European Union: the lounge-loving and elitist Left has been defeated

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think so.
Many far-rightists are kinda socialists. After all...the party that arose from Fascism was called Movimento Sociale Italiano.

LOL!
Socialists are lefties.

As for that "name".... North Korea is called "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea".
Needless to say, it doesn't mean much.

This conflict does involve Germany, Italy and many other countries, since Russia is a strategic partner to these countries.

Not anymore. Russia as a partner is now shunned in every possible way and will continue to be so for a long time after this, even if the war ends tomorrow.
Putin burned a LOT of bridges.

Because what happens in Europe should be handled by the EU. Not by the US.

When it becomes a matter of NATO, it should be handled by both.

Italy support Ukrainian people, of course.
But I remind you that Scholz clearly said: "we are not at war with Russia", and this sentence was repeated by the Deputy Prime Minister of Italy.

So?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Also, the prime minister is far right, and even with her, Italy hasn't officially changed its support for Ukraine.

Indeed. In fact, she even called Putin's "peace" plan ridiculous. Even saying that it's "kind of silly to ask Ukraine to withdraw from Ukraine", referring to Putin's demand that Ukraine withdraws from Donbas and the other occupied territories that were claimed through force followed by phony "referendums".

Thus clearly saying that she considers those regions to be Ukrainian and Ukrainian only, no matter what Putin and his cohorts claim and no matter what phony referendums said.

Sounds crystal clear to me what her stance on this conflict is then.

 

[Revoltingest]

As a socialist, I find right-wing populism and right-wing nationalism more aligned with my vision of Europe...and in Europe many voters have clearly stated that they repel that fake, phony "left-wing" that loves lounges and yachts among bankers and freemasons, and couldn't care less about the people's needs.

In France...the French have understood that Macron belongs to the élites. At last.
In Germany...the right-wing wins, also considering that that AfD is the second party.
In all the other EU countries the nationalism and right-wing populism win...prevail over the lounge-loving and carefree Left.

I am really sorry for them...but I guess that they probably should quit politics...because they will have to bow to the Right-Wing's whims...otherwise the EU collapses under the weight of farmers' protests, anti-war protests and revolts.

I mean...there are the Caribbeans as alternative...they are Heaven. I mean...Tax Havens.

What does the word "elite" mean,
as you use it?

 

[Estro Felino]

What does the word "elite" mean,
as you use it?

Where were you?
I was worried about you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where were you?
I was worried about you.

We put on our big engine show at the museum.
My various roles demand 16 hour days....or more.
I put on a flea market, run a shuttle service, operate
a forklift for buyers & sellers of engines, exhibit
machinery, recruit volunteers, buy, sell, & socialize.
It is exhausting, & lasts a week or so.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think so.
Many far-rightists are kinda socialists. After all...the party that arose from Fascism was called Movimento Sociale Italiano.

I disagree. In my opinion, the right-wing is the domain of capitalism. Left-wing is socialist. Ideologically, both capitalism and nationalism draw upon similar elements of social Darwinism, so they naturally fit together on that part of the spectrum. Liberalism has been a kind of "happy medium" to balance both left and right, to restrain capitalism and nationalism without going overboard on socialism, such as with FDR's New Deal.

This conflict does involve Germany, Italy and many other countries, since Russia is a strategic partner to these countries.

Yes, I agree here, since they are on the same continent as the countries at war.

Because what happens in Europe should be handled by the EU. Not by the US.

Someone in Europe should inform the U.S. leadership and the American people of this. The main reason Americans support the U.S. getting involved in Europe, NATO, and other such activities is because they've been led to believe that the Europeans want the U.S. to be involved. And when you have so many people from Europe (like Zelensky) coming over to the U.S. and speaking to top officials, it creates an impression that Europeans are helpless and desperate for American help. It was similar when Trump made a comment about pulling the U.S. out of NATO; there was nearly a panic among European leaders over that one.

So, if the Europeans resent American involvement and interference in Europe, they have to get their stories straight and send a clear, coherent message that American intervention is neither wanted nor needed.

A lot of Americans would like to pull our forces out of the rest of the world and take a less interventionist approach to foreign policy, but their voices are drowned out by that of Europeans (along with those from other areas of the world) who keep going on and on about their need for American involvement and protection. This bolsters the position of warmongering politicians here in the U.S., and as a result, nothing changes in terms of foreign policy and U.S. militarism.

 

[Estro Felino]

I disagree. In my opinion, the right-wing is the domain of capitalism. Left-wing is socialist. Ideologically, both capitalism and nationalism draw upon similar elements of social Darwinism, so they naturally fit together on that part of the spectrum. Liberalism has been a kind of "happy medium" to balance both left and right, to restrain capitalism and nationalism without going overboard on socialism, such as with FDR's New Deal.

I am against liberalism because too much freedom (that's what liberal means) gives devilish banking élites the right to subdue the weaker in the economic system.
That's why there is the need of a Socialist State that puts these élites in their place.

Someone in Europe should inform the U.S. leadership and the American people of this. The main reason Americans support the U.S. getting involved in Europe, NATO, and other such activities is because they've been led to believe that the Europeans want the U.S. to be involved. And when you have so many people from Europe (like Zelensky) coming over to the U.S. and speaking to top officials, it creates an impression that Europeans are helpless and desperate for American help. It was similar when Trump made a comment about pulling the U.S. out of NATO; there was nearly a panic among European leaders over that one.

Americans are victims of the American media who are paid to convey the propaganda. Propaganda coming from the elitist cabal of warmongers.

So, if the Europeans resent American involvement and interference in Europe, they have to get their stories straight and send a clear, coherent message that American intervention is neither wanted nor needed.

I think that Germany and Italy have been doing that since the beginning of the war...but the US treats these two countries as military colonies and France and Britain as allies. So what military colonies want is worth less than zero.
Just look at what Scholz and Tajani said: we are not at war with Russia.
Macron said the exact opposite, and that made him lose the elections.
Maybe he didn't understand that speaking of war makes him lose the elections.

A lot of Americans would like to pull our forces out of the rest of the world and take a less interventionist approach to foreign policy, but their voices are drowned out by that of Europeans (along with those from other areas of the world) who keep going on and on about their need for American involvement and protection.

Can you give me an example of these EU Europeans who keep going on an on about the need for involvement and protection?
I mean European Union.

This bolsters the position of warmongering politicians here in the U.S., and as a result, nothing changes in terms of foreign policy and U.S. militarism.

What I have been saying for months is that the White House is hostage to the elitist cabal of warmongers. So...the problem is not the Government or the Congress.

 

[Estro Felino]

What does the word "elite" mean,
as you use it?

People who think they have the right to subdue others economically and politically.

 

[Estro Felino]

By the way @Revoltingest , have you read this survey? 3,4 thousand of voters.
If you were forced to fight in this war, whose side are you going to fight on?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By the way @Revoltingest , have you read this survey? 3,4 thousand of voters.
If you were forced to fight in this war, whose side are you going to fight on?

View attachment 92945

Methodology of this "survey"?

Why is it a screenshot and not a link?

 

[Estro Felino]

Methodology of this "survey"?

Why is it a screenshot and not a link?

In my humble opinion, psychologically your mind is incapable to accept that most people here support Putin.
It's a self-defense mechanism. With all due respect of course. Here's the link

Poll from Network DLP - Tributaristi Internazionali

Se domani in Italia ti mettessero un fucile in mano e ti obbligassero a combattere (ricattandoti con la pena del carcere a vita per diserzione in caso non an...

www.youtube.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In my humble opinion, psychologically your mind is incapable to accept that most people here support Putin.
It's a self-defense mechanism. With all due respect of course.

Not at all. I just like information to be accurate and reliable.
And when someone throws out surveys, the methodology and source matters.
I would ask the same question and have the same reservations if the result was the opposite.
"with all due respect off course"

Here's the link

Poll from Network DLP - Tributaristi Internazionali

Se domani in Italia ti mettessero un fucile in mano e ti obbligassero a combattere (ricattandoti con la pena del carcere a vita per diserzione in caso non an...

www.youtube.com

So this is a free internet poll? On friggin' youtube?

You are not aware how such is not representative?
I just voted for it and I'm not even Italian. I could do it plenty of times more with different accounts.
If I were a member of a Putin troll farm, I could share the link with thousands of others asking them to go vote for it.

 

[Stevicus]

I am against liberalism because too much freedom (that's what liberal means) gives devilish banking élites the right to subdue the weaker in the economic system.
That's why there is the need of a Socialist State that puts these élites in their place.

In the early days of industrialism, capitalists tended to support liberalism in order to break the stranglehold on power held by the nobility and the clergy. There was also a positive relationship between nationalism and liberalism, which led to liberal policies within homelands and among nationalities, but generally hostile or indifferent towards outsiders. Capitalists went along with this inasmuch as it provided them reasonable stability and security at home, while leading to enormous moneymaking opportunities abroad.

In America, they peaked around the time of the World Wars, when America's policies shifted more towards liberalism, more support of the labor movement and other social reforms which slowly gained momentum. But our foreign policy was quite aggressive, such as in China and Latin America. Later on, during the Cold War, they had a pretext for engaging even further in interventionist and imperialist activities. Yet, they were still willing to support the Civil Rights movement and other causes still favored by liberals today.

However, what seems apparent now is that...they can't afford it anymore. The short-sighted and imprudent political and business leaders of America wasted resources and squandered their geopolitical and economic advantage to a degree which has weakened America's position in the world. This is why the wealthy classes are drifting more towards fascism, even though that would not be their first choice under ordinary circumstances. Ultimately, that will be their only choice, since they will be driven to protect their wealth above all other considerations.

You might have seen this thread, but it sheds some light on the issue: Why Plutocrats Are Rallying to Trump

Americans are victims of the American media who are paid to convey the propaganda. Propaganda coming from the elitist cabal of warmongers.

American media have evolved quite a bit since when I was younger. It's not just the news media, but even the entertainment media can influence how people think and perceive things.

It's strange, as I recall from watching movies and TV shows earlier in life, there was a more liberal and anti-war message conveyed. But then, it morphed into more of a pro-consumerist, pro-capitalist, and pro-war attitude which has contributed to the reckless myopia which led us to where we are now.

I guess I'm less sympathetic to my fellow Americans that I don't really think of them as "victims." I was born and raised here and subjected to the same media and propaganda, yet I rejected it.

I think that Germany and Italy have been doing that since the beginning of the war...but the US treats these two countries as military colonies and France and Britain as allies. So what military colonies want is worth less than zero.

Possibly, although it originated with the Cold War. After WW2, Americans were favoring the idea of pulling our forces out of Europe, but it was the Europeans who wanted us to stay. The European elites needed American forces to be there, lest they be swallowed up and their assets seized by the Red Menace from the east. America was still somewhat removed from that and in a relatively safer position, so there was no great sense of urgency from our side of the ocean. Just the same, it served as the ideal pretext for military interventionism all over the world, especially in East Asia and Latin America. Plus, it created the national security apparatus which gave the U.S. federal government more power over domestic policy and enhanced their abilities to quash internal dissent.

Now, even long after the Cold War has ended, America's government is still stuck in this mode. We've been doing this for so long, we can't even think of any other way now. I don't believe it means that Americans regard Germany or Italy as military colonies, but if they do, it's because they've been programmed and conditioned to think within a certain narrow box which defines their perceptions of geopolitics. I've observed this phenomenon in the media and among Americans discussing the issue pretty much most of my life.

For many Americans, they might see Germany and Italy as their ancestral homelands, but not as colonies. That's where American perceptions of Europe can become even more complicated.

Just look at what Scholz and Tajani said: we are not at war with Russia.
Macron said the exact opposite, and that made him lose the elections.
Maybe he didn't understand that speaking of war makes him lose the elections.

Perhaps. There may be a multitude of factors involved. I think the underlying factor may be fear that the once mighty and virtually invulnerable West may be starting to crack at its foundations.

Keep in mind that most of the West's core wealth was built up from war, colonialism, imperialism, along with the some of the worst atrocities and exploitation in modern history.

Over time, they became comfortable enough and wealthy enough to soften their policies and become more liberal, but now, that's coming to an end. They can't afford it anymore, and it seems that the people are beginning to sense a certain degree of unease in the air. In times like this, people are inclined to want to protect what they have - or take what they think they should have. It's not an atmosphere conducive to liberal humanitarianism.

Can you give me an example of these EU Europeans who keep going on an on about the need for involvement and protection?
I mean European Union.

A recent example is when NATO leaders balked against the idea of Trump pulling the U.S. out of NATO. But it goes back a long time. The British pushed to get the U.S. involved in the World Wars, and after WW2, the need for the U.S. to maintain a strong military presence in Europe was driven home. It was mostly during the Cold War, although since the end of the Cold War, the NATO alliance actually expanded, when by all rights, it should have disbanded in 1991. The Cold War was over, so the original reason for forming NATO in the first place no longer existed. The fact that so many former Soviet satellite countries joined NATO is as much a desperate plea for American involvement and protection as anything else.

On the other side of the Pacific is Japan, which has also made recent overtures to the US and wants to be our right-hand man, as they're right on the doorstep of Russia, North Korea, and China - which puts them in a somewhat precarious situation. They're not part of Europe, but they're still a vital part of Western geopolitical interests.

What I have been saying for months is that the White House is hostage to the elitist cabal of warmongers. So...the problem is not the Government or the Congress.

I won't say anything about the elitist cabal of warmongers. All I really know is that the factions which support warmongering are much larger than an elite cabal, and permeate all the way down to the masses. I can see how it's done and the kinds of arguments and political positions being advanced, along with geopolitical perceptions which I would consider skewed and tainted by imperialistic interests.

It doesn't really matter who it is, whether it's an elitist cabal or the government or the Congress. The bottom line is that they have a lot of screwy ideas and gross misunderstandings about the world. They are incompetent and do not deserve to lead. This is why they need to be replaced by dedicated socialist thinkers committed to revolutionary ideals to elevate humanity out of this morass that we're in. We can't go backwards with Trump, and we can't stay in the same place with Biden. We have to move forward, but few people seem to want to actually do that.

 

[Valjean]

I disagree. In my opinion, the right-wing is the domain of capitalism. Left-wing is socialist. Ideologically, both capitalism and nationalism draw upon similar elements of social Darwinism, so they naturally fit together on that part of the spectrum. Liberalism has been a kind of "happy medium" to balance both left and right, to restrain capitalism and nationalism without going overboard on socialism, such as with FDR's New Deal.

Hardly overboard. Wasn't the New Deal spectacularly successful? Didn't it result in several decades of both industrial growth and individual prosperity? Didn't it grow the middle class?

Yes, I agree here, since they are on the same continent as the countries at war.

Proximity no longer a major determinant. Events have worldwide ramifications. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- MLK.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Many far-rightists are kinda socialists. After all...the party that arose from Fascism was called Movimento Sociale Italiano.

Very true. Leftists don't understand Fascism as they're viewing it through their own ideological lens rather than actually learning what Fascists themselves believed about it. Not all socialism is Marxist, either. (Socialist Marxism is really just Communism, as Marxist theory says that socialism is just a stepping stone to a communist society.)

 

[Valjean]

I am against liberalism because too much freedom (that's what liberal means) gives devilish banking élites the right to subdue the weaker in the economic system.
That's why there is the need of a Socialist State that puts these élites in their place.

I can't speak for Italy, but here in the US it's the Right wing that advocates small government and free trade -- 'free' meaning free from oversight or regulation. It's the Left that seeks to curb the unregulated power of banking and industry.
"Liberal" here refers to The People, and socialism advocates for greater freedom, security and equality for The People, largely by restricting their exploitation by unregulated banking and business.

The Right is the domain of the rich Bankers and corporations. It's the Left who are the socialists.

Americans are victims of the American media who are paid to convey the propaganda. Propaganda coming from the elitist cabal of warmongers.

Yes -- the Right wing corporatists who benefit from war.

koWhat I have been saying for months is that the White House is hostage to the elitist cabal of warmongers. So...the problem is not the Government or the Congress.

Congress is part of government, Together they support the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex Eisenhower warned about 60 years ago ( he was persuaded to delete "congressional" in his farewell speech).
They're three legs of the same stool. Industry and government are economically reliant on perpetual conflicts.

 

[Stevicus]

Hardly overboard.

Huh?

Wasn't the New Deal spectacularly successful? Didn't it result in several decades of both industrial growth and individual prosperity? Didn't it grow the middle class?

Umm, yes? Did I say something that made you think otherwise?

Proximity no longer a major determinant. Events have worldwide ramifications. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- MLK.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. You picked out random sentences out of a lengthy post, so I'm not sure what your point is by any of this.

 

[Estro Felino]

I can't speak for Italy, but here in the US it's the Right wing that advocates small government and free trade -- 'free' meaning free from oversight or regulation. It's the Left that seeks to curb the unregulated power of banking and industry.

I would never vote for Republicans, indeed, if I were a US citizens.
I have said many times that my idols are Kennedy and Gabbard. So I'd vote for them.

But this doesn't change the fact that Trump is 100,000 times better than Hillary.

"Liberal" here refers to The People, and socialism advocates for greater freedom, security and equality for The People, largely by restricting their exploitation by unregulated banking and business.

Economic liberalism which we call neo-liberism implies carte blanche to the banking élites.

The Right is the domain of the rich Bankers and corporations. It's the Left who are the socialists.

Not any more. Now both paries bow to the éLites.

Yes -- the Right wing corporatists who benefit from war.

Congress is part of government, Together they support the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex Eisenhower warned about 60 years ago ( he was persuaded to delete "congressional" in his farewell speech).
They're three legs of the same stool. Industry and government are economically reliant on perpetual conflicts.

Are you saying that Hillary is a philanthropist or something?

 

[Estro Felino]

In the early days of industrialism, capitalists tended to support liberalism in order to break the stranglehold on power held by the nobility and the clergy. There was also a positive relationship between nationalism and liberalism, which led to liberal policies within homelands and among nationalities, but generally hostile or indifferent towards outsiders. Capitalists went along with this inasmuch as it provided them reasonable stability and security at home, while leading to enormous moneymaking opportunities abroad.

In America, they peaked around the time of the World Wars, when America's policies shifted more towards liberalism, more support of the labor movement and other social reforms which slowly gained momentum. But our foreign policy was quite aggressive, such as in China and Latin America. Later on, during the Cold War, they had a pretext for engaging even further in interventionist and imperialist activities. Yet, they were still willing to support the Civil Rights movement and other causes still favored by liberals today.

However, what seems apparent now is that...they can't afford it anymore. The short-sighted and imprudent political and business leaders of America wasted resources and squandered their geopolitical and economic advantage to a degree which has weakened America's position in the world. This is why the wealthy classes are drifting more towards fascism, even though that would not be their first choice under ordinary circumstances. Ultimately, that will be their only choice, since they will be driven to protect their wealth above all other considerations.

You might have seen this thread, but it sheds some light on the issue: Why Plutocrats Are Rallying to Trump



American media have evolved quite a bit since when I was younger. It's not just the news media, but even the entertainment media can influence how people think and perceive things.

It's strange, as I recall from watching movies and TV shows earlier in life, there was a more liberal and anti-war message conveyed. But then, it morphed into more of a pro-consumerist, pro-capitalist, and pro-war attitude which has contributed to the reckless myopia which led us to where we are now.

I guess I'm less sympathetic to my fellow Americans that I don't really think of them as "victims." I was born and raised here and subjected to the same media and propaganda, yet I rejected it.



Possibly, although it originated with the Cold War. After WW2, Americans were favoring the idea of pulling our forces out of Europe, but it was the Europeans who wanted us to stay. The European elites needed American forces to be there, lest they be swallowed up and their assets seized by the Red Menace from the east. America was still somewhat removed from that and in a relatively safer position, so there was no great sense of urgency from our side of the ocean. Just the same, it served as the ideal pretext for military interventionism all over the world, especially in East Asia and Latin America. Plus, it created the national security apparatus which gave the U.S. federal government more power over domestic policy and enhanced their abilities to quash internal dissent.

Now, even long after the Cold War has ended, America's government is still stuck in this mode. We've been doing this for so long, we can't even think of any other way now. I don't believe it means that Americans regard Germany or Italy as military colonies, but if they do, it's because they've been programmed and conditioned to think within a certain narrow box which defines their perceptions of geopolitics. I've observed this phenomenon in the media and among Americans discussing the issue pretty much most of my life.

For many Americans, they might see Germany and Italy as their ancestral homelands, but not as colonies. That's where American perceptions of Europe can become even more complicated.



Perhaps. There may be a multitude of factors involved. I think the underlying factor may be fear that the once mighty and virtually invulnerable West may be starting to crack at its foundations.

Keep in mind that most of the West's core wealth was built up from war, colonialism, imperialism, along with the some of the worst atrocities and exploitation in modern history.

Over time, they became comfortable enough and wealthy enough to soften their policies and become more liberal, but now, that's coming to an end. They can't afford it anymore, and it seems that the people are beginning to sense a certain degree of unease in the air. In times like this, people are inclined to want to protect what they have - or take what they think they should have. It's not an atmosphere conducive to liberal humanitarianism.



A recent example is when NATO leaders balked against the idea of Trump pulling the U.S. out of NATO. But it goes back a long time. The British pushed to get the U.S. involved in the World Wars, and after WW2, the need for the U.S. to maintain a strong military presence in Europe was driven home. It was mostly during the Cold War, although since the end of the Cold War, the NATO alliance actually expanded, when by all rights, it should have disbanded in 1991. The Cold War was over, so the original reason for forming NATO in the first place no longer existed. The fact that so many former Soviet satellite countries joined NATO is as much a desperate plea for American involvement and protection as anything else.

On the other side of the Pacific is Japan, which has also made recent overtures to the US and wants to be our right-hand man, as they're right on the doorstep of Russia, North Korea, and China - which puts them in a somewhat precarious situation. They're not part of Europe, but they're still a vital part of Western geopolitical interests.



I won't say anything about the elitist cabal of warmongers. All I really know is that the factions which support warmongering are much larger than an elite cabal, and permeate all the way down to the masses. I can see how it's done and the kinds of arguments and political positions being advanced, along with geopolitical perceptions which I would consider skewed and tainted by imperialistic interests.

It doesn't really matter who it is, whether it's an elitist cabal or the government or the Congress. The bottom line is that they have a lot of screwy ideas and gross misunderstandings about the world. They are incompetent and do not deserve to lead. This is why they need to be replaced by dedicated socialist thinkers committed to revolutionary ideals to elevate humanity out of this morass that we're in. We can't go backwards with Trump, and we can't stay in the same place with Biden. We have to move forward, but few people seem to want to actually do that.

All this can be summed up by saying that American citizens have been inculcated that war is something inexorable. Something intrinsic in human nature.
In Europe war means barbarism. Animal world. Primitive savages like Nazis and Fascists craving for war.

So whoever normalizes war, will be called Nazi. Even if they are Americans.

 

[Valjean]

I would never vote for Republicans, indeed, if I were a US citizens.
I have said many times that my idols are Kennedy and Gabbard. So I'd vote for them.

But this doesn't change the fact that Trump is 100,000 times better than Hillary.

??? How so? He doesn't understand politics or history, doesn't read memos or pay attention to briefings. He invents threats and enemies, then panders to the fearful and disaffected; not to mention authoritarian foreign leaders. He makes dangerous political decisions.

Hillary? Pretty middle-of-the-road, I'd say. What problems do you see with Hillary?

Economic liberalism which we call neo-liberism implies carte blanche to the banking élites.

Liberalism, as understood in the US, could hardly be more different from Neoliberalism.

Not any more. Now both paries bow to the éLites.

Alas, this has become the case. The Democrats, who used to be the party of the working and burgeoning middle class, abandoned its base and began courting the technical class, leaving their former base flapping in the wind and ripe for indoctrination by demagogues; and and our winner-take-all system and Electoral College insure that no third party has much of a chance to intervene.

Are you saying that Hillary is a philanthropist or something?

Unfortunately just a politician.