Author Topic: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism  (Read 361209 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
When the govenment directs the economy
« Reply #750 on: November 01, 2021, 12:06:35 AM »

WSJ:

The Spending Bill Is an Attack on Work and Marriage
A single mom could end up paying thousands more for daycare if she marries. Children will suffer.
By Casey B. Mulligan
Oct. 31, 2021 5:45 pm ET


America’s children have suffered from ill-advised public-school closings. Now Democrats want to compound the damage with their welfare spending bill, which would push fathers out of family life and move mothers and fathers alike onto unemployment rolls.

Take Section 23001 of the latest draft of the Build Back Better bill, released on Thursday. It would create a large new federal child-care program. For each year that a couple has children under 5, being unmarried could easily save them over $10,000 annually in child-care costs compared with being married.

That’s because of how the subsidies are structured. A single mother earning 75% of the median household income in her state would pay nothing for child care, regardless of how much the child’s father earned. But the father’s income counts if he is legally part of the family. A husband and wife who each earned about 75% of the median income would have to pay thousands for the same daycare. In 2022-24, the married couple would pay full price, which would likely exceed $15,000 a child a year—$30,000 for two children under 5.

Child care is one of several provisions that would encourage even middle-income people to think seriously about single parenthood. Several Republican senators wrote to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to object to the new marriage penalties built into Democrats’ proposed reforms to the Earned Income Tax Credit. There inevitably will be marriage penalties baked into the $150 billion the bill would spend on “affordable housing,” details to come.


Democrats will claim that their new bill at least encourages work by making child care free, but that refers only to a narrow slice of the population. Most families, especially those that don’t qualify for a full subsidy or that have older children, will pay more for child care. One reason: Under the heading of “quality regulation,” the bill requires that child-care workers be paid a “living wage” and that their earnings be “equivalent to wages for elementary educators with similar credentials and experience.”


The precise meaning of that would be left to regulators, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, elementary-school teachers earned an average of $63,930 annually in 2019, compared with $25,510 for child-care workers. By that benchmark, child-care facilities would need to pay workers 151% more. Perhaps child-care workers would be required to hold master’s degrees, or be represented by unions that could otherwise limit supply as they do with kindergarten teachers.

The new child-care program and various additions to major safety-net programs such as Medicaid and “affordable housing” also discourage work. As one’s income from working increases, the amount offered by these benefit programs decreases. The marginal tax rate on working an extra hour, day or week, or improving your skills, can be extremely high.

The revised bill also allows even America’s highest-income households to receive subsidized ObamaCare insurance as long as they can’t get coverage at work. Some Americans will retire earlier or spend more time between jobs. Much of the lost wages will be replaced by more-generous ObamaCare subsidies at taxpayer expense.

I estimate that the several implicit employment and income taxes in the revised bill would increase marginal tax rates on work by about five percentage points. I expect that such a change, over five years, would reduce full-time equivalent employment by about 4%, or about five million jobs.

Meanwhile, more kids will come home from a regulated child-care facility to an unmarried parent who is out of work. More families will be willing to tolerate this kind of care, regardless of the quality of cognitive or social development, since the price is “free.”

Quebec imposed “quality” regulation on its child-care market, which, a landmark study found, led to “increases in early childhood anxiety and aggression” with “little measured impact on cognitive skills.” Kids exposed to the program suffered “worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life.”

The Affordable Care Act taught us the hard way that nice-sounding bill titles don’t necessarily translate to sound public policy. Anyone looking inside Build Back Better will see incentives that work against Americans who want to build stable families.

Mr. Mulligan, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow with the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, served as chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers, 2018-19





ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20282
    • View Profile
Why the heck is this Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum
« Reply #755 on: July 23, 2022, 07:42:05 AM »

so influential?

Why do read about him and they so much

no one ever elected them

https://neonnettle.com/news/19677-world-economic-forum-calls-to-end-wasteful-private-car-ownership

he is just another academic with ties to , of course, Harvard:

https://www.weforum.org/about/klaus-schwab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
Definition of Fascism
« Reply #756 on: September 05, 2022, 10:58:43 AM »
Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes that fascists "believed that multiparty democracy weakened the nation, and that competitive capitalism was wasteful and exploitative. Their alternative was a one-party state that guided the economy through regulation and sector-based accords between labor and business."

=============

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/09/who-are-you-calling-fascist-mr-president-david-harsanyi/?fbclid=IwAR0yV3AkhErkXvLH574hzWxlQKfIw2PZnwUDdHPAR-aSkfhel9IxDooUHEM
« Last Edit: September 05, 2022, 11:07:39 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
WT: Fascism for Dummies
« Reply #757 on: September 14, 2022, 03:32:46 AM »
Fascism for dummies

Those using the word should at least know what it means

By Clifford D. May

Fascism seems to be all the rage these days. I’ll give you a few examples.

Ben Rhodes, who was President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications (a title suggesting foreign policy with a spin), wrote last year that the presidency of Donald Trump was “an American experiment with fascism.”

Democratic National Committee chairman Jaime Harrison echoed him, declaring that the Republican Party has “become a party of fascism and fear.” Actor/activist Rob Reiner tweeted last week: “This Midterm there is no gray area. You either cast a vote for Democracy or Fascism. That’s it.” And, of course, President Biden recently charged that Republicans — many if not all — embrace “semi-fascism.”

Was he using that modifier to imply that there are a few tenets of fascism not endorsed even by the “MAGA Republicans” he so intensely despises? Since the most lethal variety of fascism is Nazism, he at least might have made clear that he’s not calling his political opponents genocidal.

My guess is that Mr. Biden, like others employing the term, knows little about this revolutionary ideology to which millions of people in Germany, Italy, Japan, and other countries adhered during the first half of the 20th century.

If you were so daring as to pull aside a black-shirted Antifa member during one of the street riots that group has initiated and ask for a definition of the “fa” he thinks he’s combatting, do you think you’d get a coherent answer?

Would he know that members of the paramilitary wing of Benito Mussolini’s National Fascist Party also wore and were called Blackshirts, and that a similarly violent wing of the Nazi Party wore and were called Brownshirts?

Expressions of fascist fashion — or, more properly, of the “Fascist Aesthetic” — were even more elaborately on display when Mr. Biden recently let loose a diatribe in front of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, its walls bathed in bloodred lights, U.S. Marines menacingly backing him up.

The president directed his fury toward those millions of fellow Americans he regards as enemies of the state and its leader. “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans,” he railed, “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic!”

Did the White House communications team — whom I presume wrote the speech and designed the “optics” — realize they were drawing on fascist imagery when they cast the president as a strongman, an idolized and militaristic authority figure differentiating between pure and impure, and determined to crush those who, as Mr. Biden put it, “do not recognize the will of the people”?

Perhaps the president’s advisers thought: “Hey, our job is to make the midterm elections a referendum not on Biden and his record, but on Trump and any Republicans who have not publicly rejected him. So, whatever it takes — even if fascist-inspired.”

Consistent with this strategy, Mr. Biden’s supporters have spent more than $40 million to boost the most Trumpian MAGA Republicans in primaries around the country so that Democrats can run against candidates they believe will be easier to defeat in the general elections.

As Nora Ephron used to say: “No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.”

OK, class, now take your seats because it’s time for Fascism 101. Among the best scholarly books on the subject remains Eugen Weber’s “Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century,” first published in 1964.

Fascism, Nazism and other “national socialisms,” he writes, “had their roots in the 19th century and even earlier” in ideas promulgated by such philosophers as Rousseau, Hegel, and Nietzsche. The term derives from fascio, Italian for a bundle or sheath, conveying “strength through unity,” the unifying force being the government and its supreme leader. As Mussolini put it: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” In common with communism, fascism in its diverse forms opposes liberalism, defined as “individualism and the apparently chaotic conclusions of private enterprise.” Also akin to communism, fascism has had a “passion for science” that often turns out to be pseudo-science. The Soviet Communists had Lysenkoism. Nazis believed, as Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg wrote, that “history must be judged from the point of view of race.” The poet Ezra Pound, a well-known American fascist, moved to Italy in 1924 where he wrote for publications owned by the British fascist Oswald Moseley (whose streetfighters also were called Blackshirts). Pound supported Hitler’s rise, including in paid radio broadcasts attacking the U.S., the U.K., Roosevelt, Churchill, and Jews. Among the ideas he championed: “race pride.” As George Mosse notes in “Fascist Aesthetics and Society: Some Considerations,” the “human body indicates the structure of the mind.” Another attribute of fascism is hypernationalism. The Axis powers all invaded neighbors and folded them into their expanding empires. Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Biden has displayed any interest in foreign conquests, as far as I’m aware. On the contrary, I see too many Republicans and Democrats succumbing to the siren song of isolationism. This is an opinion column and I’ll close with this one: A serious argument can be made that Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Ali Khamenei, and Kim Jong-un exemplify 21st century varieties of fascism. Had Mr. Biden addressed the increasing national security threats they pose, he might have helped unite us against those who hate us — Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives, the woke and the unwoke. He chose not to.

I think that’s because he wants to win in the worst way. And it’s hard to imagine any way worse than this: slandering his political opponents as fascists while posing as a modern Mussolini in the City of Brotherly Love

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19987
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism
« Reply #758 on: September 14, 2022, 03:52:21 AM »
Yes.  Isn't it weird to be called fascists by fascists.

What is fascist about loving liberty, wanting to live free,supporting smaller government and stronger families and individual responsibility.  The accusation is beyond absurd.

I've been saying, all they do is project themselves when they attack us, but this goes way over any line.  What makes it grow worse over time is to notice the lack of outrage or push back at the reckless name calling of this ultra-divisive President and his deep state henchmen.

The only example they cite of conservatives wanting government control is when we try to limit the freedom of liberals to slaughter their young.  Maybe we should back off on that...



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
Mussolini on Corporatism
« Reply #761 on: September 17, 2022, 08:41:15 AM »
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19987
    • View Profile
Re: Mussolini on Corporatism
« Reply #762 on: September 17, 2022, 04:51:39 PM »
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini

SO much to quibble with there, but the scary thing is, that is what the statists are doing today.

Merging 'corporations' with the state means they aren't corporations.
It is the destruction of free enterprise.

Obvious in hindsight, but that kind of thinking destroys liberties and lives and leads to war.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism
« Reply #763 on: September 17, 2022, 05:55:10 PM »
"(A) merger of state and corporate power" e.g. FB and the CDC.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20282
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism
« Reply #764 on: September 17, 2022, 06:23:12 PM »
that is what is so frustrating

to see young people who are so gullible saying WE ARE the FASCISTS because they read what Dem shysters are saying on line

or hear at the Universities

I am positive they rattle this off and when they have no clue what fascism is .

Trump deregulating industries
 downsizing government and getting them and corporations off our backs
is simply the opposite

impressionable young minds
ignorant enough to fall for the propaganda....

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19987
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism
« Reply #765 on: September 17, 2022, 09:08:30 PM »
"when they have no clue what fascism is "

  - Hard to get their attention, but we need to tell them what is, and that it's bad.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19987
    • View Profile
Fascism in Housing
« Reply #766 on: November 27, 2022, 10:29:04 AM »
From Housing thread:

https://nypost.com/2022/11/26/nyc-landlords-could-soon-be-denied-criminal-background-checks-for-tenants/
---------
A couple of comments: 1) What happens in NYC (or Calif) does not stay there; it tells you what leftist liberals who govern all our other large cities are thinking and likely to do soon, cf. Minneapolis:
https://reason.com/2019/09/17/minneapolis-doesnt-want-landlords-to-check-tenants-criminal-history-credit-score-past-evictions/

2) Definitions vary but communism is when the government owns the means of production (no private sector) and Fascism is when ownership in name only is private sector but all key decisions are dictated by government, which is what is happening here. Who you rent to is the key decision in housing. Laws protecting race, gender, etc are matters of rights. 

Laws protecting convicted felons and known bad tenants of recent past violent behaviors and other issues make a mockery of tenant screening, the heart of the housing business. 

If the government makes all the decisions, isn't it just government housing?

All that's left is for private owners to get out of ownership but they have laws blocking that as well.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2022, 01:33:17 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19987
    • View Profile




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Mark Kelly is garbage
« Reply #771 on: March 14, 2023, 07:34:12 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
WSJ: Proposed guidance
« Reply #772 on: December 11, 2023, 06:15:22 AM »
peachment vote. Images: Reuters/AFP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly
While the press frets about Donald Trump establishing the Fourth Reich, President Biden is rewriting laws to arrogate sweeping power for himself. On Thursday the Administration threatened to seize patents of drugs and other innovations, which could be its most economically destructive executive act to date.


The Commerce and Health and Human Services Departments are proposing new guidance on “march-in” rights under the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act. The law was meant to encourage cooperation among industry, research institutions and government to bring innovations to market. Mr. Biden’s patent grab will do the opposite.

Bayh-Dole attempted to solve the problem of tens of thousands of government patents that were collecting dust. Government had taken the position that inventions stemming from federally funded research belonged to the government. But why develop a product if you won’t be allowed to profit from it?

Under Bayh-Dole, research institutions receiving federal funds were allowed to patent inventions and license them to companies to commercialize them. It worked. Only in limited circumstances can government “march in” and confiscate a patent—namely, when a company hasn’t made a good-faith effort to commercialize the research.

Progressives for decades have wanted to use march-in rights to seize patents on drugs they claim are too expensive. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra led the charge last decade in Congress. Yet Administrations of both parties have demurred until now because they understood its destructive impact.

Under the proposed Biden guidelines, march-in rights will be used as price controls. Government agencies could seize patents if “the price or other terms at which the product is currently offered to the public are not reasonable” or “unreasonably limit availability of the invention to the public.”

As Biden National Economic Council director Lael Brainard explained, “We’ll make it clear that when drug companies won’t sell taxpayer funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less.” Translation: That’s a nice medicine you have there . . . shame if something happened to it.

Did the White House consult with the National Institutes of Health or other scientific agencies? The NIH this year rejected a petition by a left-wing group to exercise march-in rights on a prostate cancer drug by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma. NIH knows that seizing patents would dampen cooperation between research institutions and industry, harming innovation and patients.

That’s what happened 30 years ago when NIH briefly required companies exclusively licensing its inventions to pledge to sell the byproducts at a reasonable price. Private industry walked away. In rescinding the NIH policy in 1995, director Harold Varmus said “the pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial scientific collaborations with PHS (public health service) scientists” without offsetting benefits to the public. He called it “a restraint on the new product development.”

Former Sens. Birch Bayh and Bob Dole in 2002 explained that their law “makes no reference to a reasonable price that should be dictated by the government. This omission was intentional; the primary purpose of the act was to entice the private sector to seek public-private research collaboration rather than focusing on its own proprietary research.” They stressed that “the purpose of our act was to spur the interaction between public and private research so that patients would receive the benefits of innovative science sooner.”

***
Alas, the Biden Administration cares more about expanding government control over the private economy than accelerating life-saving treatments. The President’s cancer moonshot initiative boosts funding for research institutions, but his threat to seize patents will discourage companies from building on future discoveries. Does the Administration’s left hand know what its far left hand is doing? This will compound the damage from the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price controls.

Progressives say government deserves paternity rights to drug patents because it plays an outsize role in funding their development. But of 18 medicines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration with patents linked to NIH grants in 2000, total private investment exceeded government funding 66-fold. Profits and intellectual-property protections drive American innovation. Mr. Biden’s patent heist undercuts both and will embolden China to seize U.S. patents.

Note, too, that the Administration’s plan would let the government seize patents of other products such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, nuclear energy and lithium-ion batteries, and any inventions that result from the $200 billion in funding from last year’s chips bill. Stealing IP is now part of Bidenomics.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
The DEI Crowd Loses One
« Reply #774 on: March 18, 2024, 04:34:13 PM »
Novant Health takes a big hit for firing a high performing white guy and replacing him with a new hire black woman:

Employers May Not "Take Adverse Employment Actions … Based on [Employees'] Race or Gender to Implement" "Diversity and Inclusion" Programs

The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Mar 18, 2024 at 9:13 AM

From Tuesday's Fourth Circuit decision in Duvall v. Novant Health, Inc., written by Judge Agee and joined by Judges Quattlebaum and Floyd (upholding a damages award of "about $4 million"):

After a week-long trial, a North Carolina jury found that Novant Health, Inc. terminated David Duvall because of his race, sex, or both, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to the finding of liability, the jury awarded Duvall $10 million in punitive damages [reduced to the statutory maximum of $300,000].

The court summarized the facts, as usual in this situation, in light most favorable to the verdict:

Duvall, a white man, began working for Novant Health in 2013, when Executive Vice President and Chief Consumer Officer Jesse Cureton, a black man, hired him as Senior Vice President of Marketing and Communications. Based in North Carolina, Duvall reported directly to Cureton and held the same position throughout his employment with Novant Health. Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Duvall performed exceptionally in his role, receiving strong performance reviews and gaining national recognition for himself and the marketing program he developed for Novant Health.

Despite all that, Cureton fired Duvall in July 2018, a decision that came as a shock to both Duvall and his colleagues. Moreover, Novant Health—a multibillion-dollar company with tens of thousands of employees and an extensive human resources department—had no record of any documented criticism of Duvall's performance or reasons for his termination.

Immediately after firing Duvall, Novant Health elevated two of Duvall's deputies, a white woman and a black woman, to take over his duties. It then later hired another black woman to permanently replace Duvall.

Believing Novant Health fired him merely to achieve racial and gender diversity—or more specifically, to hit certain diversity "targets"—within its leadership, Duvall sued his former employer under Title VII and North Carolina state law in federal district court….

The court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict:

To begin, Duvall presented evidence about the context surrounding his termination. The jury heard that Duvall was fired in the middle of a widescale D&I initiative at Novant Health, which sought to "embed diversity and inclusion throughout" the company, and to ensure that its overall workforce, including its leadership, "reflect[ed] the communities [it] serve[d]." There was evidence presented that Novant Health endeavored to accomplish this goal by, among other things, benchmarking its then-current D&I levels and developing and employing D&I metrics; committing to "adding additional dimensions of diversity to the executive and senior leadership teams" and incorporating "a system wide decision making process that includes a diversity and inclusion lens"; and evaluating the success of its efforts and identifying and closing any remaining diversity gaps.

The jury also heard about the demographic data from 2015 and 2017 that Novant Health collected. From a factual standpoint, the data revealed a decline in female leaders and an overrepresentation of male and white leadership in comparison to the total workforce. It also showed an increase in white male representation "with each level of management," compared to a decrease in "African-American representation … at each level [of management] with the exception of the executive team." By 2019, however, Novant Health saw a dramatic increase in female leaders just from the year prior (the period in which Duvall was fired). It also reflected a decrease of white workers and leaders and an increase in black workers and leaders over the life of the D&I Plan. Additionally, after remaining gaps in the Hispanic and Asian workforce were identified, Novant Health adopted a long-term financial incentive plan that tied executive bonuses to closing those gaps by achieving a specific percentage of each group.

Against that backdrop, we consider the evidence specific to Duvall and his termination.

As noted above, there was substantial evidence at trial that Duvall performed superbly in his role at Novant Health…. But despite this evidence of his exceptional performance, the jury heard that Duvall was abruptly fired, having been told only that Novant Health was "going in a different direction." … Finally, the jury heard Cureton offer shifting, conflicting, and unsubstantiated explanations for Duvall's termination. [Details omitted, but can be seen in the full opinion. -EV] …

{To be clear, employers may, if they so choose, utilize D&I-type programs. What they cannot do is take adverse employment actions against employees based on their race or gender to implement such a program. And as recounted above, the evidence presented at trial in this case was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that is precisely what Novant Health did to Duvall.}

But the court set aside the award of punitive damages, because such damages were available "only in limited circumstances:"

Title VII authorizes punitive damages only when a plaintiff makes two showings. First, the plaintiff must show that the employer engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact). Second, the plaintiff must show that the employer engaged in the discriminatory practice with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual. That is, an employer must at least discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law.

And, the court held, plaintiff introduced no "affirmative evidence" that the employer actually "perceived [the] risk" that its actions were illegal: Duvall "offered no evidence as to the training or qualification that Novant Health offered to or required of Cureton, or a comparable executive, to establish the requisite knowledge of federal anti-discrimination law. Duvall even cross-examined Cureton yet never elicited from him testimony establishing his personal knowledge of federal anti-discrimination law, let alone that he perceived a risk that his decision to fire Duvall would violate it." And the "inference that Cureton had the requisite knowledge given his career as a corporate executive" was insufficient.

The post Employers May Not "Take Adverse Employment Actions … Based on [Employees'] Race or Gender to Implement" "Diversity and Inclusion" Programs appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/18/employers-may-not-take-adverse-employment-actions-based-on-employees-race-or-gender-to-implement-diversity-and-inclusion-programs/


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
GOOD!!!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20282
    • View Profile
I would have liked to see the guy asking the question response to Larry Elders response.

He probably changed the subject to sports........ :wink:

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
Oft Cited DEI Study Proves Irreproducible
« Reply #779 on: April 06, 2024, 04:09:38 PM »
Study claims diversity in and of itself leads to greater corporate earning. The US military in particular has embraced these findings … and is paying the price in terms of recruitment of whites.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/03/new-study-shows-mckinseys-studies-promoting-dei-profitability-were-garbage/?fbclid=IwAR1f1lh9EHly59e8O9-QFXuy7Lpz2XoPre6QVqJEoSFvXH1ie10JvqD_o6w
« Last Edit: May 21, 2024, 06:06:07 AM by Body-by-Guinness »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20282
    • View Profile
remembering Yeomni Park relating her College experience at Columbia
« Reply #780 on: April 22, 2024, 09:58:59 AM »
https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2024/2/8/24063748/human-rights-activist-yeonmi-park-freedom-god-socialism/

"Park warns against socialism
The UVU event was sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation, and Park compared the ideology she observed as a student at Columbia with the ideology she learned in North Korea. Park told the UVU audience, “The professors were telling us the only solution was us destroying America and the American Constitution and then rebuilding this country in the name of equity, which meant socialism.”

“These professors learned about socialism in their textbooks, in their comfortable rooms with their air conditioning, on their nice computers with internet,” she said

“They were saying amazing things about socialism and how it would save all of us and take us to a paradise,” she continued. “Instead of a theory, I lived it because I was born in North Korea, a so-called socialist paradise.”

Socialism “promises equality of outcomes,” Park said, comparing it with North Korea’s 51 different social classes. Park explained how the North Korean government divided up social classes after the Korean War, saying landowners and individuals who were anti-communism were put at the bottom. Anyone related to people at the bottom were also placed there.

Living in New York City, Park described conversations she’s had with her friends who “want socialism so bad.” They told her, “Look outside, there are billionaires, and there are homeless people. Capitalism creates inequality, therefore it’s evil.”

“What do you mean that you can be a billionaire?” Park asked. “If you work hard like Steve Jobs, create an iPhone, like Elon Musk creating rockets, you mean that I can be a billionaire? What a concept,” she said.

She continued, “What a thing to celebrate, that you can rise up, that you don’t all need to be equally poor and starving together. Inequality is not a sign of oppression, it’s a sign of progress.”



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20282
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: May 24, 2024, 08:15:39 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
Nazis, Marxists, and the History of Ideas
« Reply #783 on: September 09, 2024, 09:07:52 AM »
https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/07/nazis-marxists-and-the-history-of-ideas/

By Stephen Soukup
September 7, 2024

In light of recent events and discussions attempting to rehabilitate the historical reputation of Germany’s Nazis, it might be worthwhile to re-examine the foundations of the ideology that underpinned National Socialism and its close cousin fascism. Those who embrace the revisionism that excuses the Nazis’ crimes appear to believe that by doing so, they are defending themselves and their ideological brethren from unfair and ahistorical attacks by the broader left. They think—or at least seem to think—that because fascism is considered a “right-wing” ideology that was specifically pitted against both Communism and Western liberalism, it can hardly be as awful as has been assumed and that its association with unvarnished evil is mere propaganda.

They are wrong. Indeed, the very foundations of their sentiments are mistaken and result from the radical mischaracterization of history and the evolution of ideas in the two centuries after the Enlightenment.

The simple truth of the matter is that the standard depiction of National Socialism and fascism as right-wing ideologies is inarguably false. While Hitler and Mussolini both expressed their opposition to and hatred of “Marxists,” they nevertheless embraced a leftism that was only marginally different from that embraced by Lenin and Stalin. Their hatred was a practical matter, a question of power rather than ideas. Both economically and socially, the Nazis and their Italian cousins were inheritors of the leftist traditions.

Almost from the moment he put pen to paper, Karl Marx’s enemies, as well as his friends, set about explaining why his theories about and solutions to the conflict between capital and labor had no serious application in the real world. Marx was a fantasist, and everyone—save perhaps his occasional partner in crime, Friedrich Engles—knew it.

Among the most important—though least remembered—of Marx’s one-time friends to help try to restructure his ideas to fit reality was a young German labor activist named Ferdinand Lassalle. Unlike his friend and intellectual guide, Lassalle toughed it out and stayed in Germany after the 1848 Revolution. As a result, he had a far greater impact on the formation of practical German socialism than Marx ever did. Although the specifics of Lassalle’s adaptations to socialism frustrated Marx and especially Engels, by staying in Germany and fighting for radical leftism in praxis rather than merely in theory, Lassalle won other friends and admirers, including the most important and powerful Prussian of the 19th century, Otto von Bismarck.

Lassalle’s revisions to Marxism permitted, in theory at least, the maintenance of economic benefits created by the private control of capital, blended with the social change and “progress” demanded by the workers’ movements. Unsurprisingly, the promised results of these revisions appealed tremendously to the politically astute Bismarck.

So, while Lassalle is considered the godfather of German socialism, Bismarck—the conservative monarchist and rabid anti-socialist—is, ironically, the godfather of the German welfare state. He took Lassalle’s admonitions and advice to heart and, thereby, sought to preempt Marx’s “inevitable” revolution. Unlike Marx, who bleated on endlessly about the withering away of the state, Lassalle believed that effective socialism required a powerful state. Indeed, his vision postulated an alliance between the workers and the state, a confederation designed to bypass and undermine the “liberalism” of the bourgeoisie. He found an ally in this effort in Bismarck, who admired Lassalle’s intelligence and soberness and shared his revulsion at the liberal-capitalist middle class. Bismarck’s embrace of universal suffrage as well as his implementation of the continent’s first widespread social welfare measures were dictated in large part by his understanding of and appreciation for Lassalle’s ideas. Between them, Lassalle and Bismarck created the first operational version of the “middle ground” between Marxism and capitalism, the first form of “managed capitalism,” or what would, in time, come to be called “the Third Way.”

Though the first, Lassalle was far from the only socialist theorist to attempt to stake out the middle ground of state-managed capitalism. His fellow German socialist (and eventual Marxist revisionist) Edward Bernstein, the French journalist (and defamer of Jews) Charles Maurras, and the French engineer-turned-syndicalist Georges Sorel all offered thoughts, theories, and hypothetical modifications to Marxism that advocated state intervention and management of industry and capital to the detriment of the bourgeoisie and the benefit of the workers.

Likewise, Bismarck had successors as well. National Socialism and fascism sought to meld what its leaders perceived to be the most effective aspects of the left with the most effective aspects of the right. Having fought in World War I, both Mussolini and Hitler understood intrinsically that Marx’s “international” proletariat was a myth and that the workers of the world had no desire to unite and throw off their chains. Indeed, they had no desire to be “of the world” at all. Instead, they wanted to be “of Germany,” “of France,” or “of Italy.” By blending extreme nationalism with corporatist/statist economics, the fascists presented a more immediately practical alternative to the failure of the Marxist Revolution to manifest itself than was presented by their more culturally obsessed countrymen: Antonio Gramsci and the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School.

Building upon the ideas of Maurras and especially Sorel, the fascists and National Socialists cobbled together a program merging extreme nationalism, corporatist economics, utopianism, atheism, and historicism. Like Lassalle and Bismarck before them, Hiter and Mussolini were animated by Hegel’s twin notions that “the state is the presence of God upon the Earth” and that history is moving toward some predetermined, utopian end.

Even beyond economics, the Nazis and fascists borrowed liberally from their left-wing brethren. Both British Fabianism and American Progressivism were obsessed with racial purity and purification through eugenics. The contemporary left professes a dedication to racial equity and harmony, but its history is far different. Indeed, Richard Ely and Woodrow Wilson, two of the godfathers of American Progressivism and intellectual giants of the left, helped set the stage—philosophically and practically—for Hitler’s atrocities.

As part of his program to harness the power of the state to perfect man’s existence, Ely embraced the “science” of eugenics. Ely became a pioneer in the eugenics movement with the publication in 1903 of his book Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society, in which he waxed optimistic about the positive effects that could be achieved by the ongoing efforts in the various states to limit the ability of “objectionable” people to breed.

And in eugenics, as in all ideological matters, where Ely went, Wilson followed. As the governor of New Jersey, Wilson signed one of the nation’s first and most draconian state eugenics laws, a law that was drafted by none other than Dr. Edwin Katzen-Ellenbogen, who would later turn against his fellow Jewish prisoners and become a notorious killer-doctor in Hitler’s Buchenwald death camp. Among other things, Wilson’s law created a special three-man “Board of Examiners of Feebleminded, Epileptics, and Other Defectives” to monitor the “advisability” of procreation among certain demographic groups.

In short, the plans and schemes put in place by Hitler and his National Socialists were unprecedented in their scope and effectiveness but were hardly so in their ideological derivation. In the rush to “defend” Hitler and his ilk from the supposed intellectual onslaught by Marxism, the members of the Nazi-sympathetic right would do well to spend some time investigating and understanding the relationship between Marx, Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. As even Hitler’s propagandist Joseph Goebbels noted in his private diaries, “It would be better for us to end our existence under Bolshevism than to endure slavery under capitalism.”

 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
Malone: Paved with Good Intentions
« Reply #784 on: October 05, 2024, 12:40:04 PM »


Paved with Good Intentions
Utilitarianism + Socialism + Corporatism = Fascist Totalitarianism
Robert W Malone MD, MS
Oct 5

 

A recurring theme runs through modern Western political history—it provides the paving stones that line the road to hell. The core of this theme is that the State is responsible for enabling the greatest good for the greatest number. From this basic tenant flows a wide range of unintended consequences that, in retrospect, can be recognized as fundamentally evil. This naive concept of the State as a guarantor of positive outcomes logically progresses to the conclusion that the State should interfere in and “manage” the economic forces and outcomes that citizens experience. In other words, the State should manage the economy. This logic underpins the oft-repeated assertion that the State should provide for and manage “healthcare.” That the State is responsible for caring for the elderly and providing pensions for those beyond a certain age (whether or not they are able to productively contribute to society). None of these roles and responsibilities are enumerated in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The State should not be involved in managing the economy or healthcare, if for no other reason that the more the State meddles in these things, the worse off they become. The root cause of this is that the State is incompetent and incapable of accomplishing these tasks, and these roles and responsibilities are outside of the powers vested in the State by the founding documents.

The enumerated, or listed, powers are contained in Article I, Section 8.  These include: to lay and collect taxes; pay debts and borrow money; regulate commerce; coin money; establish post offices; protect patents and copyrights; establish lower courts; declare war; and raise and support an Army and Navy.  Those powers and responsibilities not enumerated in the US Constitution as federal government powers generally remain the authority of the separate States that agreed to associate and structure and legally bind themselves as a Republic. Fortunately or unfortunately, at the very end of this list contained one more power: to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers.  Also known as the Elastic Clause, this phrase allowed Congress to stretch its enumerated powers a bit to fit its needs.  For instance, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that under the Necessary and Proper Clause Congress had the power to establish a national bank to carry out its powers to collect taxes, pay debts, and borrow money.  Broad interpretation of the Elastic Clause has allowed expanded Congressional and Executive Branch (ergo administrative state) power.

I assert that, under the US Constitution, the State (ergo the US Federal Government) has neither the right nor the responsibility to guarantee “the greatest good for the greatest number”. Therefore, those who reason that the State has a responsibility to guarantee outcomes, to manage the economy, to provide access to healthcare, to provide for the well-being of illegal immigrants, to care for elderly citizens, to “feed the world,” to manage and stabilize (or destabilize) other governments, or to insure world “peace” resort of appeals to a combination of utilitarianism and various ethical arguments which are completely outside of either the enumerated powers or the Elastic Clause. The US Federal State has neither authority nor power to create or enforce an imperial empire.

These are unconstitutional and unlawful roles for the US Federal Government. They are entirely outside the boundaries of the federal authority, and various forces and interests have unlawfully expanded State operations to encompass these missions.

Utilitarianism (as summarized by Brave AI)

The phrase “greatest good for the greatest number” originates from Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy, which aims to maximize overall happiness or well-being. In essence, it suggests that moral actions are those that bring about the greatest positive impact on the world.

Key Principles:

Happiness as the metric: Bentham and later John Stuart Mill defined “good” as pleasure or happiness, which can be intellectual, emotional, or sensual.

Quantification: The concept implies a quantitative comparison of the good or happiness produced by different actions or policies.

Maximization: The goal is to maximize the overall happiness or good, rather than distributing it equally among individuals.

No inherent value: According to utilitarianism, there is no inherent value in any particular action, outcome, or individual; only the consequences matter.

Challenges and Critiques:

Justice and fairness: Critics argue that utilitarianism sacrifices individual rights and justice for the greater good, potentially leading to unfair outcomes.

Temporal considerations: The concept struggles to account for long-term consequences, as what may seem beneficial in the short term might have negative effects in the long run.

Defining “good”: The notion of happiness or good can be subjective and context-dependent, making it challenging to establish a clear standard.

Handling conflicting values: In situations where different values or principles conflict, utilitarianism may prioritize the greater good over individual rights or moral principles.

Real-World Applications:

Public policy: Utilitarianism has influenced policy decisions, such as resource allocation and social welfare programs, aimed at maximizing overall well-being.

Business ethics: Companies may prioritize the greatest good for the greatest number by balancing profits with social and environmental responsibilities.

International relations: Governments and organizations may consider the greatest good for the greatest number when making decisions about conflict resolution, trade, and development.

In conclusion, the concept of “greatest good for the greatest number” is a cornerstone of utilitarian philosophy, emphasizing the maximization of overall happiness or well-being. While it has practical applications, it also faces challenges and critiques regarding justice, fairness, and the definition of “good.”

The US Constitution does not implement a substantive ethical theory. By 'substantive ethical theory,' I refer to a theory that says, "An act is good if and only if. . "

The US Constitution embodies a social contract position since (at least some versions of) social contract theories say that a substantive ethical theory is unnecessary for the basis of legality or political authority. Not only do we not need substantive views about the nature of moral goodness, but encoding those in law will be positively harmful since this leads directly to certain kinds of discrimination, such as those that wracked Europe during the religion wars. When one “moral” outcome is favored over another, this directly results in theft enabled by the State on behalf of one social group at the expense of another. The Constitutionally reasonable thing to do is to let Citizens have whatever substantive moral theory they like but not let any of those theories become the basis of either law, legislation, or administrative fiat. To do otherwise is to functionally support one set of religious (ethical) beliefs over another. In other words, to violate the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

So What is Fascism?
Often overlooked is that “mainstream media” is controlled by large corporations, and relies on organizations, cabals and aggregators (such as the “Trusted News Initiative” or Thompson/Reuters) to sustain and support its dominance and control of public information. Therefore, it should surprise no one that “mainstream media” actively supports and advocates for corporatist interests. Corporate or mainstream media has cooperated with political organizations (“parties”) from the left to distort, redefine and weaponize the 20th-century term “Fascism” to apply to politicians and political parties from the right side of the spectrum (assuming that “left” and “right” even have any meaning anymore.) Hence one observes repeated corporate media claims that populist center-right politicians such as Donald Trump (USA), Georgia Meloni (Italy), Marie Le Pen (France), Nigel Farage (UK), and of course, the Austrian School Economist Javier Milei (Argentina) as Fascists. But this is another example of the PsyWar method of gaslighting by redefining the meaning of words.

Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvingtonon-Hudson, N.Y., and Mr. Richman has provided a practical definition of the true meaning of the political science and economic term “Fascism.” The following are selected quotes from his analysis.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

If a formal architect of fascism can be identified, it is Benito Mussolini, the onetime Marxist editor who, caught up in nationalist fervor, broke with the left as World War I approached and became Italy’s leader in 1922. Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:

“The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)”

Before his foray into imperialism in 1935, Mussolini was often praised by prominent Americans and Britons, including Winston Churchill, for his economic program.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:

“The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)”

Both nations exhibited elaborate planning schemes for their economies in order to carry out the state’s objectives. Mussolini’s corporate state “consider[ed] private initiative in production the most effective instrument to protect national interests” (Basch 1937, p. 97). But the meaning of “initiative” differed significantly from its meaning in a market economy. Labor and management were organized into twenty-two industry and trade “corporations,” each with Fascist Party members as senior participants. The corporations were consolidated into a National Council of Corporations; however, the real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Instituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, which held shares in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises, and the Instituto Mobiliare, which controlled the nation’s credit.

Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory. The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938. Two years earlier, Hitler had imposed a four-year plan to shift the nation’s economy to a war footing. In Europe during this era, Spain, Portugal, and Greece also instituted fascist economies.

In the United States, beginning in 1933, the constellation of government interventions known as the New Deal had features suggestive of the corporate state. The National Industrial Recovery Act created code authorities and codes of practice that governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce. The National Labor Relations Act made the federal government the final arbiter in labor issues. The Agricultural Adjustment Act introduced central planning to farming. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

What is Socialism?
from Socialist author Robert Heilbroner.

It has been Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, and the like who have maintained that capitalism would flourish and that socialism would develop incurable ailments. Mises called socialism “impossible” because it has no means of establishing a rational pricing system; Hayek added additional reasons of a sociological kind (“the worst rise on top”). All three have regarded capitalism as the “natural” system of free men; all have maintained that left to its own devices capitalism would achieve material growth more successfully than any other system. By reviewing the history of Socialism, we can clearly see echoes of this failed logic in the centralized planning and “stakeholder capitalism” economic models which are so actively promoted by the World Economic Forum and its United Nations allies.

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall.

The Birth of Socialist Planning

It is often thought that the idea of socialism derives from the work of Karl Marx. In fact, Marx wrote only a few pages about socialism, as either a moral or a practical blueprint for society. The true architect of a socialist order was Lenin, who first faced the practical difficulties of organizing an economic system without the driving incentives of profit seeking or the self-generating constraints of competition. Lenin began from the long-standing delusion that economic organization would become less complex once the profit drive and the market mechanism had been dispensed with—“as self-evident,” he wrote, as “the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording, and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic.”

In fact, economic life pursued under these first four rules rapidly became so disorganized that within four years of the 1917 revolution, Soviet production had fallen to 14 percent of its prerevolutionary level. By 1921 Lenin was forced to institute the New Economic Policy (NEP), a partial return to the market incentives of capitalism. This brief mixture of socialism and capitalism came to an end in 1927 after Stalin instituted the process of forced collectivization that was to mobilize Russian resources for its leap into industrial power.

The system that evolved under Stalin and his successors took the form of a pyramid of command. At its apex was Gosplan, the highest state planning agency, which established such general directives for the economy as the target rate of growth and the allocation of effort between military and civilian outputs, between heavy and light industry, and among various regions. Gosplan transmitted the general directives to successive ministries of industrial and regional planning, whose technical advisers broke down the overall national plan into directives assigned to particular factories, industrial power centers, collective farms, and so on. These thousands of individual subplans were finally scrutinized by the factory managers and engineers who would eventually have to implement them. Thereafter, the blueprint for production reascended the pyramid, together with the suggestions, emendations, and pleas of those who had seen it. Ultimately, a completed plan would be reached by negotiation, voted on by the Supreme Soviet, and passed into law.

Thus, the final plan resembled an immense order book, specifying the nuts and bolts, steel girders, grain outputs, tractors, cotton, cardboard, and coal that, in their entirety, constituted the national output. In theory such an order book should enable planners to reconstitute a working economy each year—provided, of course, that the nuts fitted the bolts; the girders were of the right dimensions; the grain output was properly stored; the tractors were operable; and the cotton, cardboard, and coal were of the kinds needed for their manifold uses. But there was a vast and widening gap between theory and practice.

Problems Emerge

The gap did not appear immediately. In retrospect, we can see that the task facing Lenin and Stalin in the early years was not so much economic as quasi military—mobilizing a peasantry into a workforce to build roads and rail lines, dams and electric grids, steel complexes and tractor factories. This was a formidable assignment, but far less formidable than what would confront socialism fifty years later, when the task was not so much to create enormous undertakings as to create relatively self-contained ones, and to fit all the outputs into a dovetailing whole.

Through the 1960s the Soviet economy continued to report strong overall growth—roughly twice that of the United States—but observers began to spot signs of impending trouble. One was the difficulty of specifying outputs in terms that would maximize the well-being of everyone in the economy, not merely the bonuses earned by individual factory managers for “overfulfilling” their assigned objectives. The problem was that the plan specified outputs in physical terms. One consequence was that managers maximized yardages or tonnages of output, not its quality. A famous cartoon in the satirical magazine Krokodil showed a factory manager proudly displaying his record output, a single gigantic nail suspended from a crane.

As the economic flow became increasingly clogged and clotted, production took the form of “stormings” at the end of each quarter or year, when every resource was pressed into use to meet preassigned targets. The same rigid system soon produced expediters, or tolkachi, to arrange shipments to harassed managers who needed unplanned—and therefore unobtainable—inputs to achieve their production goals. Worse, lacking the right to buy their own supplies or to hire or fire their own workers, factories set up fabricating shops, then commissaries, and finally their own worker housing to maintain control over their own small bailiwicks.

It is not surprising that this increasingly Byzantine system began to create serious dysfunctions beneath the overall statistics of growth. During the 1960s the Soviet Union became the first industrial country in history to suffer a prolonged peacetime fall in average life expectancy, a symptom of its disastrous misallocation of resources. Military research facilities could get whatever they needed, but hospitals were low on the priority list. By the 1970s the figures clearly indicated a slowing of overall production. By the 1980s the Soviet Union officially acknowledged a near end to growth that was, in reality, an unofficial decline. In 1987 the first official law embodying perestroika—restructuring—was put into effect. President Mikhail Gorbachev announced his intention to revamp the economy from top to bottom by introducing the market, reestablishing private ownership, and opening the system to free economic interchange with the West. Seventy years of socialist rise had come to an end.

Socialist Planning in Western Eyes

Understanding of the difficulties of central planning was slow to emerge. In the mid-1930s, while the Russian industrialization drive was at full tilt, few raised their voices about its problems. Among those few were Ludwig von Mises, an articulate and exceedingly argumentative free-market economist, and Friedrich Hayek, of much more contemplative temperament, later to be awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in monetary theory. Together, Mises and Hayek launched an attack on the feasibility of socialism that seemed at the time unconvincing in its argument as to the functional problems of a planned economy. Mises in particular contended that a socialist system was impossible because there was no way for the planners to acquire the information (see Information and Prices)—“produce this, not that”—needed for a coherent economy. This information, Hayek emphasized, emerged spontaneously in a market system from the rise and fall of prices. A planning system was bound to fail precisely because it lacked such a signaling mechanism.

The Mises-Hayek argument met its most formidable counterargument in two brilliant articles by Oskar Lange, a young economist who would become Poland’s first ambassador to the United States after World War II. Lange set out to show that the planners would, in fact, have precisely the same information as that which guided a market economy. The information would be revealed as inventories of goods rose and fell, signaling either that supply was greater than demand or demand was greater than supply. Thus, as planners watched inventory levels, they were also learning which of their administered (i.e., state-dictated) prices were too high and which too low. It only remained, therefore, to adjust prices so that supply and demand balanced, exactly as in the marketplace.

Lange’s answer was so simple and clear that many believed the Mises-Hayek argument had been demolished. In fact, we now know that their argument was all too prescient. Ironically, though, Mises and Hayek were right for a reason they did not foresee as clearly as Lange himself. “The real danger of socialism,” Lange wrote, in italics, “is that of a bureaucratization of economic life.” But he took away the force of the remark by adding, without italics, “Unfortunately, we do not see how the same or even greater danger can be averted under monopolistic capitalism” (Lange and Taylor 1938, pp. 109–110).

The effects of the “bureaucratization of economic life” are dramatically related in The Turning Point, a scathing attack on the realities of socialist economic planning by two Soviet economists, Nikolai Smelev and Vladimir Popov, that gives examples of the planning process in actual operation. In 1982, to stimulate the production of gloves from moleskins, the Soviet government raised the price it was willing to pay for moleskins from twenty to fifty kopecks per pelt. Smelev and Popov noted:

“State purchases increased, and now all the distribution centers are filled with these pelts. Industry is unable to use them all, and they often rot in warehouses before they can be processed. The Ministry of Light Industry has already requested Goskomtsen [the State Committee on Prices] twice to lower prices, but “the question has not been decided” yet. This is not surprising. Its members are too busy to decide. They have no time: besides setting prices on these pelts, they have to keep track of another 24 million prices. And how can they possibly know how much to lower the price today, so they won’t have to raise it tomorrow?”

This story speaks volumes about the problem of a centrally planned system. The crucial missing element is not so much “information,” as Mises and Hayek argued, as it is the motivation to act on information. After all, the inventories of moleskins did tell the planners that their production was at first too low and then too high. What was missing was the willingness—better yet, the necessity—to respond to the signals of changing inventories. A capitalist firm responds to changing prices because failure to do so will cause it to lose money. A socialist ministry ignores changing inventories because bureaucrats learn that doing something is more likely to get them in trouble than doing nothing, unless doing nothing results in absolute disaster.

In the late 1980s, absolute economic disaster arrived in the Soviet Union and its Eastern former satellites, and those countries are still trying to construct some form of economic structure that will no longer display the deadly inertia and indifference that have come to be the hallmarks of socialism. It is too early to predict whether these efforts will succeed. The main obstacle to real perestroika is the impossibility of creating a working market system without a firm basis of private ownership, and it is clear that the creation of such a basis encounters the opposition of the former state bureaucracy and the hostility of ordinary people who have long been trained to be suspicious of the pursuit of wealth. In the face of such uncertainties, all predictions are foolhardy save one: no quick or easy transition from socialism to some form of nonsocialism is possible. Transformations of such magnitude are historic convulsions, not mere changes in policy. Their completion must be measured in decades or generations, not years.

The fact of the matter is that a careful review of historical detail reveals that the current US Federal Administrative State and its primary political supporter, the Democrat party, is in fact, Fascist/Corporatist/Socialist. And the center-right populist movements and leaders are not Fascists as the media so often shouts. Still, rather it is the corporatist “mainstream media” allies that so gleefully parrot State-promoted narratives that are Fascist/Corporatist.

The road to our current hell has been abundantly paved with naive good intentions. If you seek to “feed the world” you will get more humans that are dependent on handouts. The best laid plans often go awry, despite the fact that the Secretary General of the United Nations calmly assures all that will listen that the UN Agenda 2030 and their “Pact for the Future” has “the best plans.”

It is long past time to force the US Federal State back into the limited box that was originally designed for it. I do not know how this can be accomplished, but I do know that we have to try

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
VDH: Prog Fascism
« Reply #785 on: November 02, 2024, 12:43:12 PM »
Mirror, mirror: Debunking Harris’ farcical ‘fascist’ charge vs. Trump
By Victor Davis Hanson
Published Nov. 2, 2024, 6:02 a.m. ET


In the last two weeks, Vice President Kamala Harris has been trying to revive her stagnant campaign by smearing Trump as being Hitlerian and a fascist.

She claims Trump is planning to put his enemies in encampments.

Yet in the modern era, it was not Trump who put large numbers of US residents and citizens into “relocation camps,” but liberal Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt who sent Japanese-American citizens and residents into them.

Why cry 'fascist' vs. Trump?
If Harris refers to Trump’s supposed fascist policies during his prior four-year tenure, there is no such evidence.

Nonetheless, the once “joyful” Harris is ending her campaign by trafficking in lies and smears reminiscent of the Joe McCarthy era.

Recall that fascists hijack law enforcement and the military to suspend constitutional rights and punish enemies.

But Trump did neither.

Expert issues warning over the ‘elephant in the room’ that Harris has been quiet about
Instead, in 2016, a corrupt FBI went after Trump himself during the Obama administration with the bogus Steele dossier.

The FBI, which in 2016 had hired the faker Steele, in 2020 fused with social media to suppress accurate news reporting of the embarrassing Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

A number of former FBI directors and intelligence officials — John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe — who openly sought to destroy Trump had a long history of either lying or feigning amnesia under oath.

Fascists try to warp the legal system.

But Trump’s own Justice Department selected an independent special counsel to investigate the invented Russian collusion accusations against him.

In vast contrast, the Biden Justice Department coordinated with Georgia prosecutors Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, special counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James to prosecute Trump, bankrupt him and keep off the campaign trail.

Fascists use their governments to destroy their enemies.

During Trump’s term, for the first time in history, the House of Representatives impeached a first-term president twice.

And in another first, the Senate tried Trump as a private citizen.

A self-styled “anonymous” federal official bragged openly of deliberately, and likely unlawfully, leading a bureaucratic cabal to sabotage Trump’s lawful executive orders.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, in collusion with other bureaucrats, deliberately leaked a classified presidential phone call in an effort to ensure that Trump was impeached.

Fascists seek to change existing laws to destroy opponents and illegally consolidate power.

Currently, it is only the Democrats who seek to pack the court, destroy the Electoral College, end the Senate filibuster, and create two new states and thus gain four left-wing senators.

Start and end your day informed with our newsletters
Morning Report and Evening Update: Your source for today's top stories

Enter your email address
By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

In key states, they radically changed voting laws.

As a result, roughly 70% of voters in 2020 did not cast their ballots in person on Election Day — even as the traditional rejection rates for fraudulent ballots mysteriously dived amid the influx.

Fascists arbitrarily nullify any laws they feel do not aid their agendas.

Biden-Harris destroyed immigration law in order to bring in more than 12 million illegal aliens and gain new constituencies.

They also protected sanctuary cities, as some 600 such jurisdictions illegally and with impunity nullified federal immigration laws in neo-Confederate fashion.

Fascists seek to politicize the military.

But in Trump’s case, his former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley, brazenly violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by libeling Trump as a fascist.

Worse still, Milley sabotaged the chain of command by ordering theater commanders to report directly to him in times of serious crises.

And in near-treasonous fashion, Milley contacted his Chinese communist counterpart in the People’s Liberation Army to assure him that he would warn the Chinese military before carrying out any Trump order he felt existentially dangerous.

Some of the most prominent retired four-star military officers — again in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice — publicly smeared Trump as a coward, liar, fascist, Hitler-like, a Mussolini, a creator of Auschwitz-like death camps, and worthy of being removed “the sooner the better.”

Fascists seek to control and weaponize the media.

So Facebook and Twitter both conspired with the FBI to censure news accounts favorable to Trump.

The major newspapers, social media corporations, television networks and public broadcasting systematically and continually attacked Trump, censured his supporters and fused with his opponents.

Why then the charges of Trump the fascist and Hitler reincarnation?

Simple. Harris’s personal negatives are rising, her polls inert.


She has abandoned her prior run-out-the-clock avoidance of the media and her smiley “joy” campaign, and instead now embraces the big lie, while President Joe Biden writes off Trump supporters as “garbage.”

Harris is now confirming to voters that she really can neither think nor speak well and has no consistent agenda that appeals to the middle class.

So, in final desperation, Harris is smearing Trump as a fascist, even though ironically he has been the target of fascist machinations from her own party and supporters for nearly a decade.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
The “Progressive” Causes of our Regressive Medical System
« Reply #786 on: December 12, 2024, 04:08:15 PM »
This could be filed several places, though here seems the best overall fit. The description of the causes and resulting ills of the healthcare behemoth are spot on:

Progressivism And The Murder Of A Health Insurance CEO
"...online progressives did not try hard to hide their delight that a millionaire health insurance executive like Thompson was killed."

QUOTH THE RAVEN
DEC 12, 2024
By Connor O’Keeffe, Mises Wire

Last week, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot to death on a New York City sidewalk in what was clearly a thoroughly planned-out attack. Over the next few days, as authorities hunted for the killer, online progressives did not try hard to hide their delight that a millionaire health insurance executive like Thompson was killed.

Social media was flooded with posts and videos—with different ranges of subtlety—suggesting that Thompson, at the very least, did not deserve to be mourned because of all the health care his company has denied to poor and working people. Progressives framed the shooting as an act of self-defense on behalf of the working class. Before the alleged killer was caught Monday, they promised not to snitch if they saw the shooter themselves and fantasized about a working-class jury nullifying all charges, leading to other CEOs getting gunned down with impunity if they oversaw price increases.


The narrative that these online progressives clearly subscribe to and perpetuate is one where, in the United States, healthcare is a totally unfettered, unregulated industry; where—because of a total lack of government involvement—wealthy CEOs charge whatever prices they want and then refuse to provide customers what they already paid for without facing any bad consequences.

The characterization of healthcare and health insurance companies charging absurdly high prices while treating their customers terribly without the risk of losing them is spot on.

But the idea that what caused this was a lack of government involvement in the healthcare system is completely delusional. And this delusion conveniently removes all the responsibility progressives bear for the nightmare that is the US healthcare system.

Today, healthcare is one of the most heavily government-regulated industries in the economy—right up there with the finance and energy sectors. Government agencies are involved in all parts of the process, from the research and production of drugs, the training and licensing of medical professionals, and the building of hospitals to the availability of health insurance, the makeup of insurance plans, and the complicated payment processes.

And that is nothing new. The US government has been intervening heavily in the healthcare industry for over a century. And no group has done more to bring this about than the progressives.

It really began, after all, during the Progressive Era, when the American Medical Association maneuvered its way into setting the official accreditation standards for the nation’s “unregulated” medical schools. The AMA wrote standards that excluded the medical approaches of their competitors, which forced half of the nation’s medical schools to close. The new shortage of trained doctors drove up the price of medical services—to the delight of the AMA and other government-recognized doctor’s groups—setting the familiar healthcare affordability crisis in motion.

Around the same time, progressives successfully pushed for strict restrictions on the production of drugs and, shortly afterward, to grant drug producers monopoly privileges.

After WWII, as healthcare grew more expensive, the government used the tax code to warp how Americans paid for healthcare. Under President Truman, the IRS made employer-provided health insurance tax deductible while continuing to tax other means of payment. It didn’t take long for employer plans to become the dominant arrangement and for health insurance to morph away from actual insurance into a general third-party payment system.

These government interventions restricting the supply of medical care and privileging insurance over other payment methods created a real affordability problem for many Americans. But the crisis didn’t really start until the 1960s when Congress passed two of the progressive’s favorite government programs—Medicare and Medicaid.

Initially, industry groups like the AMA opposed Medicare and Medicaid because they believed the government subsidies would deteriorate the quality of care. They were right about that, but what they clearly didn’t anticipate was how rich the programs would make them.

Anyone who’s taken even a single introductory economics class could tell you that prices will rise if supply decreases or demand increases. The government was already keeping the supply of medical services artificially low—leading to artificially high prices. Medicare and Medicaid left those shortages in place and poured a ton of tax dollars into the healthcare sector—significantly increasing demand. The result was an easily predictable explosion in the cost of healthcare.

Fewer and fewer people could afford healthcare at these rising prices, meaning more people required government assistance, which meant more demand, causing prices to grow faster and faster.

Meanwhile, private health “insurance” providers were also benefiting from the mounting crisis. In a free market, insurance serves as a means to trade risk. Insurance works well for accidents and calamities that are hard to predict individually but relatively easy to predict in bulk, like car accidents, house fires, and unexpected family deaths.

Health insurance providers were already being subsidized by all the taxes on competing means of payment, which allowed their plans to grow beyond the typical bounds of insurance and begin to cover easily-predictable occurrences like annual physicals. And, as the price of all of these services continued to shoot up, the costs of these routine procedures were becoming high enough to resemble the costs of emergencies—making consumers even more reliant on insurance.

With progressives cheering on, the political class used government intervention to create a healthcare system that behaves as if its sole purpose is to move as much money as possible into the pockets of healthcare providers, drug companies, hospitals, health-related federal agencies, and insurance providers.


But the party could not last forever. As the price of healthcare rose, the price of health insurance rose, too. Eventually, when insurance premiums grew too high, fewer employers or individual buyers were willing to buy insurance, and the flow of money into the healthcare system started to falter.

The data suggests that that tipping point was reached in the early 2000s. For the first time since the cycle began back in the 1960s, the number of people with health insurance began to fall each year. Healthcare providers—who had seemingly assumed that the flow of money would never stop increasing—began to panic.

Then came Barack Obama.

Obama’s seminal legislative accomplishment—the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare—can best be understood as a ploy by healthcare providers and the government to keep the party going.

Obamacare required all fifty million uninsured Americans to obtain insurance, and it greatly expanded what these “insurance” companies covered. Demand for healthcare shot back up, and the vicious cycle started back up again—which is why the bill enjoyed so much support from big corporations all across the healthcare industry.

Before it was passed, economists were practically screaming that the Affordable Care Act would make care less affordable by raising premiums and healthcare prices while making shortages worse. Progressives dismissed such concerns as Reagan-era “free market fundamentalist” propaganda. But that is exactly what happened.

Now, the affordability crisis is worse than ever as prices reach historic levels. And, because Obamacare brought American healthcare much closer to a single-payer system, the demand for healthcare far exceeds the supply of healthcare—leading to deadly shortages.

There are literally not enough resources or available medical professionals to treat everyone who can pay for care. Also, the tax code and warped “insurance” market protect these providers from competition—making it almost impossible for people to switch to a different provider after their claims are unfairly denied. If it were simply greed, denying customers who already paid would be a feature in all industries. But it’s not. It requires the kind of policy protections progressives helped implement.

And on top of all that, despite paying all this money, Americans are quickly becoming one of the sickest populations on Earth.

This is one of the most pressing problems facing the country. A problem that requires immediate, radical change to solve. But it also requires an accurate and precise diagnosis—something that, this week, progressives demonstrated they are incapable of making.

The American progressive movement is responsible for providing the political class the intellectual cover they needed to break the healthcare market and transform the entire system into a means to transfer wealth to people like Brian Thompson. Now, they want to sit back, pretend like they’ve never gotten their way, that the government has never done anything with the healthcare market, and that these healthcare executives just popped up and started doing this all on their own—all so they can celebrate him being gunned down in the street. It’s disgusting.

Brian Thompson acted exactly like every economically literate person over the last fifty years has said health insurance CEOs would act if progressives got their way. If we’re ever going to see the end of this century-long nightmare, we need to start listening to the people who have gotten it right, not those who pretend they are blameless as they fantasize online about others starting a violent revolution.

https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/progressivism-and-the-murder-of-a?r=2k0c5&triedRedirect=true

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19987
    • View Profile
Socialism and Fire Fighting
« Reply #787 on: January 14, 2025, 10:23:29 AM »
Somewhere in this California mess are insights about public services run amok.

Self described socialists like Bernie Sanders cite public services like police and fire with the implication that all goods and services should work that way.  That's totally false.  Delivering essential public goods evenly and fairly is not socialism.

We are/were a nation of free people making free choices, mostly able to keep the fruits of our labor.  Omitting defects like slavery where we weren't a free people making free choices, we were otherwise free to choose our profession, who we buy from, who we sell to, and at what price.

We band together in communities, states and a nation for specific public goods like having a common national defense, protected borders, local law enforcement, fire department, courts to settle disputes and so on.  But the 'and so on' came to be interpreted by some to mean almost everything like means of production and that's wrong.  The 'public goods' portion of the economy needs to be for only the things that only government can do efficiently and where it is unworkable for people to set up their own, like police and fire.

But when we defined public good to be almost everything, the true and essential public services suffer.  cf. State of California and US under recent Democrats.  Police, fire, water, border and common defense are afterthoughts in their world of governing, and basic services suffer.

On the other side of demanding endless services is paying for it.  For a true public good, the cost should be shared by everyone who is able.  Instead we digressed down to who should pay more and penalize them until they are not inclined to keep making more, and the other half or more expect services without paying.

We need many people pulling the wagon, carrying the load, and we need fewer people riding - so that we easily pay for the truly needy.  As more and more ride and fewer and fewer pull (declining private sector, full time labor participation rate), the burden overwhelms (deficits, debt, taxes, stagnation, inflation, etc) and everyone suffers.

'Socialism' (a misnomer) needs to be limited to essential public services distributed fairly and evenly, like fire protection, but is not a replacement for running the rest of a free market economy.  Government's role in that is to do as little harm as possible, to tax and regulate as necessary, but not to own, run or replace the private economy.  That can only end in failure.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2025, 11:00:09 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
A Good Question w/, Alas, an All too Obvious Answer
« Reply #788 on: January 25, 2025, 10:33:20 PM »
I was tempted to a “Government Incompetence & Ass Covering” thread, but while searching for an existing topic I saw Doug’s post that precedes this I realized what’s described here is a textbook case of what Doug described at “public service run amok.” Hell, in this instance it appears government created the problem and then the literal prescription(s) to address it. Will any of them ever pay for these acts? Hopefully Trump finds a way to impose something resembling accountability on some of these fascist thugs:

https://brownstone.org/articles/will-any-federal-officials-pay-for-what-they-did/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
Though this thread is fine, I'll do you one better for your piece:

https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=2798.msg137114#msg137114   

Also, there is the Administrative State/Bureaucracy thread.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19987
    • View Profile
Re: A Good Question w/, Alas, an All too Obvious Answer
« Reply #790 on: January 26, 2025, 05:37:55 AM »
Thanks BBG. "Public services run amok" is such an understatement for this out of control, monstrous organism we call 'government' with all its fingers reaching into all its other areas we don't even call government like education, healthcare, public health, transportation, energy, housing, water systens, journalism, media, social media, and so on, and in this massively consequential example, a secret lab in Wuhan China, with secret US taxpayer funding, doing exactly what was denied under oath, gain of function research, with lax security that failed, no oversight, and now no consequence for the worst act of negligence in the history of humans wandering the earth, and no one seems to care but a few of us on obscure forums.

There is a point in my post I humbly think is deep and profound that I am unable to articulate, but just describe the edges of and try to point to it.

In this case, I say I can tell the politics of a person by asking one simple question, do you think Anthony Fauci should be in or out of jail?

And now he has been pardoned by the fascist regime with the figurehead Biden. But this was not a conspiracy of one man.

Yes there should be consequences. To jail (after proper investigation, due process, trial, verdict etc) the 27 "scientists" and everyone else associated with the true conspiracy in this chapter.

Another attempt to point this out is the term "deep state" but it needs full exposure of things like this in order to be fully and widely recognized and to begin to defeat it.

Another indicator was that no one gets fired. Not in Covid and not when another city burns. It's so hard to get real whistle blowers when no one gets fired.

I continue to be amazed at what diabolic levels of what we are trying to point to seem to get no outrage.

Let's hope the most recent, close election represents change, not just pause.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2025, 05:47:13 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
Sovereign fund
« Reply #791 on: February 09, 2025, 05:31:23 AM »
Looks like we will be having to deal with Trump's effort for a sovereign wealth fund.

I'm thinking this is the best thread for it and so double up on CCP's post from the Strategic Mercantalism thread and place it here:
============

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-wants-a-sovereign-wealth-fund-heres-how-other-nations-run-theirs-5804192

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3729
    • View Profile
An Intentional Tech Confluence to Anti-Democratic Ends? (Curtis Yarvin)
« Reply #792 on: February 20, 2025, 01:54:50 PM »
There is A LOT here that strikes me as an intricate conspiracy theory fever dream. I’m indeed surprised the Illuminati/Masons/Rothschilds et al didn’t do a drive by here. With that said, there are some here’s-to-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss, what are we not meant to see elements here worth mulling:

Checkmate: The Triumph of Technocracy
How Trump, Elon & the Tech Elite are paving the way for a Brave New World - And what it means for all of us
ERIK WIKSTRÖM
FEB 15, 2025

I invite you to temporarily set aside your preconceptions about how the world works. I know this may run counter to everything you believe, everything you think you know about what's happening in our world. The truth goes much deeper than the surface-level chaos we see in the headlines. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about this analysis – in fact, I pray that I am. But if I'm even partially correct, we are witnessing one of the most sophisticated power grabs in human history.


Introduction

We are living through a historic transition of power: the shift from a corrupt facade democracy to an AI-driven technocracy controlled by Silicon Valley billionaires.

While this unfolds, most observers are – as usual – focused on the wrong signals, missing the larger pattern of what's actually happening. And what's happening isn't isolated to the United States – it's a global agenda that will reshape every aspect of our lives.

What makes this moment unique isn't just the scale of the transformation, but its inevitability. The technological infrastructure required for total control has finally matured. Artificial Intelligence has reached the sophistication necessary for algorithmic governance. The social and political chaos we're experiencing isn't random – it's orchestrated to create the perfect conditions for this transition.

Consider this: Elon Musk alone controls enough wealth to simultaneously fund eight Manhattan Projects, maintain a private army of 100,000 elite mercenaries for a decade, or fund the entire United Nations for 14 years. But this isn't about money – it's about power. The tech elite already have more wealth than they could spend in multiple lifetimes. What they're pursuing is something far more ambitious: total control over society's future development.

The genius of their strategy lies in its complexity. Like a masterfully played chess game, every move serves multiple purposes. What appears as chaos is actually a precisely choreographed sequence of events. What looks like resistance is often part of the plan. Even this analysis, should it reach a wider audience, would likely be dismissed as paranoid speculation – which is exactly what makes the strategy so effective.

I see tremendous potential in the revolution unfolding around us. The promise of AI, the possibility of more efficient and just governance, the dream of liberation – these are all within our reach. But I fear we're being led down a darker path, one that uses these same technologies to establish unprecedented control rather than freedom.

In this analysis, I'll attempt to decode the pattern behind what's happening, reveal the philosophical blueprint guiding these changes, and expose the systematic implementation already underway. The insights come from hundreds of hours studying elite writings, tracking their actions, and mapping the connections between seemingly unrelated events.

What emerges is a picture both fascinating and terrifying: a coordinated effort to fundamentally restructure society, using Trump as a tool, democracy as a stepping stone, and artificial intelligence as the ultimate instrument of control.

The most crucial question isn't whether this transformation is happening – it's whether we can recognize it in time to influence its direction.

Let's begin by examining how we got here, and why this moment in history provides the perfect conditions for what's about to unfold...

Part 1: The Perfect Storm - Setting the Stage

What began with subtle changes in society's foundation has revealed itself as something far more calculated. The growing polarization, the accelerating technological revolution, the institutional breakdowns – none of these were random events. They formed the opening moves in a transformation so ambitious that even describing it risks sounding implausible.

The Blueprint

Three elements converged to create the perfect conditions for change:

First, a strategic erosion of trust. Government agencies making decisions that seemed designed to undermine their own credibility. Media organizations abandoning even the pretence of objectivity in ways that destroyed their authority. Political processes long ago devolved into such obvious theater that they undermine the entire system's legitimacy.

Second, a precise channeling of public frustration. Rather than focusing on specific targets, anger fragmented and turned inward against the society itself. Left and right polarized beyond dialogue. Different social groups found themselves in perpetual conflict. Each attempt at reconciliation or compromise failed in ways that deepened divisions.

Third, the emergence of technology sophisticated enough to enable total control. For the first time in history, the technical capability exists to implement governance through algorithms, monitor populations comprehensively, and automate resource allocation across entire societies.

The Formula

This transformation follows a classic pattern: problem-reaction-solution.

Problem: Create or amplify problems severe enough that the population demands change
Reaction: Wait for the reaction – frustration, anger, calls for reform
Solution: Present solutions that would never be accepted under normal circumstances
The execution of this formula shows remarkable sophistication. Each crisis connects to the next. Every institutional failure creates specific vulnerabilities. Each scandal opens the door for predetermined "solutions."


The Hidden Pattern

What makes this moment unique isn't just these individual elements, but their perfect synchronization. The technological capability has matured exactly as social structures weaken and power concentrates in the hands of those with a specific vision for humanity's future.

Consider how each aspect reinforces the others:

Digital platforms replace traditional information sources just as trust in media collapses
AI systems emerge as alternatives to human judgment right as faith in institutions fails
Private infrastructure displaces public services precisely when government credibility hits historic lows
This isn't coincidence. These changes follow a design so precise that it remained invisible until its effects became almost irreversible. Like a master chess player's strategy, the true pattern only becomes clear when the position is already won.

The Stakes

We're witnessing more than a political realignment or technological revolution. This is a fundamental restructuring of society – a transformation that uses our legitimate frustrations with failing systems to implement something far more controlling.

The true scope of this change remains hidden because its architects speak in the language of progress, efficiency, and innovation. They present each step as a natural evolution rather than what it is: a calculated move toward a new form of social organization.

To understand how this transformation operates in practice, we need to examine its most visible manifestation: the carefully orchestrated performance centered around Donald Trump...


Part 2: The Game in Action - Trump's Role Revealed

In this atmosphere of systemic collapse, the perfect outsider emerged. A figure so improbable, so controversial, so seemingly chaotic that no one could suspect his role was precisely choreographed. Donald Trump appeared as the antithesis to the system people had lost faith in – the ultimate anti-establishment rebel.

But this was no accident. It was the next act in a brilliantly executed performance.

The Perfect Pawn

A chess master wins not through individual moves, but by creating positions where every opponent's move strengthens their strategy. This perfectly describes the Trump phenomenon: each attempt to stop him made him stronger, every attack increased his immunity, all resistance cemented his position.

The pattern was too perfect to be coincidental:

Media attacked him relentlessly, but always in ways that confirmed his "fake news" narrative
Federal investigations launched with great fanfare, only to end in anticlimaxes that strengthened his position
"Leaks" emerged with peculiar timing, always maximizing their effect – not against Trump, but for his agenda
It was like watching a boxing match where every punch from the opponent somehow builds the champion's strength rather than depleting it.

Just take his opponent in the presidential race as the ultimate example of the theatrical shitshow – there stood the establishment's champion, demonstrating in real-time why the system needed disruption:

An aging politician struggling with basic articulation and climbing stairs
The establishment's representative barely able to represent himself
The system's defender personifying its decay

The Legal Masterpiece

The true brilliance emerged in the legal arena. What appeared to the public as desperate attempts to stop Trump revealed themselves as essential components of the plan.

On the surface, each prosecution strengthened his martyrdom. Every investigation, every case, every "attack" confirmed the narrative of "the system versus Trump." His supporters saw persecution, his opponents saw danger – both reactions served the plan's purpose.

But beneath this obvious theater lay something far more strategic. These prosecutions systematically created the legal framework needed for what's to come. Court decisions about presidential immunity during office, presented as efforts to ensure Trump could face justice, instead built the perfect legal shield for future action. Before these cases, a president's immunity was unclear – afterward, it became nearly absolute.

Most crucial were the specific precedents established. The courts granted extraordinary powers to sitting presidents while appearing to close in on Trump. Combined with the pardon power, this creates a perfect shield: a president can act without legal constraint while in office, and can simply pardon any allies who carry out their agenda.

What the public saw as the justice system pursuing Trump was actually the systematic creation of legal immunity for the coming transformation. Both sides of the establishment – those appearing to prosecute and those appearing to defend – played their roles in constructing this framework. The true game operated at a level above these apparent conflicts.

The Ultimate Dramatization

Each element of resistance played its role perfectly:

His establishment opposition demonstrated exactly why the system needed a complete reset
Media criticism proved their bias and untrustworthiness
Congressional challenges showed the ineffectiveness of traditional checks and balances
The culmination came with the alleged assassination attempt – an event so perfectly timed, so dramatically staged that it transformed Trump from a political figure into something almost messianic. The timing within the campaign cycle, the spectacle of the event, the "miraculous" survival – all contributed to creating the ultimate justification for what was to come.


This was the moment when Trump transcended ordinary politics. He was no longer just a candidate – he was the chosen one, the survivor, the man "they" had tried to silence but failed. Every future "countermeasure," no matter how extreme, could now be justified as necessary self-defense.

The Larger Game

But while the world focused on this political drama – this seemingly epic battle between establishment and outsider – the real game proceeded behind the scenes. Trump was never meant to be the true rebel who would crush the system. He was the perfect tool for implementing a new, more sophisticated form of control.

Like a masterful illusion, the audience focused so intently on the obvious conflict that they missed the real transformation occurring backstage. While everyone watched Trump versus the "deep state," in the shadows, the real players methodically positioned themselves to assume control of society's fundamental functions.

A new power elite, with a vision far beyond traditional politics, prepared to step onto the stage when the old order imploded under the weight of its own apparent incompetence.

To understand the true nature of this transformation, we must examine the philosophical blueprint guiding it – a vision first articulated by Silicon Valley's hidden philosopher...

Part 3: The Real Players - Silicon Valley's Dark Vision

Behind the money and influence flowing into the Trump campaign lies a set of radical beliefs and a dark agenda. The tech elite of Silicon Valley believe the American empire stands on the verge of collapse. Rather than prevent this collapse, they aim to accelerate it while creating safe landing zones for themselves and their assets – territories where they can run their own governments.


Elon Musk and his growing empire represented the visible spearhead of this movement. Through his control over everything from space travel to social communication, he was systematically building the infrastructure required for the new order. But Peter Thiel, JD Vance, Balaji Srinivasan, Marc Andreessen, and other “tech-bros” would also play key roles, which I will delve into later.

Yet, these tech billionaires were only the visible actors. Behind them lay a vision so radical that it initially seemed unthinkable—a vision shaped by Silicon Valley’s secret philosopher.

The Hidden Philosopher

Under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, a San Francisco programmer named Curtis Yarvin wrote a series of essays that would transform Silicon Valley's worldview. His concept, which he calls Patchwork, envisions a world where the failed democratic system is replaced by thousands of corporate-run territories, each governed by its own joint-stock company without regard for residents' opinions.


In Yarvin's vision:

Nations dissolve into corporate-run territories
Democracy yields to CEO-dictators
Citizens become customers
Rights become services
Governance becomes algorithmic
His early writings were shockingly direct about the implications. When discussing "surplus" populations, he proposed either "using them as biodiesel" or containment in virtual reality prisons. While he later claimed the biodiesel comment was a joke, he remained serious about the digital prisons.

The Network State: A New Package


When Balaji Srinivasan presented his concept of "Network States," he performed a masterful repackaging of Yarvin's ideas. The dark vision of corporate dictatorships transformed into something that could be presented at TED talks:

"Corporate dictatorship" became "startup society"
"Total surveillance" became "digital community"
"Forced compliance" became "opt-in governance"
“Social control” became “community standards”
The Tech Elite's Real Vision

These aren't mere theoretical discussions. Peter Thiel, beyond his company Palantir, invested $15 million in JD Vance's Senate campaign – the largest single donation to a Senate campaign in history. Elon Musk took control of global communications through Twitter/X. Marc Andreessen and others are actively funding "experimental cities."

The tech elite justify their position by seeing themselves as courageous geniuses on the new frontier. This isn't speculation – they say it openly in podcasts, conferences, interviews, and blog posts. Some speak quietly, others loudly, but they share a common vision:

Replace democratic governance with corporate rule
Substitute human judgment with AI systems
Create territories beyond traditional state control
Implement total surveillance under the guise of security
From Theory to Reality

The implementation is already underway:

Trumps "Freedom Cities" on federal land
Charter cities in Honduras
Network State experiments in various countries
Digital currency initiatives
AI governance systems
Each project serves as a prototype for their larger vision. When Trump speaks of building new freedom cities on federal land, he's describing Yarvin's patches in new packaging. When tech billionaires invest in "charter cities," they're creating test beds for corporate governance.

The Perfect Appeal

What makes this transformation so effective is how it appeals to different groups:

Progressives see potential for post-national organization
Libertarians embrace promises of freedom from state control
Conservatives welcome a return to traditional values in modern form
Tech enthusiasts celebrate disruption of old systems (not to mention the transhumanist agenda)
Each group projects their hopes onto the concept while missing the underlying agenda of total corporate control.

The AI Component

Artificial Intelligence isn't just another technology in this vision – it's the key enabler. AI provides:

The means to replace human judgment
Tools for total surveillance
Systems for resource allocation
Justification for eliminating democratic input
When tech leaders discuss AI safety and control, they're laying groundwork for a new form of social organization.

To understand how this vision translates into action, we must examine its current implementation through what Yarvin called RAGE...

Part 4: The Implementation - RAGE

The tech elite's vision isn't merely theoretical – it's being actively implemented through a coordinated strategy. At its center stands a concept Curtis Yarvin calls RAGE – "Retire All Government Employees." (Does it ring a bell yet?) While it sounds like a catchy slogan for administrative reform, it masks a detailed plan to methodically dismantle the entire state apparatus.

RAGE: The Blueprint

The strategy is devastatingly simple:

Identify experienced civil servants who maintain democratic processes and can say "no" to illegal orders
Create impossible working conditions through constant reorganizations and conflicting directives
Replace departing personnel with a combination of, mostly young, ideological loyalists and automated systems
When seasoned officials leave, they take with them the institutional memory of how democratic processes should function, the ability to identify and stop illegal actions, and the systems of checks and balances that protect against abuse of power.

DOGE: The Implementation


The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) serves as the vehicle for this transformation. Under Elon Musk's direction, what's presented as modernization reveals itself as RAGE in action:

Mass layoffs labeled as "efficiency measures"
Elimination of oversight described as "streamlining"
Transfer of state functions to tech companies called "modernization"
Replacement of human judgment with AI branded as "optimization"
As Yarvin himself expressed it: "To install a new operating system, you must first shut down the old one. RAGE is ctrl-alt-delete for the state."

The Strategic Network

Tech elites have methodically positioned key players in critical roles. Like pieces on a chess board, each serves a specific function in the larger strategy:

Elon Musk, through DOGE, directs the dismantling of state functions while positioning his companies to replace them:

Starlink for internet control
X/Twitter which will become an “everything app” for informational and financial control
xAI for decision systems
Tesla and SpaceX for physical infrastructure
Peter Thiel operates more subtly through Palantir and his network of allies, building the surveillance and control infrastructure that the new order will require. His influence extends from national security to financial systems. (I’ll talk more about Palantir later)

JD Vance represents a particularly sophisticated placement. With his strong connection to Peter Thiel, working-class background and Yale education, he moves seamlessly between worlds. When he speaks of "reforming bureaucracy," he uses language that sounds harmless to most but signals a darker agenda to initiates.

The Accelerated Timeline

Unlike traditional authoritarian transformations that moved slowly to avoid resistance, this operation shows no such caution. The sprint toward the goal suggests either:

Complete confidence in success
A race against time (control of AI)
Strong contingency plans
While media focuses on political drama, the real transformation proceeds:

State functions transfer to private control
Democratic processes yield to automation
New control systems install piece by piece
The Perfect Defense

Each resistance reinforces the plan:

Criticism of tech companies justifies more "neutral" AI governance
Concerns about democracy validate "efficiency" measures
Protests against surveillance legitimize stronger control systems
As Yarvin predicted: "The perfect revolution looks like inevitable technological progress."

The Network Effect

Each implemented change creates dependencies that make reversal increasingly difficult:

Digital payment systems replace traditional banking (i will dive deep into Bitcoins role in this in a future article)
Corporate platforms supersede government communications
Private infrastructure displaces public services
AI systems become essential for basic functions
By the time the transformation becomes obvious, the new system will be too deeply embedded to easily dislodge.

To understand where this leads, we must examine the new world order being constructed...

Part 5: The New World Order - The Emerging Reality

Once the state apparatus has been dismantled through RAGE/DOGE and control centralized through tech companies, what comes next? The tech elite's vision for the future is both more concrete and more alarming than most realize – a system where human value reduces to pure economic utility, and the very concept of citizenship transforms fundamentally.

Welcome to the Nerd Reich.


The Corporate State

In this new order, a nation is nothing more than a company. There are no citizens – only customers and shareholders. No constitution – only corporate rules. No rights – only services that can be purchased or earned through "value creation" for the system.

As a "citizen" in this corporate state, you're effectively a customer buying social services. But unlike a normal market, you have no choice – each "territorial patch" is a monopoly. Your only path to influence is buying shares in the territory, giving you power proportional to your capital. It's plutocracy in its purest form.

The New Geography

Society divides into clearly defined zones, each with its specific purpose:

The Privileged Zones

These form the corporate states' core territories. Here, total surveillance masks as "safety and security" – there are no crimes here - because every movement is tracked, every communication analyzed, every transaction monitored. Biometric scanning becomes as basic as electricity. Your access to resources depends on AI systems constantly evaluating your "value" to the system. One misstep can lead to immediate status downgrade.

The Excluded Zones

Areas where the system's "surplus" population gets relegated. Here, there's no access to modern technology, no digital payment systems, no path to build a future. These places are designed to be uncomfortable enough that residents either motivate themselves to become "valuable" to the system or simply disappear from its radar.

The Digital Prison Zone

Perhaps the darkest aspect of this new order. For those deemed problematic, a "humane" solution emerges – permanent storage in virtual worlds. Here, "surplus" humans can exist without burdening system resources, while their consciousness trains AI systems.

The Brutal Revaluation

Most shocking about this new order is how it cuts through today's established social classes. A well-paid lawyer whose expertise AI replaces, a successful businessman whose activities don't contribute to technological development, a respected academic whose research generates no measurable value – all might suddenly find themselves classified as "surplus."

In this world, there's no middle ground. You're either a valuable resource for the system or a burden to be managed. Your status depends not on traditional merit or wealth, but on your direct utility to the technocratic system.

The AI Layer


What makes our time unique is not just the ambitions of the tech elite—it’s the fact that technology has finally reached a level where total control is technically feasible. AI is no longer just a tool for efficiency—it is the perfect instrument for implementing Yarvin’s vision of algorithmic governance.

The infrastructure is already being built, piece by piece:

Elon Musk’s corporate empire forms the backbone of this system. Starlink provides control over the internet, X/Twitter over information and communication, xAI develops the algorithms that will dictate decision-making, while Tesla and SpaceX control critical physical infrastructure. Each component is designed to integrate seamlessly with the others.

At the same time, Peter Thiel, through Palantir, is constructing the world’s most sophisticated surveillance system. What began as a tool for counterterrorism has evolved into a comprehensive mechanism for population control, already deployed by governments worldwide. With this, we already have a system capable of:

Predicting and preventing undesirable behavior before it happens
Identifying and neutralizing potential opposition
Automatically adjusting resource allocation based on "social merit"
Implementing total control without visible coercion
The genius lies in how this is framed as "objective" and "efficient" governance. When an AI denies you access to resources or opportunities, it’s not "oppression"—it’s just "optimization." When the system restricts your movement, it’s not "control"—it’s "smart resource management."

But beneath the surface, these systems are built on values and objectives programmed by the tech elite.

As Yarvin put it: "Code is law, and he who controls the code, controls the law."

The promised efficiency masks the elimination of human agency and democratic input.

(I will talk more about the emergence of AGI - Artificial General Intelligence - and ASI - Artificial Super Intelligence - that it’s closer than we think and its implications in another article. )

The Irreversible Integration

What makes this transformation permanent is how deeply it embeds in society's basic functions:

Essential services require digital ID
Resources allocate through AI systems
Communication depends on corporate platforms
Basic survival needs corporate system access
By the time the transformation becomes obvious, the infrastructure will be too fundamental to remove – like trying to remove electricity from modern society, technically possible but practically impossible.

As Yarvin wrote: "When the new operating system is installed, there's no going back – exactly as it should be."

To understand our options, if any remain, we must examine the false choice being presented and the narrow window for influence that still exists...

Part 6: The False Choice and Real Hope

We face something humanity has never encountered before – a concentration of power that lacks historical precedent. The AI revolution and digital infrastructure's total penetration create possibilities for control that previous generations' dictators could only dream of. The question isn't whether this power will exist, but who will control it and to what end.

Beyond the False Dichotomy

The most treacherous aspect of our situation is how it's presented as a choice between two alternatives. On one side stands a corrupt establishment slowly creeping toward total control. On the other, tech elite "innovative" solutions sprinting toward exactly the same goal. This is the ultimate deception – making us believe we must choose between different paths to our own subjugation.

The old system is genuinely corrupt and dysfunctional. This corruption is real and creates legitimate yearning for change. But the tech elite's "solutions" are designed to exploit this yearning, implementing something far worse under the guise of modernization, innovation, and efficiency.

The Brutal Truth

The path forward isn't simple. What makes this moment particularly challenging is that both sides serve the same agenda. Every "choice" within the system is rigged. The tech elite aren't our saviors – they're next-generation oppressors, more sophisticated and therefore more dangerous than anything we've seen before.


We must reject this rigged game where every "choice" leads to the same result. This means refusing both the establishment's corruption and the tech elite's false solutions. It means actively seeking and supporting genuine alternatives that preserve human dignity and freedom.

Real Potential vs Current Reality

I see tremendous potential in the technological revolution unfolding around us:

AI could aid human intelligence rather than replace human agency
Digital systems could enhance democracy rather than eliminate it
Technology could liberate rather than control
Innovation could serve humanity rather than subjugate it
The tragedy is that we're being led down a darker path, one that uses these same technologies to establish unprecedented control rather than liberation. Every reform presented will package itself as modernization and freedom, while moving us closer to tech elite's vision.

The Narrow Window

Technology will continue advancing. AI will grow more powerful. Digital infrastructure will penetrate every aspect of our lives. This is inevitable. But who controls these systems, and in whose interest they operate – that remains open for influence.

We have a very brief window where we can still affect the outcome. Once the systems are in place, once the digital infrastructure is cemented, once AI control becomes total – there's no obvious way back.

The Path Forward

We need development that harnesses technology's possibilities without surrendering control to an elite that has shown zero interest in humanity's common good. We need modernization that doesn't eliminate our freedom, efficiency that doesn't require total surveillance.

This might sound impossible. With the concentration of power and technology the tech elite has already built, it may seem like the game is over. But passive acceptance of our transformation into digital serfs in an AI-driven plutocracy isn't an option.

The Real Challenge

This isn't a battle we chose. But in this new world of technological dominance, only two outcomes exist: either we control technology, or it controls us. The window for influence is closing rapidly, but it hasn't shut completely.

I hope deeply that this analysis is wrong. That the pattern I see is an overreaction, an exaggerated interpretation of coincidences. Because if it's right, we're witnessing the most sophisticated coup in human history – one that uses our desire for change to eliminate the very possibility of freedom.

Yet even within this dark analysis, I see potential for optimism. The same technologies being used to build control systems could be redirected toward liberation. The energy for change could be channeled toward genuine reform rather than disguised oppression.

The question isn't whether to embrace technological progress – it's how to ensure this progress serves humanity rather than subjugates it. We still have a chance to influence this direction, but that chance diminishes with each passing day.

This is not a battle between right and left, between establishment and outsiders, or even between democracy and authoritarianism. This is a battle over the very definition of human freedom in the technological era.

The time to influence this definition is rapidly running out.

Do you see it too? Or am I missing something? Have I completely misjudged the situation? Am I just being paranoid?

Maybe we are on the verge of breaking free from the hidden oppression that has kept humanity in economic chains and confusion, moving toward a new, freer technological Eutopia—I’m sure that vision is within reach. But unfortunately, I don’t believe that’s where we, as a global population, are being led right now.

What do you think?

https://erikwikstrom.substack.com/p/checkmate-the-triumph-of-technocracy
« Last Edit: February 20, 2025, 08:00:46 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 74090
    • View Profile
Re: Fascism, liberal and tech fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism
« Reply #793 on: February 20, 2025, 07:50:21 PM »
A very thoughtful read-- I think he honestly admits his struggles.  Several passages there resonate deeply with me, others do not.  Certainly many of his concerns could be entirely reframed as things quite positive.

That does not apply to my deep concerns about humans surrendering agency to AI without even realizing it.

I had heard of Curtis Yarvin-- but not really gotten why the people who had heard of him had their panties in such a bunch about him.   Now I begin to understand.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2025, 08:04:59 PM by Crafty_Dog »