Ep. 7 of the LFBAM MiniPod. I talked to political commentator Simon Elmer about the Global Biosecurity State, the new collectivist dogma, Marxism vs. socialism, the sentimentality of fascism, and more
Terrific, intelligent discussion. I am one of the people who questioned Simon's use of 'fascism' but now do so regularly myself. Thank you both; I'll share it in my weekly review.
The private and the local have long since been replaced by the public and the national, and now by the global. The very rich have managed to make the average person identify with their issues. This phenomenon of identifying with what drives a rich man is so extensive that it is no longer noticeable. As with everything obvious, because it suggests normality.
A conversation between average people who, as soon as they talk politically, talk like politicians and not like fathers, mothers, relatives and colleagues. They begin to see the world's problems as their own and want to solve them from their chairs and through their thoughts.
The predetermined topics such as climate, health and migration force them to conduct this debate as if they were party members and not fathers, mothers, children, men and women. They talk about laws and their drafts and also that it is appropriate to prohibit something and allow something else, but in such discussions the thinkers never think of themselves but always of others whom they do not know, with whom they are not related or related by blood, nor with whom they work.
Even the low-income person who has never had a career, who has no vitamin B to anyone, talks as if he were a very rich person. He has taken on the worries of the very rich, but they can never be his worries. And yet they have become so.
The average person suffers from the illusion of wanting to find a solution to every "pressing problem" in the world. They believe that what is bothering them in a conversation with friends is actually "plastic waste" and "ailing healthcare", that "refugees" are their problem, that "factory farming" is their problem or "rising crime" or "population growth" or "decline".
But none of these are his problems. They are the imagined worries of those who have no home, even though they own property, yachts and drive several cars. Those who have no home, who want to rule over everyone else's home, tell him that his home is in a disastrous state. In order to improve conditions, the homeless person comes up with a lot of ideas for improvement. And since everything that a very rich person thinks and says is disseminated by the media, it ends up in the parlour of the common man.
If you don't have a real home, a real relationship with a man or a woman, with your children, with your furniture and the things that surround you, you mistakenly look for it somewhere else.
The suggestion of the very rich has spilled over to ordinary people and their strength, the family bond, the marital union, the family as a state within the state, has crumbled under the weight of those who are constantly worrying. The extensive urge to create a world full of problems in order to emerge as saviour and wave rider is the power of the sorrow ridden, often combined with vanity. This mindset succeeds very much to occupy and enter the thoughts of "the many" and have had making the individual to think of himself as "the many".
Since the days of the industrial worker under smoking chimneys, much water has flowed down the rivers and there is not much left of the exploited, physically hard-working labourer. Rather, what has actually happened is that the ordinary citizen has become a considerable consumer who, like the very rich, has become intellectual without really being so (whatever that means). According to my interpretation, however, it is not the intellect that needs to be cultivated, but the conscience. Now anyone who seriously sets out to question their conscience will realise how difficult it is.
Let me ad a comment since I was listening further into your dialogue.
I think the definition of socialism and other -isms is simple: they all plan economy. Therefore, I would say that the former GDR probably cultivated the most honest term of a "planned economy", because everything that understands money flow and trade and production on a politically national level as the only competent one, plans from the top down. Same with EU and globalism.
Planning a household is indeed a factual and practical matter. But when husband and wife both work outside the household, housekeeping has become a "pay the rent/pay off the loan" affair. The couple, who previously had clearly divided roles (she in the house, he out of it), now get bogged down in confusion about who exactly is responsible for what.
Even before, the roles were clear: both husband and wife ran a business, they were "business partners" if they managed a farm or ran a craft business, a shop, an inn, and so on. Their children were their life insurers and heirs to their businesses.
Today, neither of them runs a business together, he and she have different outside employment and the woman has had this "freedom" tied to her nose. Husband and wife had their pact taken away from them as a unit (the most important of all) and got lost in competitive thinking in so-called partnerships.
Terrific, intelligent discussion. I am one of the people who questioned Simon's use of 'fascism' but now do so regularly myself. Thank you both; I'll share it in my weekly review.
Thank you! Please mention me in the share, so I can re-stack it!
The private and the local have long since been replaced by the public and the national, and now by the global. The very rich have managed to make the average person identify with their issues. This phenomenon of identifying with what drives a rich man is so extensive that it is no longer noticeable. As with everything obvious, because it suggests normality.
A conversation between average people who, as soon as they talk politically, talk like politicians and not like fathers, mothers, relatives and colleagues. They begin to see the world's problems as their own and want to solve them from their chairs and through their thoughts.
The predetermined topics such as climate, health and migration force them to conduct this debate as if they were party members and not fathers, mothers, children, men and women. They talk about laws and their drafts and also that it is appropriate to prohibit something and allow something else, but in such discussions the thinkers never think of themselves but always of others whom they do not know, with whom they are not related or related by blood, nor with whom they work.
Even the low-income person who has never had a career, who has no vitamin B to anyone, talks as if he were a very rich person. He has taken on the worries of the very rich, but they can never be his worries. And yet they have become so.
The average person suffers from the illusion of wanting to find a solution to every "pressing problem" in the world. They believe that what is bothering them in a conversation with friends is actually "plastic waste" and "ailing healthcare", that "refugees" are their problem, that "factory farming" is their problem or "rising crime" or "population growth" or "decline".
But none of these are his problems. They are the imagined worries of those who have no home, even though they own property, yachts and drive several cars. Those who have no home, who want to rule over everyone else's home, tell him that his home is in a disastrous state. In order to improve conditions, the homeless person comes up with a lot of ideas for improvement. And since everything that a very rich person thinks and says is disseminated by the media, it ends up in the parlour of the common man.
If you don't have a real home, a real relationship with a man or a woman, with your children, with your furniture and the things that surround you, you mistakenly look for it somewhere else.
The suggestion of the very rich has spilled over to ordinary people and their strength, the family bond, the marital union, the family as a state within the state, has crumbled under the weight of those who are constantly worrying. The extensive urge to create a world full of problems in order to emerge as saviour and wave rider is the power of the sorrow ridden, often combined with vanity. This mindset succeeds very much to occupy and enter the thoughts of "the many" and have had making the individual to think of himself as "the many".
Since the days of the industrial worker under smoking chimneys, much water has flowed down the rivers and there is not much left of the exploited, physically hard-working labourer. Rather, what has actually happened is that the ordinary citizen has become a considerable consumer who, like the very rich, has become intellectual without really being so (whatever that means). According to my interpretation, however, it is not the intellect that needs to be cultivated, but the conscience. Now anyone who seriously sets out to question their conscience will realise how difficult it is.
Let me ad a comment since I was listening further into your dialogue.
I think the definition of socialism and other -isms is simple: they all plan economy. Therefore, I would say that the former GDR probably cultivated the most honest term of a "planned economy", because everything that understands money flow and trade and production on a politically national level as the only competent one, plans from the top down. Same with EU and globalism.
Planning a household is indeed a factual and practical matter. But when husband and wife both work outside the household, housekeeping has become a "pay the rent/pay off the loan" affair. The couple, who previously had clearly divided roles (she in the house, he out of it), now get bogged down in confusion about who exactly is responsible for what.
Even before, the roles were clear: both husband and wife ran a business, they were "business partners" if they managed a farm or ran a craft business, a shop, an inn, and so on. Their children were their life insurers and heirs to their businesses.
Today, neither of them runs a business together, he and she have different outside employment and the woman has had this "freedom" tied to her nose. Husband and wife had their pact taken away from them as a unit (the most important of all) and got lost in competitive thinking in so-called partnerships.