zazen

You guys need to diversity max (we inclusive or what?) your sources. Embrace the masculine in a non toxic way, understand and appreciate the value of elements within tradition and religion without being a literalist fundamentalist. Your life is not simply a construct, don’t spiritually bypass reality to the point you overlook what’s happening. Don’t be so non-dual you can’t vibe with the duality of the form you are born into and can’t escape from until the you merge with the formless again. Form is real and can’t be morally relativised or redefined away to the point we say men can give birth. Here is my Twitter timeline for a start:

Is there validity to why they think that? The above is what they're going off of. As we can see, the elections are super tight which hinge on a few thousands votes in swing states. If immigration is being increased to these states, for them to then be able to vote in the next election and with incentives in place for them to vote Democrat as they will be able to bring along their family more easily and have benefits etc then wouldn't that solidify a blue stronghold. Technically Californicating the entire country into a uniparty. Kamala Harris wasn’t even voted in by her own party, let alone the country. She dropped out of the Democratic primary before a single vote was cast because her support was embarrassingly low. The voters didn’t want her. She was placed on the ticket, appointed, packaged as the “historic” choice, and now we’re supposed to pretend she embodies the democratic will of the people? Democrats bend over backward to rig their own primaries, sidelining anyone who doesn’t fit the establishment mold. They did it to Bernie Sanders - twice. They push out dissenting voices, and use “superdelegates” to make sure the “wrong” candidate doesn’t get too close to power. They’re not interested in democracy within their own party, let alone in the country as a whole. But they’ll preach about it endlessly, pretending the right is the only threat, while they consolidate power through manipulation and procedural games. And they’re the same party that’s allied with big tech and corporate media to control the flow of information, to censor and de-platform anyone who challenges the narrative. They cry about misinformation and “protecting truth,” but what they really mean is controlling the narrative so that only their version of events gets through. If democracy is supposed to mean an informed public freely choosing its leaders, what do you call a system where information is so tightly managed, where dissenting voices are so systematically silenced? That’s not democracy - it’s manipulation dressed up in democratic clothes. People raving about rescuing democracy really mean protecting their parties monopoly on Democracy. Mmmkay.

If you can control what thoughts can be expressed but claim your opponents are facists,who is closer to facism? The left have a blindspot to authoritarianism because of such flowery nice sounding language and rhetoric. The right does't have the institutional clout to impose anything close to authoritarianism whilst the left does, so the priority is reigning in the side that does. It's a counterbalance, not a call for the right to be authoritarian themselves. It's a subtle, insidious form of soft totalitarianism. They want diversity of colour but not of thought. It's like warning about a guy with a butter knife whilst another guy has a knife at your throat ready to cancel you for wrong speak or a microagression. We need to prioritise the danger. The establishment wants us to think right wing talking points are the danger, which have been institutionally and politically exiled until Trump came on board and Elon bought Twitter. The danger is in leftist ideology through the backing of institutionally captured levers, which have already set up a luxury penthouse in your brain from which to enact their regime. Modern totalitarianism is invisible. The left believes that because they dress their actions in the language of inclusion and progress, they're immune to becoming the thing they claim to fight. We've seen this before: 20th century regimes draped in red flags also promised liberation and equality, but delivered the opposite. That was the conclusion, to insisting on inclusion for the greater good. Gramsci is a key figure in mainstreaming leftism and Marxist thought in Europe and America. This is why lots of Dems have left the party. Perhaps they’re aware enough to see the actions of their own party, contradict exactly what their ideals supposedly stand for.

Just now:

US politics is wild

Smaller nations, much like smaller boats, are easy to navigate and more nimble. Larger nations and empires are massive cruisers bloated and slowed down by the sheer scale of their own ambitions. Scandinavia, whilst a admirable Viking boat, isn't comparable to the US which is a battleship cruiser. Smaller, more homogenous, socially cohesive high trust societies that organise well like in Scandinavia, with natural wealth (ie Norwegian oil) and elements of capitalism to ensure productivity and efficiency - produce a higher quality of life and happiness. This doesn't vindicate leftist politics and policies at scale, with many diverse interest groups competing with each other. Especially with a cultural DNA that is rebellious and suspicious or wary of centralised government such as that in America. The reason China is able to pull off a larger state apparatus is due to its cultural DNA that goes back thousands of years. Their conception of state authority is as a benevolent patriarch daddy, the gatekeeper of the mandate of heaven. Where as Americans view state enlargement and overreach like an abusive unrelated step dad. Their faith in a just government comes from their Confucian roots which emphasises civic duty and the collective, rather than the individual. This allows them to harmonise and not have such friction, especially around a more homogenous identity. A cultural foundation has to be there for such things to grow from more organically - otherwise their seen as an imposition, and the power of such state machinery is abused if there isn't much social cohesion to begin with. Because why would a bureaucrat care as much if they use the power of the state to torment their fellow citizens - if they don’t view them as kin (related in some way - we are naturally kinder to kin). Of course we’d say we should be, but tribalism is a hard ass instinct to rid ourselves of. Sweden has one of the highest gun crime death rates in Europe now and the right wing are gaining traction. Reality asserts itself eventually.

We have to look very clearly and not get lost in personalities and popcorn politics that each sides fringes inflame. It's about which mental framework (of each party) is more conducive to a productive society, and which stifles it. Trump printed a lot of money in his term, and made plenty of mistakes - this time around I believe he has wiser minds around him who want to change a status quo that simply isn't working for enough people who are betting on change, even if it means they invite a chance of some chaos. The two key issues are economic and security (border and domestic) - socio cultural issues are also important, but economics and security take priority. This is the problem of the left, prioritization. It's not that identity and inclusion don't matter - it's that they can't matter more than a society's foundations weakening, a societies bones becoming arthritic because its overweight from bureaucratic bloat weighing down its functionality and to which leftist politics generally adds to via expansion of the state. You can have the most inclusive team on the Titanic, but if no ones watching out for icebergs, everyone drowns equally. You can have ''soft on crime'' progressive policies, but what does this misplaced compassion matter if it renders the citizens incapable of walking safely at night, or the viability of a business staying open. For example - California reclassified non-violent offenses such as theft of property valued under 950 dollars to be a misdemeanor. This is the symptom of late stage empires in decline. When empires grow in dominance, power and abundance, this brings decadence. Decadence leads to delusions and the luxury of being able to play with immutable laws of nature (economic, behavioral, and in today's case biological). Decadence allows the denial of these laws, which leads to decline. It's where feelings matter more than functionality, comfort over capability, and equality of outcome matter over merit and quality. Resources not going to foundational issues but that instead go to managing microaggressions, DEI and the pronoun police - is decadent. Forget deficit spending, we are decadent spending, and the bills coming due - just ask Boeing who dismantled their DEI team a few days ago. Decadence allows us to ignore reality, but not its consequences - and the con in consequence, is that it's sequenced into nature, and asserts itself eventually. When the pie shrinks, it deranges politics and society. So the question is: what ideological framing underpinning each party helps grow that pie better. A society can't print its way out of debt. It needs to grow out of it. You can't print prosperity, it needs to be built. You can't legislate your way to abundance. Production, discipline and unity isn't just policy - it's survival programming written in the blood of every fallen civilization. It's the immune system fighting off the virus of decadence. Strength isn't optional and reality isn't democratic. Conservatism isn't a return to the past (although a faction do want to regress) its a turn to the past to see where we deviated and to remember what made a nation rise. The so called progressives ironically wouldn't have the luxury of dabbling in progressive policy if it wasn't for a more conservative past. But now we must revisit the principles that made a nation strong, and integrate them. It's about taking two steps back from the cliff of decadence and decline, so we can progress down the line. Any politics or frameworks that abides by the principles of what is productive yet humane, is the better one imo. If progressive policies work so well, why are countless businesses and people leaving California? Going to Texas and Florida. Why should those policies and the ideological framework underpinning them be scaled nation wide? Progressives believe in state enlargement , because their framework requires it - they enable a bureaucratic priesthood that regulates a nation into just being regular. That's what Kamala stands for - Keep America Mediocre And Lacking Ambition. Dems would rather have a department for the pronoun police whilst Republicans will have a department of government efficiency. A nation doesn't always lose its greatness by having barbarians at the gates, it loses it one regulation, one permit, one decadent policy policing human nature - at a time. America calls itself the land of the free- yet it's the country with the most laws. This is how the managerial / administrative / permanent state kills a nation. First, it creates agencies to regulate everything. Then it staffs them with bureaucrats who's job depends on them saying no rather than yes to things. Then they require constant expansion to justify their existence. Instead of governing, they end up suffocating and stifling. Businesses can't thrive in a maze of regulatory quick sand only corporations can afford to navigate. And the backbone and health of a nation is its middle class. A nation so obsessed with controlling outcomes regulates itself into paralysis. Americans need to remember who they are - citizens, not subjects, subject to a higher authority. The state is supposed to serve the citizens, not suffocate them. Across the pond in UK, we are subjects under the monarchy. Though rarely exercised, the King has the power to decline the formation of a new government during the tradition called ''kissing of hands'' where permission to govern is sought. Though only ceremonial today, it has a odd affect on the psyche of a nation. Trumps politics isn't a blueprint for the long term, he's more of a antibiotic to the current swinging of America into a state of unhealthiness. He can't be the lifestyle, neither can the extremist MAGA supporters be the base for the longevity of America. But imo, its a much needed correction to get back on course - the danger is in over-correction. If the Democrats could auto-correct themselves, things would have been fine, but the ideological capture of leftism prevents that - and it has seeped into the institutions which require deep work. This is the enemy within. The juicy part on modern day leftism starts at 33min, before that is the origin story.

Interesting:

Yeah definitely. I think the fringe fundamentalists of any group tend to dominate the conversation. Like most people aren't really opposed to religion but to fundamentalists, just like most aren't that opposed to liberals as they are to fundamentalist far leftists. Literalism and fundamentalism is a mind virus that can capture any group or idealogical framework, secular or religious. Moderate people, because their moderate, lose control of their narratives and ideas because the fundamentalists in their respective groups are so active and intolerant of moderation. That's why a lot of liberals distance themselves from modern day liberalism and identify with old classical liberalism. A saying that captures the difference: ''Old liberals wanted protection from the state, modern liberals want protection by the state.'' The problem we have today is bureaucratic bloat of a late stage empire. ''The bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the ever expanding bureaucracy.'' When it becomes more profitable to manage the problem rather than solve it, and theirs a whole web of interests who become dependent on the problem persisting for their own financial needs or wants - this kills a civilisation.

We can all unburden ourselves from the greatest burden Jordan Peterson says we should burden ourselves with

There are enough checks and balances to prevent them from doing anything crazy, which is why I'm not panicking in the first place. What people should panic about is the larger cycle of history we are in which no candidate or party can do anything to stop. The national security state and corporate dominance is a prevailing factor no party has much say in affecting change in, yet these two have much say in the lives of many, and not usually in their favour. Getting thrown a bone or two here and there and being able to make slight socio-cultural shifts is one thing, but affecting change in the state apparatus's war machine and corporate dominance is a whole other. This is why they always talk a big game about being able to make changes and being anti-war or helping the vast majority, but there are stubborn and stiff gears in the state machinery which prevents them from ever acting on that rhetoric. Any economist or business owner would shrivel up at hearing Kamala's economic takes. Unrealized gains tax and equity as equality of outcome will only have corrosive outcomes for the economy. They penalize success before its even realised, and disincentivize it to begin with.

Me critiquing the excesses of the left, and observing how this plays into a reactionary right who have their own excesses - isn’t me endorsing the right or overlooking their crassness either. I’m simply pointing out the rise of populism that is based upon economics as the gut punch, with cultural dislocation layered on top as the slap in the face. The whole left isn’t some caricature of “wokism” and neither are the whole right a caricature of some “ATV riding hillbilly” excited to show off his rifle. The institutional sway is clearly progressive. One side clearly controls the cultural narrative that is adopted by academia, media and corporations. Progressivism basically has an ideological monopoly over institutions that have an outsized, disproportionate influence. This makes conservatives feel uneasy and want to rebel. That’s why they celebrate Musk buying Twitter or The Daily wire being what it is - they’re building parallel networks because they feel the existing ones deviated too far from their core values. We are seeing a phenomenon we see in every empire that reaches a stage of peak prosperity of dominance and decadence. At the end of an empire’s cycle, we see moral experimentation, a loosening of boundaries and an indulgence in individual freedoms that can feel to some like chaos or “moral decay.” Societies at this stage of the cycle often spiral into divisiveness and moral fluidity. The difference is that while past forms of decadence indulged in an excess of the senses ie feasts and orgies in Rome - US/Western decadence is redefining foundational claims about our senses, about reality, about the reality of identity and biology. Another difference is that past decadence was an elite past time confined to aristocrats, today it’s mainstream because of media and institutional buy in which then disseminates this decadence. Promoting decadence is speed running a society into decline - I”m not a doomer nor a moral bible thumper, this is simply observational and has a causal chain that would make this post to lengthy to go into. The right’s resistance to progressive issues isn’t solely about hatred or bigotry either, although that exists in its extreme factions. It’s often about a fear of losing any sense of order or stability in a world that seems to be reimagining the very foundations of reality. That’s not an excuse for prejudice, but it’s a piece of the larger picture. When you push people’s norms to the breaking point, there’s going to be pushback. When you force one version of progress without a balanced dialogue, people dig their heels in. The paradox of progressive values - compassion, universal human dignity, equality - is that they have roots in the ethical teachings of Christianity itself. Christianity introduced these values to the Western world as a counterpoint to the more individualistic, honor-based morality of Europe’s pagan past. It’s as if the cultural left has inherited Christianity’s ethical framework but stripped it of its religious context, advocating for what are essentially Christian values without acknowledging their origin. They’re promoting an ethic of kindness, inclusivity, and justice, which were revolutionary ideas introduced by early Christianity into the hierarchical and often brutal societies of Europe. These values have secularized and embedded themselves in Western culture to the point where they’re seen as simply “human” values rather than specifically religious ones. Meanwhile on the other side, we see a similar irony among many on the religious right, particularly evangelical neocons. Although they claim to defend Christianity and see themselves as champions of “Christian values,” their focus often leans toward nationalism, militarism, and capitalist individualism - ideals that align more closely with a pre-Christian, pagan ethos of dominance and power. They embody the warrior ethic or “master morality” that Nietzsche described as characteristic of Europe’s pagan past, even as they claim the mantle of Christianity. In essence, it’s almost like a role reversal or a change in costume. The progressives have adopted Christianity’s ethical core but shed the religious shell, while many conservatives have held onto the religious identity of Christianity but seem to have embraced an ethos that often contradicts its teachings on compassion and humility. This contradiction is a fundamental part of Western identity: it’s a civilization at war with itself, torn between the humility and compassion it claims to cherish and the conquest driven, imperial instincts it can’t seem to shake. Western politics is a battleground between these two impulses, with the secular left pushing for the communal values rooted in the East, and the conservative right clinging to an identity it often doesn’t understand, mistaking power and dominance for faith. In the end, the West is haunted by the very ethos it borrowed and transformed. It’s a civilization that took on Christianity, tried to bend it to its old pagan ideals, and now finds itself forever in conflict between these two. And as long as the West clings to its myth of moral superiority while hiding its imperial intentions under noble rhetoric, it will remain a culture divided - struggling, as it always has, with its own reflection.

I think thats exactly the appeal of Trump - he isn't sterilised and scripted like Kamala but is more raw and authentic, even if that means people see him as an authentic buffoon. For the more logical minded who still vote Trump, perhaps they aren't voting for him as much as they are the team and party - they're betting on and hoping that Trump won't get in the way of the team doing some good work. Both sides are viewing this as existential, as the last vote for their party ever. MAGA - because Democrats will let masses of migrants in to legalise and vote for blue, solidifying the party for decades to come. Democrats - because they think Trump will go scorched earth and install some Christian Nationalist theocracy. There are extreme fringes on both sides, that both parties don't want to deal with and cater too, in order to secure election victories. But then those idiots galvanize the opposite side to go against them even harder and here we are in a polarized situation. The middle of both sides needs to get their houses in order. Aren't there enough checks and balances in the system to prevent what we’re all fearing the worst of anyway? America survived 4 years already.

Red pill of a video. Listen from 1hr 04min to learn about Ukraine. Quite tough as a Westerner to come to the realisation that Western states, in particular the US and Israel are such terrorist states.

In the backdrop of a US election and as peoples attention is drawn elsewhere. The US government has been ‘deeply concerned’ for over year, and telling their ally to investigate the laundry list of atrocities. The fake virtue signalling face of the West is on full display - and they ain’t even gonna take the costume off for Halloween tonight. https://x.com/kahlissee/status/1852015247160443026?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

Chadistan incoming

A good discussion to compliment OP’s video.

@Scholar @Nemra It's a immature view of freedom as 'do whatever the fuck you want'. No mature adults in the room function that way, that's called being stuck in adolescence. Like Sholomar wrote above, this is leftism taken to far, to the point all they do is destroy the meaning of things with their moral relativity and construct awareness, then act like it is enlightenment when they are simply stuck in a rebellious teenage phase of being contrary for the sake of challenging authority. They don't understand that there is a certain order that needs maintaining. They don't understand the 2nd, 3rd etc order affects of their actions and how certain freedoms when used as license to 'do as thou wilt' unravel society. There's a reason most leftists are young and become more conservative as they get older, it takes time to mature towards certain understandings. When you need to build a business or raise a family, the importance of certain principles become starkly evident. Progressive values aren’t coming through like an invitation to the conversation. They’re rolled out like commandments from the institutions on high. Academia, media, corporations - these set the cultural narrative of the country at large making these values feel imposed and inescapable. It's not that people don't have the freedom to live conservatively in America, it's that their freedoms to think differently is squeezed to the margins and their made to feel like dinosaurs from a liberal progressive elitism. Its ideological monopoly, with cultural hall monitors ready to cancel you for critiquing the main narrative. These progressive values feels like a baseline moral code has been set by institutions with disproportionate influence that permeate the country. I'm not saying these liberal values are bad, but wokism and leftist have taken them to absurd degrees. ''The West gets free markets wrong the same way that they get freedom wrong. No one individually is free to act immorally in the public sphere because people have a right to live in a society where their values are not being assaulted. Whereas you say that everyone has a right to act any kind of way in public - they can say whatever they want to say in public, behave in all kinds of immoral and indecent ways, all in the name of personal liberty. Never mind how much tension, how much misery, how much division, how much animosity that creates in your society. But you let a fringe group of people oppress the general public by violating the values and the morals of the majority, all in the name of freedom. To you, freedom means: Freedom from responsibility Freedom from accountability Freedom from morality Freedom from decency And then you apply this same understanding to the business sector and the so-called "free markets."

Usually, any hints of right leaning, conservatism or traditionalism invokes a triggered response. The irony of spiral dynamics is that those that self-identify as higher up on the stage, have barely integrated or understood the value of the previous ones. If they had, they wouldn't knee jerk react and dismiss them so easily. I was like that too, especially after studying Osho I had my own phase of ''anti-religion/tradition, down with the old and the right wing ''. I became idealistic rather than pragmatic. But there is a way of coming full circle to these things with a higher understanding that actually empathizes with them and validates their core principles better than even they could. Theres a evolution that takes place where a hippie touches soil and thinks all order is bad - that we should be as free and wild like Gaia. Who then becomes a laptop liberal interested in politics and activism - working to bring down the patriarchy and capitalism. Which then touches grass again and realises all that it takes to grow that grass out of the soil they once rolled in as a hippie. That order, hierarchy, discipline aren't inherently bad, but humans can make them so. Europe was already experiencing a populist surge well before Trump came onto the scene in 2016. Trump’s rise may have emboldened these movements as US politics has global influence for sure, but he didn't light the matches, just threw fuel on them. Some examples: In the UK, Brexit happened before Trump was elected. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Front gained traction as early as 2012. Germany saw the rise of the AfD around the same time, and in Italy, Meloni’s party (now in power) was founded in 2012. Hungary’s nationalist leader Viktor Orban came to power in 2010, and in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders Party for Freedom (now the largest in the House of Representatives) gained traction in 2006. The reason Europe’s populist movements began earlier and surged quicker than America is due to increased waves of migration that the US hadn't experienced on the same scale. This mass migration is driven by a combination of neoliberalism (foreign policy) and progressive liberalism (domestic policy). The Neoliberal paradigm the West operates from emphasizes freer markers and interventionist policies, which creates economic instability and conflicts, which drives migrants to seek refuge and economic opportunities in Europe. Then comes progressive liberalism which provides the ideological basis for open borders and human rights (valid noble ideals taken too far) to the point of strain on local resources and cultural cohesion. Europe suffers the consequence of this foreign policy rather than America simply due to geographic proximity. It's a feed back loop - neoliberal foreign policy causes the migration that progressive-liberal policies at home then attempt to manage or embrace with liberal naivety. In fact, it’s a perfect cover - progressive liberalism rainbow washes the crimes of neoliberal foreign policy abroad and its economic exploitation at home. We need to spread Democracy to emancipate minorities and women’s hair in Iran. We need to save the planet by carbon taxing and surveilling every breath you take - you know, for the environment and all. On top of this, Europe faces an imposed liberal-progressive culture that feels out of touch with traditional or conservative communities. EU policies on green energy impact farmers productivity and bottom line, while LGBTQ+ and secularist values are promoted across the union, sparking resistance from more religious or traditional countries, especially in Eastern Europe. This is a slap in the face that fuels further discontent - just like in the case of America. But more broadly, the anti-establishment rhetoric we see today is the result of many failures in Western institutions, which has eroded trust in multiple domains over the last two decades. Just look at the timeline we've lived through: - The Middle Eastern wars of the early 2000’s was sold to the public based upon lies, that our men had to die for. - The 2008 financial crises catalysed by a housing crash shattered trust in banks and financial institutions as they were bailed out while citizens lost their homes, jobs and savings. - Social media became popular in the late 2000’s which challenges the mainstream media, laying bare the propaganda and lies. - The 2010’s had migration surges in Europe due to more Middle Eastern wars in Syria and Libya, adding more pressure. - The latest in chapter in nuking credibility was COVID from 2020 where people lost trust in government and public health due to imposed locked, coerced vaccines and shady contracts elites would make money off of. Through each of these stages - foreign policy, finance, borders, media, and public health - people have been given new reasons to feel that their institutions are either out of touch, self-serving, or outright deceptive. That’s why from what I see, populism isn’t on the whole manufactured. It’s the natural immune response and backlash from people who’ve had enough of: neoliberal economic and foreign policies that exploit and destabilize, progressive cultural domination domestically that feels imposed rather than embraced and organically grown, and institutions that have lied and failed time and again.

Great watch. Toms podcast is great.

@Bobby_2021 True. Its ironic, Western intervention across the world doesn't help countries become more democratic, in fact the opposite happens as they hunker down against it. On the micro, it regresses the development of people as they become defensively dogmatic and traditional, on the macro, countries become politically centralized to secure themselves against outside meddling - or use it as a excuse for something they already wanted to do. Some countries are oppressive and dictatorial by their own agency but no doubt Western influence doesn't help spread the democracy they claim they wish to spread. Western influence has either given dictators excuses to be in power, put dictators in power for their own interests or caused countries to reflexively become dictatorships to shield themselves from interference. A great video and channel for everyone to understand geopolitics: From above: ''In Georgia, one of the fundamental problems is that many NGO's are funded by the west, by the European Union, but to put this in context, the number of NGOs in Georgia is somewhere up to around 10 and a half to 11,000. Now, the country's pretty small - I mean, how many NGOs are there per square kilometer? It's ridiculous, it's totally disproportionate. And I think, as well, what was very telling at the time when they had these protests against this "foreign agent" law, but I don't see why the average Georgian would be remotely concerned about this because it doesn't affect them, it's not an issue for them. And it was quite strange and very telling when several European ministers at that time traveled to Georgia, they actually marched with the protesters and gave speeches in support. And they talk about Russian interference in countries - I mean, it's laughable. The US as well, the state department came out and basically said, "We've warned Georgia of further consequences if the Republic's government does not change." Of course, I mean, talk about dismissing democracy out of hand - it's like, "Well, it's not our democracy, you're not doing what we say, so it's not democratic." Whereas, of course, that's what democracy is. And in fact, the United States' attitude is anything but democratic, it's completely undemocratic. But it comes back to the point in the West, if you elect the wrong political party, they will have to find ways to remove that party and put the government they want in office. Or even in the European Union, we had referendums that were either ignored or, as it happened in the Netherlands or in Ireland, they made them vote three times until they got the result they wanted. I mean, again, that is not democracy. Democracy effectively is an illusion in the West, and democracy is long since being dead. And if people think getting to vote every four or five years is a democracy, I'm sorry, you're being deceived or you're very naive, one of the two, because you cannot seriously believe that it's a democracy in the country you live in because nothing ever changes. The policy decisions just basically are the same from government to government.''

@Joshe For sure man, those conspiracies were out of control. I’m glad we haven’t had to see so much Qanon content this cycle lol. I saw a funny comment which said Project 2025 is like Qanon for Democrats - guess we’ll see if any of it comes true if Trump wins. There’s definitely demagoguery happening, it’s fuel on the fire. There’s enough truth in these grievances to keep people hooked, with enough theatre to keep them raging and loyal to the party and saviour who says he’ll save them. I’d say it’s roughly 60-70% legitimate grievance as the foundation of the movement with the rest being a circus with demagogues as the main act. Thats how I currently see it just by looking at polling data and trends over the decades, what I see online among right wing media and anecdotally from what I’ve heard, seen and felt on the street. The fact that the same pattern is happening in many places where we don’t have such cartoonish showmen like Trump to pull on strings also indicates this isn’t solely due to demagogues.