Why Labour Lost

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Everybody needs to watch this. How oligarchs are gaming democracy with great success.

It may well change how you see the world today.

This is relevant to the US, Australia, the UK. Pretty much every democracy on the planet.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

In other words these "Woke Progressive" dimwits still can't figure out why they're losing elections across western civilization.   

So their solution to "oligarchs gaming the system" by listening to working class frustrations and proposing policies to address their complaints about the status quo, is to subvert democracy itself and "game the system"  in their favor (and the favor of THEIR oligarchs).



One part lack of self awareness and two parts psychological projection.   

[Walkie]

heck, Scrap, maybe you could actually listen to the thing before commenting? Your comments make zero sense. I mean, for example, you don't seriously think that educating people to analyse the media critically would serve to subvert democracy and create an alternative oligarchy do you? 

Pity nobody else commented.  Nice one, Mo 

I just wish i felt so optimistic.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Yes Walkie. I wasn't expecting Scrap to get it.

Fascism doesn't start with dictatorship and genocide. It starts with propaganda and scapegoating of minorities and demonizing political opposition.

[odeon]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

Interesting video, MOSW. +1

[Yuri Bezmenov]

heck, Scrap, maybe you could actually listen to the thing before commenting? Your comments make zero sense.

My comments should've made it obvious that I DID watch the video and they do make sense to anyone who didn't take the blue pill.

I mean, for example, you don't seriously think that educating people to analyse the media critically would serve to subvert democracy and create an alternative oligarchy do you?

The working classes HAVE already figured out that the MSM is lying to them on behalf of international corporations who are pushing a globalist agenda. It's mostly those on the left who can't see through this agenda because it's camouflaged in humanitarian rhetoric. The populist message is winning because the working classes have figured out that center left parties like Labor have sold them out in favor of foreign immigrants.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Yes Walkie. I wasn't expecting Scrap to get it.

Just like the makers of this video, you're clueless as all fuck and willing to believe a conspiracy theory instead of understanding why the left continues to lose elections. Hint: the #1 issue that is driving populism is mass immigration.

Fascism doesn't start with dictatorship and genocide. It starts with propaganda and scapegoating of minorities and demonizing political opposition.

The world is in 0% danger of falling to Fascist ideologies, this isn't the 1930's. What we ARE in danger of is neo-Marxist globalist dictatorships taking form (cough, cough the EU). The propaganda of globalism scapegoats white people, especially the working class and demonizes anyone who is opposed to open borders and tidal waves of cheap brown labor pouring into their country (yes this is the point where you call me a racist and xenophobe for being opposed to Hispanics destroying the SW U.S.)

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

Where is this imaginary universe where politicians don't lie?

Although I have to agree with you here, Leftist politicians should never have lied about the caustic effects of mass immigration.

 Here's a taste of the "cultural enrichment" brought to my home town by Mexican gangs. We never had these problems when it was white majority.

[Jack]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

In which alternate universe do politicians lie to serve the interests of the poor? Unless you count having more people as serving the interests of the poor?

I do get what you are saying, but I don't think that happens any more. Politicians lie because they need to serve the interests of those who fund and support them and provide them with lucrative post-political careers, while pretending that they want to take care of the middle class and the poor.

That was one of the points that Monbiot was making, that propaganda has been so effective that people are voting against their own interests. Democracy would work better if people voted out of self interest rather than how a bunch of very wealthy and self-interested people managed to convince them to vote, using tactics like propaganda and dog-whistling and fear-mongering and various other forms of right-wing populism.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

heck, Scrap, maybe you could actually listen to the thing before commenting? Your comments make zero sense.

My comments should've made it obvious that I DID watch the video and they do make sense to anyone who didn't take the blue pill.

I mean, for example, you don't seriously think that educating people to analyse the media critically would serve to subvert democracy and create an alternative oligarchy do you?

The working classes HAVE already figured out that the MSM is lying to them on behalf of international corporations who are pushing a globalist agenda. It's mostly those on the left who can't see through this agenda because it's camouflaged in humanitarian rhetoric. The populist message is winning because the working classes have figured out that center left parties like Labor have sold them out in favor of foreign immigrants.

Globalism is capitalism on steroids. It is the opposite of a left-wing agenda. Walkie has touched on this before, in the UK (for example) you have a choice of voting for Tories or Tory-lite. Policies are the same but Tory-lite tries to pretend that they care about you.

Right wing populism these days pushes the same globalist, corporate agenda, far more savagely, while sticking refugees in concentration camps and telling you that the lefties are responsible for sending your job overseas or for the IT companies outsourcing to HCL.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The world is in 0% danger of falling to Fascist ideologies, this isn't the 1930's. What we ARE in danger of is neo-Marxist globalist dictatorships taking form (cough, cough the EU). The propaganda of globalism scapegoats white people, especially the working class and demonizes anyone who is opposed to open borders and tidal waves of cheap brown labor pouring into their country (yes this is the point where you call me a racist and xenophobe for being opposed to Hispanics destroying the SW U.S.)

You wouldn't know fascism if you fell over it.

You know how people like you are increasingly terrified of certain races and blame the socialists for effectively being in league with them? Guess what kind of ideology promotes that fear and feeds off it?

Fascism isn't where you declare yourself chancellor for life and proceed to invade Poland. Fascism is the means by which increased control is exerted over a population, and democracy is undermined, through right wing populism, fear of the "other", propaganda, misinformation, and so on.

[Jack]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

In which alternate universe do politicians lie to serve the interests of the poor? Unless you count having more people as serving the interests of the poor?

I do get what you are saying, but I don't think that happens any more. Politicians lie because they need to serve the interests of those who fund and support them and provide them with lucrative post-political careers, while pretending that they want to take care of the middle class and the poor.

That was one of the points that Monbiot was making, that propaganda has been so effective that people are voting against their own interests. Democracy would work better if people voted out of self interest rather than how a bunch of very wealthy and self-interested people managed to convince them to vote, using tactics like propaganda and dog-whistling and fear-mongering and various other forms of right-wing populism.

Personally think that's exactly what happened with the ACA. Believe it was never the intention to provide the middle class an affordable government healthcare option. Have to admit it really ticked me off at first, but seriously would be a jerk to stay mad about something like that, because frankly didn't really need it. It was the lower end of the middle class who needed it and most of them got it. It also forced a lot of poor people who already qualified, but were avoiding the welfare system, to sign up for healthcare, since someone forgot to mention it would be compulsory because it's in their best interest.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

To some extent it is. Lying is necessary to also serve the interest of the poor. Democracy is based on the vote of the majority, so to serve any interest other than the majority, one must appeal to and lie to the middle class.

In which alternate universe do politicians lie to serve the interests of the poor? Unless you count having more people as serving the interests of the poor?

I do get what you are saying, but I don't think that happens any more. Politicians lie because they need to serve the interests of those who fund and support them and provide them with lucrative post-political careers, while pretending that they want to take care of the middle class and the poor.

That was one of the points that Monbiot was making, that propaganda has been so effective that people are voting against their own interests. Democracy would work better if people voted out of self interest rather than how a bunch of very wealthy and self-interested people managed to convince them to vote, using tactics like propaganda and dog-whistling and fear-mongering and various other forms of right-wing populism.

Personally think that's exactly what happened with the ACA. Believe it was never the intention to provide the middle class an affordable government healthcare option. Have to admit it really ticked me off at first, but seriously would be a jerk to stay mad about something like that, because frankly didn't really need it. It was the lower end of the middle class who needed it and most of them got it. It also forced a lot of poor people who already qualified, but were avoiding the welfare system, to sign up for healthcare, since someone forgot to mention it would be compulsory because it's in their best interest.

I don't know a great deal about the ACA, I still struggle to get my head around how the US has the most expensive healthcare in the world (per capita or as a % of GDP) and some of the worst outcomes in the developed world. Then again, we have universal healthcare here and it works reasonably well,.. although if the conservatives win too many more elections they will find a way to defund and then sell it off to private capital.

Based on what I've heard about the decline of empathy in the US, I'd say there's a good chance that you are onto something. I was looking for something I saw recently but found this instead on the subject:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201603/beware-americas-shocking-loss-empathy

I'm one of those weirdos who would vote for someone who would raise my taxes and help poor people.

[odeon]

Scrap, there is nothing democratic whatsoever in winning elections by lying.

Where is this imaginary universe where politicians don't lie?

I guess I wasn't being clear. Would it help your limited understanding if I said "if they only told the truth by accident?"