Why does it feel that the evil sides globally are winning. Even evil people are winning. Why?
You must log in or # to comment.
Unpopular opinion, but in the west particularly, folk have mistaken writing on the internet for action.
Tweeting resistance rather than performing it.
A lapse into inaction framed as radical rest and self care.
Online they are fierce warriors of justice, offline they go to work in Starbucks, use their apple devices to talk to their families and enjoy the treadmill of streaming services.
And this isn’t to blame them. This is the point of consumerist capitalism. To trap you in a gilded cage.
I think the issue in America, is that the Constitution only addressed political power, but failed to account for fiscal strength. Money is inherently a thing that manipulates the fates of individuals, companies, and nations alike. By not setting down rules, limitations, and expectations regarding economics, the Founding Fathers allowed a key form of power go unaddressed.
The vast majority of Project 2025’s major backers are wealthy people, who have far beyond what any normal person can ever hope to possess. This imbalance means that workers have to sacrifice much time, money, and energy to be barely heard on a single issue, while a rich person can just hire experts to massage every aspect of their many messages and to deliver it everywhere with a mighty voice.
IMO, we will need a Constitution v2.0 that fixes not only assorted political flaws like the voting system, but also prevents wealth from being a microphone that only a few can afford.
the hard answer: the voting populace is the single stupidest form of combined intelligence to ever exist, im pretty sure 3 children under the age of 7 in a room would have a higher average IQ than any state in america when measuring the voting populace.
Voting is a joke. People don’t take it seriously, it’s all vibes based, and those vibes are horrendously unreliable and meaningless.
the soft answer: it is, for now. It will change, just give it time. It’s inevitable.
The perspective I subscribe to is that access and abundance has outpaced the average persons ability to choose. By which I mean, their talent at choosing. An overall inability to make quality decisions. I would say the issue really grew some teeth in maybe the 50’s and has been accelerating more or less exponentially. The art of exploiting this inability to choose first starts getting real traction in the evolution advertising. Getting people to buy cans of beans and cigarettes was the larval form of a much more sinister science of mass manipulation. The internet definitely threw gasoline on the fire. And now no one knows what is quality, or true, or nutritious, or sustainable, or important. The average person is completely overwhelmed and operating on a low-level fight-or-flight type reasoning. Unfortunately I don’t think there is a short term solution. People need to start learning at a very young age explicitly how to not be a mark. Which is antithetical to the wealthy and politically connected people whose bread and butter is hoards of unscrupulous consumers of products and rhetoric.
this is definitely an interesting explanation, although i don’t know how much difference there is between this and my theory of “people are just less involved in politics, and as a result, engage less critically with it, as they do with everything else in their lives these days”
The average person is completely overwhelmed and operating on a low-level fight-or-flight type reasoning.
i think this is sort of accurate? I think the difference is that people are choosing not to invest their time and energy into these things, before engaging with them, leading to a very low quality of work. I.E. bad elections. Just looking at social media seems to confirm this outright.
The only short term solution is immense pain and suffering, any sufficient amount of distress will motivate something to engage in more aggressive and risky behaviors, which is the only way out of this mess in any short order, though it may not be desirable.
The long term answer is solving the media issue, because that’s a huge problem, solving the social media issue, which is 70% of the issue at this point, and forcing people to engage critically with this kind of stuff.
The hard part is finding out how to do this effectively without negating the very benefits derived from engaging in this kind of social restructuring. It may very well be too late for us to do anything to combat it, we might be at the crab bucket point in mr bones wild ride.
People are willing to do anything except for engaging in thought provoking/critical levels of social engagement, even if makes a fool of themselves. Just look at any social media, any hot button political issue. It’s all just fish in a barrel.
What would happen if capital succeeded in smashing the Republic of Soviets? There would set in an era of the blackest reaction in all the capitalist and colonial countries, the working class and the oppressed peoples would be seized by the throat, the positions of international communism would be lost.
Evil was winning, we’re watching the collapse of the evil empire from within.
My thoughts are that China is no longer recycling their profits into US treasuries, and the BRICS countries seemed to be heading down the same path. The US cant sustain high interest rates and needs people to buy this debt, hence there is a lot of talk of tariffs and a “green new deal” type of tariff system on emissions in order to derive additional revenue without increasing taxes on citizens. Citizens want entitlement programs that are ponzi schemes that have already been spent long ago, but they dont want additional taxes, and so you need a scheme to get around their votes.
The same thing happened after the great depression where they rebased gold to a lower value after confiscating it, and some speculate it created an environment ripe for WWII. Our system of printing money tends to increase aggregate demand while misallocating capital, like houses in 2008, and thus it ends in suffering.
