t challenge your power.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

In “Manufacturing Consent,” Noam Chomsky talks about the design of acceptable thought. People love to debate their opinions. As long as they debate things that are irrelevant to existing power structures, the status who will continue.

It has been a long time since we have had great social movements. Women’s rights, minority rights, workers’ rights, anti-war… By design, we now debate vocabulary and feelings. This is an injustice to mankind to matter what your feelings are about real issues.

ye, but did you see what he said during pandemic? specially about segregating non-vaxxed and let them be, if they starve perhaps we’d help them? don’t get me wrong, I’m his long time pupil. but his posture over the last three years are totally contradictory to everything he ever pleaded. even so, I agree with him about segregation. first thing to destroy are metropolises. didn’t work. period. go back to countryside, peasants, let’s go back to much much smaller communities. just not the way he put.

Well that’s an ad hominem argument, and we’re not chatting about vaccines. If we discounted every person’s area of expertise just because of something they said on a different topic, we would be unable to listen to any experts.

nah, not at all. I’ve agreed with your first paragraph, distractions. and the segregation part is exactly due to these vocabulary issues. there’s no need to fight cause there’s no way of comprehension. the idea of we all living as brothers and sisters is just an utopia. we are tribal. we need to go back to tribes.

There’s a lot to be said for that. In small populations with repeated interactions among the inhabitants, cooperative behavior is more likely. How many of our social problems only developed once we hit a critical population?

A deflationary currency encouraging a steady state economy such as described by Brian Czech, overcoming the myth that perpetual growth is the key to improving quality of life for humanity, and advocating for a more sustainable use of resources, will help us back toward a a more cooperative social contract.

problem ain’t overpopulation, that’s msm narrative. all the population of the world could be concentrated on the state of NY. problem is concentration. megalopolises full of peasants and plebs fighting for some space while bill gates becomes the biggest landowner of usa. but yeah, cooperative schemes, like it used to be in the past, like a few do nowadays.

bitcoin is that currency, mate. we only need the cooperative social pact now. or as I’ve been saying, our TAZ’s 🫡

citadels \o/

bingo, distractions. all we see on msm is nothing but distraction. no better control over people than polarization and bureaucracy. money talks. and talks about anything else but what indeed matters, as you’ve said. talking about left or right doesn’t even make sense no more. left or right were only sides taken by jacobins and girondins. the origins of anarchism date back to the 7th or 8th century, I have to check. it has always been about destroying the authoritarian and centralized absolutism of the state, the state itself.

divide to conquer, same old shit but very effective

same old shit, history books all over, but we never learn. eternamente o bom alemão.