Western democracies are no longer fit for purpose. - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15139401
Random American wrote:I disagree, I think that such a stupid position would be rejected by the political body. The problem with direct democracy is that there are too many people to vote on every single issue.


I think total direct democracy on every law/policy may not be practical as you say. What I would start with is to vote on a direction for each key policy issue. Ie: defense, trade, immigration, environment etc. Or possibly to have the people vote on each member of the cabinet. The cabinet would then have to broker with other to form a cohesive government direction. Or some kind of system along those lines.

When we vote for one candidate from one party to decide everything then every issue goes under one umbrella so everyone is forced to be ideological rather than pragmatic. There's no room in our current systems for any voter who is, say, to the right on taxes but to the left on environment. It's all or nothing.
#15139435
lancer345 wrote:
The fundamental problem in Western democracies is that neoliberalism has supplanted every other ideology.
That is, the economy and by extension the profitability goals of large corporations, has become the highest good.
Not the welfare of the citizenry at large.

I saw a good quote on another forum, which said that in the neoliberalist system, the only highest values are labor force and consumers.



You have a *contradiction* here -- which are the 'highest values', currently -- the economy and corporations, or the labor force and consumers? (Or the welfare of the citizenry at large?)


lancer345 wrote:
Those are the only values to be increased which drive GDP. Under such a premise, it's easy to see why capitalist countries promote open borders and mass immigration.
They don't care who gets in, as long as more labor and consumers come in. At the expense of everything else.



You're thinking of *business* interests here -- employers -- for cheaper skilled labor. Look into the H1B immigration issue, for example, around the high tech sector.

Politicians, though, *never* call for 'open borders', because their industry is *nationalism*.


Prosthetic Conscience wrote:
Shakespeare is a particularly poor example. He didn't rely on printers at all; his works are performed (and he is thought to have been one of the original performers, for that matter). He got well known in Elizabethan and Jacobean London by word of mouth about what his *professional* company were doing.



Okay, yeah, thanks -- not into Shakespeare myself, so I didn't know the history offhand.


Prosthetic Conscience wrote:
What printing did for Shakespeare was keep his plays alive for later generations. What you're doing is like crediting a present-day DJ for playing some Chuck Berry and saying "Berry was just a hobbyist, without the guy deciding to play it on the air".



Oh, you're objecting to the *qualitative aspect* of the artist that I characterized as being a 'hobbyist' -- to clarify, I meant it in the *marketing* sense, that someone with minimal exposure of their works to the public view would be relatively unknown, compared to anything that is mass-marketed, but of dubious quality.


---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
What I would start with is to vote on a direction for each key policy issue. Ie: defense, trade, immigration, environment etc.



I'll *second* this general approach to a direct-democracy-type politics, and also note that my 'labor credits' model includes this kind of general-demands-to-specific-proposals path of refinement:



[A]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.)



https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions
#15139688
Potemkin wrote:"He who does not work, neither should he eat." Lenin called this "the fundamental slogan of socialism". Good to know you're one of us, @Oxymoron! :up: :D

Oxymoron did NOT say that people should benefit one another.

He said that they should "benefit" society.

These are not the same thing at all. If society asks you to release the Xyklon-B, drop chemicals on farmers in the Third World, or to ignore your children and concentrate on useless spreadsheets all day, Oxymoron supports this in the same way that a dog supports running after sticks (though this activity is of no use to dog-kind).

For Oxy, we have a duty to serve our masters, rather than nature or each other.

ckaihatsu wrote:professionalization / substitutionism is that it's inherently *elitist*


This allows a certain percentage of the population to NOT SERVE other humans, and yet claim to be SERVING SOCIETY.
#15139691
QatzelOk wrote:Oxymoron did NOT say that people should benefit one another.

He said that they should "benefit" society.

These are not the same thing at all. If society asks you to release the Xyklon-B, drop chemicals on farmers in the Third World, or to ignore your children and concentrate on useless spreadsheets all day, Oxymoron supports this in the same way that a dog supports running after sticks (though this activity is of no use to dog-kind).

For Oxy, we have a duty to serve our masters, rather than nature or each other.

.


If you read what I wrote you would know you are misstating what I am supporting. I wrote that as long as Society is living up to its side of the bargain, which is to create a comparatively safe and just environment ... If those conditions are not met, then you have no real duty to the state.
#15139694
I have faith in Western democracy. But I think it is ultimately up to the citizens of Western countries to ensure that Western democracy survives. If the people become complacent or take democracy for granted then I think democracy will not survive. You can't take democracy for granted or become complacent when a threat to democracy emerges. People have to be willing to or able to participate for Western democracy to work. Of course, people with power will want to suppress the ability of some people to participate in democracy.
#15139714
Politics_Observer wrote:
I have faith in Western democracy. But I think it is ultimately up to the citizens of Western countries to ensure that Western democracy survives. If the people become complacent or take democracy for granted then I think democracy will not survive. You can't take democracy for granted or become complacent when a threat to democracy emerges. People have to be willing to or able to participate for Western democracy to work. Of course, people with power will want to suppress the ability of some people to participate in democracy.



Given that, do you have any comment on how the 2000 U.S. presidential election went down?

Part of the ongoing exchanges at another thread covers this topic:


ckaihatsu wrote:
But the SCOTUS arbitrarily *imposed* a deadline, cutting off recounts, in the 2000 election.



wat0n wrote:
One necessary for the EC to meet. Besides, the Republicans were still winning in the recount in FL I think.



ckaihatsu wrote:
So if the cutoff was imposed *arbitrarily*, that favored the Republican Party at that point in the recount, then how is that in the spirit of democracy?

The 2000 election was statistically comparable to a coin-flip.



viewtopic.php?p=15139626#p15139626
#15139777
Oxymoron wrote:If you read what I wrote you would know you are misstating what I am supporting. I wrote that as long as Society is living up to its side of the bargain, which is to create a comparatively safe and just environment ... If those conditions are not met, then you have no real duty to the state.

I understand what you wrote better now.

So let me ask another question: how do you know if "society" has created a safe and just environment?

By watching the media that society has created?

By talking to the people that society has created?

How can you "leave society" enough to be able to judge "what it has done" adequately to determine whether you should have any duty to your state? How can you get far enough away from it not to believe its lies about itself?
#15139785
lancer345 wrote:
The fundamental problem in Western democracies is that neoliberalism has supplanted every other ideology.
That is, the economy and by extension the profitability goals of large corporations, has become the highest good.
Not the welfare of the citizenry at large.

I saw a good quote on another forum, which said that in the neoliberalist system, the only highest values are labor force and consumers.
Those are the only values to be increased which drive GDP. Under such a premise, it's easy to see why capitalist countries promote open borders and mass immigration.
They don't care who gets in, as long as more labor and consumers come in. At the expense of everything else.



Tainari posted this video to the 'America Compared' thread, and it documents the effects of neoliberalism on workers' wages in the U.S.:


America Compared - Why Other Countries Treat Their People So Much Better

#15139826
QatzelOk wrote:I understand what you wrote better now.

So let me ask another question: how do you know if "society" has created a safe and just environment?

By watching the media that society has created?

By talking to the people that society has created?

How can you "leave society" enough to be able to judge "what it has done" adequately to determine whether you should have any duty to your state? How can you get far enough away from it not to believe its lies about itself?


In my case I can compare where I came from to where I am, as far as how the State behaves toward the individual. Also there are many studies that show Humans, and other primates are very good at discovering injustice. There is a case where two Chimps were rewarded for some behavior in a Lab, they were each given the same some basic food as reward. Now they began to feed one Monkey Bananas as rewards but the other Monkey got the same basic food, after a few times the Monkey not getting the Bananas lost its shit, and stopped complying and went berserk. If Society, or even a private enterprise does not create an atmosphere with equality of opportunity then shit will hit the fan at some point. Now you will come back to be about the huge disparity between the 1% and the rest, I will counter as long as everyone has an opportunity the disparity of outcomes is natural. In a system with many opportunities the best people will reach levels that seem unfair, but this is balanced by the overall growth of society. If things get better for all, even at different levels this is still a healthy and vibrant society. Especially when you have the freedom to grow to any level you want, depending on your work ethic, your diligence, and your intelligence.
#15139829
Oxymoron wrote:...If things get better for all, even at different levels this is still a healthy and vibrant society. Especially when you have the freedom to grow to any level you want, depending on your work ethic, your diligence, and your intelligence.

My personal experience is that I was finally able to be myself and enjoy my life... when I got accepted into a socialist housing cooperative. Nothing fancy or luxurious, but I was finally able to "not worry" about having a house over my head.

This is the ultimate freedom. The freedom to have a roof over your head, food on the table, and social contacts.

Image
San Francisco's Beaux-Arts City Hall - built during the City Beautiful movement - demonstrates the elite's commitment to high-quality architecture for themselves
#15139844
QatzelOk wrote:My personal experience is that I was finally able to be myself and enjoy my life... when I got accepted into a socialist housing cooperative. Nothing fancy or luxurious, but I was finally able to "not worry" about having a house over my head.

This is the ultimate freedom. The freedom to have a roof over your head, food on the table, and social contacts.

Image
San Francisco's Beaux-Arts City Hall - built during the City Beautiful movement - demonstrates the elite's commitment to high-quality architecture for themselves


Listen I have no issue people organizing themselves into cooperatives, socialist or not.
I actually think coops are a great idea on the local level, it creates a sense of community if run properly that is.
At the same time they usually hamper those who are more free spirited, so having a choice is the key here.
#15139850
Oxymoron wrote:Listen I have no issue people organizing themselves into cooperatives, socialist or not.
I actually think coops are a great idea on the local level, it creates a sense of community if run properly that is.
At the same time they usually hamper those who are more free spirited, so having a choice is the key here.

Whatever your personal opinions on this or that housing model, the USA (and Canada, and...) is screwed housing-wise.

This is what its "Western Democracy" has created.

Tent cities and SUVs. Empty hotels and parking lots where forests used to be.
#15139989
B0ycey wrote:
Right, the structure problem isn't democracy but Capitalism. Corporations are using their money to buy out your politicians for their advantage. You don't have that problem in Europe so think of it like that. So all I can say is that perhaps democracy is still fit for purpose but an end to the two party system and a cap on election spending is needed.
I agree capitalism is the problem, economics specifically finance is now inseparable from politics. This has led to croney capitalism. Also party politics is complicating democracy which does not, like economics, have to be adversarial. We, the electorate, have to get past adversariality and look for commonality. Accepting a true multilateralism not just political correctness. This should have goals of justice, equity & unity at all levels.
#15139990
lancer345 wrote:
Believe me, Europe is very corrupt too. Though I wouldn't call it corruption, that's very third world (officials taking bribes, etc). I would rather call it plutocratic democracy. That is, access to power is limited and controlled, and government itself is increasingly tyrannical to protect the political power of those that wield it.

I believe we need a ground up revamping of our systems. And it's not going to happen tomorrow.
There is a concept in political philosophy stating that any system protects itself. The type of reforms needed threaten the system, so its protecting itself against reform and becoming more tyrannical in nature.

What I believe we're going to evolve towards is direct rule by corporations and even more crackdowns until every freedom is eroded.
We the people are the parts of the system. We need to stick together against corporate elite.
#15140006
B0ycey wrote:Corporations are using their money to buy out your politicians for their advantage. You don't have that problem in Europe so think of it like that.

Really? People like Angela Merkel remain in power for such long stints because they are just so fantastically popular with the masses? It has nothing to do with corporate titans influencing the electorate, even though they are capitalist countries with capitalist companies too? Well, isn't that fascinating?

lancer345 wrote:Believe me, Europe is very corrupt too. Though I wouldn't call it corruption, that's very third world (officials taking bribes, etc). I would rather call it plutocratic democracy. That is, access to power is limited and controlled, and government itself is increasingly tyrannical to protect the political power of those that wield it.

This is a very concise description of establishment politicians in the United States. This is why anti-Trumpism is so rabid--they didn't control his rise to power, and he didn't do what they wanted.

lancer345 wrote:The type of reforms needed threaten the system, so its protecting itself against reform and becoming more tyrannical in nature.

That's why there is no celebration of any Biden victory, because it is obvious the populism behind Trump is not only viable, but stronger than it was in 2016.

lancer345 wrote:What I believe we're going to evolve towards is direct rule by corporations and even more crackdowns until every freedom is eroded.

That's the whole point of coronavirus, and why they're talking about a "reset," which will be characterized by a total loss of freedom. People who are afraid of dying of coronavirus are the kind of people who will willingly give up freedom for a false illusion of security.

B0ycey wrote:But it is more common in a one party system.

Including a one party system that purports to be a two party system.

B0ycey wrote:Because you can always vote out a corrupt official in a democracy.

Really? Biden came in 4th in Iowa, 5th in New Hampshire and 2nd in Nevada. Harris dropped out before polling even started. Yet, people with more delegates than Biden, for some reason, dropped out of the race and put their support behind someone they were beating at the polls? This theory of yours is why you can oppose the Iraq War and it doesn't matter if you continue to believe in a two party system. Who signed the "regime change" policy for Iraq? If you said "George W. Bush," take a bite of a shit sandwich. That was Bill Clinton in 1998. Who voted to give George W. Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq? Senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden among others. Did Obama promise to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Yes. Did he do it? No.

Verv wrote:It would make sense to have very autocratic, rigid elements in place to protect the sanctity of the rights, and to make any attempts at institutional capture difficult. Since they themselves would be limited by tradition & caste to the roles that they have, they would also be incapable of taking over the institutions that share the other half of the power.

Sounds like a feudal system with a monarchy.

Atlantis wrote:What is destroying democracies are populism and conspiracy theories

Ha! Well, then democracies are too fragile to stand.

Atlantis wrote:Democracies require an independent media. That's why the populists attack the media.

No. They attack the media because it's controlled by six globalist corporations. That is, they aren't independent media at all. It's comical when Trump fans stop watching FoxNews and their ratings crater to below CNN levels, and the rest of the so-called mainstream media starts defending FoxNews. It tells you a lot about the nature the corporations.

Atlantis wrote:While the US plutocracy is steadily marching towards fascism, the EU is the last remaining bulwark of democracy in the world.

Nobody wants fascism. Even the people of Nazi Germany didn't really want fascism. They wanted an end to the depredations of globalists, be they capitalist or communist. Europe has seen the rise of all sorts of right of center parties recently.

Atlantis wrote:Why are you hell-bent on once again destroying your country?

Germany wasn't destroyed by Hitler, but rather by the allies--and not without good reason, as he was trying to destroy them too. People don't want to destroy their countries. They simply don't want to be ruled by neoliberal/neoconservative types anymore.

Wat0n wrote:I actually think there may be issues for which Western liberal democracy may be having trouble to deal with. But I don't think the alternatives are doing that much better either.

Well, there is always a persistent problem with a non-performing class of people, and it is in part because there are reasons other than Marxian analysis for these problems. Marxian analysis over simplifies and asserts that everything is class and economics and power struggle. For whatever reason, that's the sort of analysis that prevails in a so-called democracies as well as dictatorships in spite of rather obvious empirical evidence to the contrary that we need something beyond class struggles and so forth to address some of societies persistent problems. In a large population you will always have:

1. Anti-social Personalities: Sociopaths generally need to be imprisoned--no respect whatsoever for the life or property of others. Psychopaths often should be too, but they are frequently leading large organizations because they lie with alacrity and have an ability to manipulate people to work in larger groups. Then, you have your narcissists (they will never be compatible with socialism, except joining the party apparatus and self-dealing), people with borderline personality disorder (run hot and cold with people and parties), and oppositional-defiance disorder (always confront and reject authority).

2. Mentally ill: Chronic schizophrenics, manic-depressives, depressives, and perpetually anxious people generally cannot perform well consistently. Some can create great art works, etc., but many are non-functional and problematic in ordinary production environments.

3. Addicts: You have a class of people who are often co-morbidly mentally ill who cannot perform, because they are physically dependent on exogenous ligands that dissociate them from reality or over-stimulate them to the point of schizophrenic or manic-like behavior.

4. Low IQ/Mentally Handicapped: In a normal distribution (Bell Curve), you always have a percentage of the population that is mentally incapable of performing productive tasks. Frankly, they are just idiots.

5. Physically Handicapped: You will also have people who were born with congenital birth defects and people who were seriously injured at work or at leisure or otherwise; and, those who come down with a disease like Lou Gehrigs or MS or something, who are no longer able to perform some physical tasks.

6. Non-heterosexuals: Homosexuals, transgenders, etc. frequently struggle with mental illness, addiction or borderline personality and psychopathy. Forcing the rest of society to accommodate them does not address the problems they frequently face.

All of these people, at times, tend to be a drain on a society. Such people generally break the ideals of egalitarianism as well, because most probably about 80% of the society do not fall into that set of conditions and struggle with the probably about 20% who do.

Then, you throw in the race and culture mixing through mass immigration, problems of language adoption, acculturation and assimilation and you have yet another set of problems expressly created by the neoliberals. Much of a population can tolerate some of this. However, some significant percentage of the population cannot--very often including my enumerated list above--and it leads to further social problems. Increase it to a biblical mass of Babel where people cannot speak to each other, because they don't share a common language and you end up with very serious discord.

That's why I no longer have an deep faith in egalitarianism or in universalism, of which globalism is just one variant.
#15140008
@blackjack21 , I had read your earlier comment in reply, but I wanted to respond to your thoughts here, as they are related;



Well, there is always a persistent problem with a non-performing class of people, and it is in part because there are reasons other than Marxian analysis for these problems. Marxian analysis over simplifies and asserts that everything is class and economics and power struggle. For whatever reason, that's the sort of analysis that prevails in a so-called democracies as well as dictatorships in spite of rather obvious empirical evidence to the contrary that we need something beyond class struggles and so forth to address some of societies persistent problems.


These past few years I have been a Socialist of sorts, while placing Marx and Marxists in a kind of bubble where I could ignore them or use them as needed in my analysis and polemics with others, rather inconsistently. I knew that their critique of Capitalism has been correct, sure, and I always thought Socialism would be possible but an imperfect solution in an imperfect world, but I've still held to it.

Marx was a Revolutionary first and foremost, and so his analysis of Capitalism was always going to be negative, but always geared towards Revolution as the solution. Revolution to such people is far more important psychologically than what comes after the revolution. That's why his analysis of Capitalism was purely materialistic and deterministic, dealing with the economic issues with that ''a priori'' thinking. A tree is known by it's fruits, and if the fruits are mass murder, misery, and dislocation, then it cannot possibly be right even if the whole world rigorously is convinced that it is true. Socialism then would be a mirage at least to these people, a fig leaf over their unconscious desires, with the real roots of these groups lying in hatred and destruction. They're not blinded by idealism, but the desire to steal and kill and destroy. Nothing they even try to build lasts a single human lifetime. They are Civilization gone mad.



Then, you throw in the race and culture mixing through mass immigration, problems of language adoption, acculturation and assimilation and you have yet another set of problems expressly created by the neoliberals. Much of a population can tolerate some of this. However, some significant percentage of the population cannot--very often including my enumerated list above--and it leads to further social problems. Increase it to a biblical mass of Babel where people cannot speak to each other, because they don't share a common language and you end up with very serious discord.


Theirs is a coalition united only by hate for specific groups of people, otherwise they are continually at each other's throats. Literally, ''Pandemonium''.

That's why I no longer have an deep faith in egalitarianism or in universalism, of which globalism is just one variant.


I never fully had that faith in egalitarianism or universalism to begin with, mixing within me with my other beliefs like oil and water, quite uneasily. And so many who hold to it are the absolute worst and most wretchedly degenerate of persons, yet full of a ''passionate intensity'' as Yeats once wrote.
#15140014
B0ycey wrote:Corporations are using their money to buy out your politicians for their advantage. You don't have that problem in Europe so think of it like that.

blackjack21 wrote:Really? People like Angela Merkel remain in power for such long stints because they are just so fantastically popular with the masses? It has nothing to do with corporate titans influencing the electorate, even though they are capitalist countries with capitalist companies too? Well, isn't that fascinating?

Yes, really. Spending on elections in Europe is a fraction of that in the USA.

State and local laws limit campaign billboards to a few weeks before the election. State laws limit campaign advertising in radio and television to a few spots that are allotted in the month preceding the election. By an agreement among the states, the political parties may not purchase any advertising time on radio or television, and are thereby limited to the few officially granted campaign spots.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-f ... ermany.php

That makes a huge difference. The 2008 US election spent $5.3 billion, and it's just rocketed since then. Germany spent about €550 million in an election year around then.
#15140016
annatar1914 wrote:These past few years I have been a Socialist of sorts, while placing Marx and Marxists in a kind of bubble where I could ignore them or use them as needed in my analysis and polemics with others, rather inconsistently. I knew that their critique of Capitalism has been correct, sure, and I always thought Socialism would be possible but an imperfect solution in an imperfect world, but I've still held to it.


For me, Marx was the one who best expressed the importance of an economy based on respecting each human beings sovereignty, rather than "giving" most people's sovereignty to a Master figure. He was not the first to describe what a moral economy might look like, but he was the most succinct and thorough in his day (and ours).

Marx was a Revolutionary first and foremost

No. First and foremost, he was a moralizer. A priest figure.

... united only by hate for specific groups of people...

In the absence of an economy based on morality and indivdual human sovereignty (non-slavery), ALL our controlling groups ("the elite") function like this. They are all exclusionary hate-mongers - all our capitalist "clubs."
#15140017
Oxymoron wrote:
In my case I can compare where I came from to where I am, as far as how the State behaves toward the individual. Also there are many studies that show Humans, and other primates are very good at discovering injustice. There is a case where two Chimps were rewarded for some behavior in a Lab, they were each given the same some basic food as reward. Now they began to feed one Monkey Bananas as rewards but the other Monkey got the same basic food, after a few times the Monkey not getting the Bananas lost its shit, and stopped complying and went berserk. If Society, or even a private enterprise does not create an atmosphere with equality of opportunity then shit will hit the fan at some point.


Oxymoron wrote:
Now you will come back to be about the huge disparity between the 1% and the rest, I will counter as long as everyone has an opportunity the disparity of outcomes is natural. In a system with many opportunities the best people will reach levels that seem unfair, but this is balanced by the overall growth of society. If things get better for all, even at different levels this is still a healthy and vibrant society. Especially when you have the freedom to grow to any level you want, depending on your work ethic, your diligence, and your intelligence.



There *is no* 'overall growth' of society when certain people are reaching unfair levels due to their ownership of vast amounts of *private property*. Things *don't* get better for all, hence the huge disparity between the top 1% and the rest.

People would have a better 'freedom to grow' if the *floor* was raised, meaning providing everyone with the basics of modern life and living, which is being produced anyway, due to industrialization of society's productive processes. With better *distribution* the stuff would actually go to those who *need* the stuff, capitalist exchange values notwithstanding. These factors of modern production have *nothing* to do with the individual -- as though industrial production depended on people's 'character'.


Oxymoron wrote:
Listen I have no issue people organizing themselves into cooperatives, socialist or not.
I actually think coops are a great idea on the local level, it creates a sense of community if run properly that is.
At the same time they usually hamper those who are more free spirited, so having a choice is the key here.



Without agreeing with your reactionary politics, I'll proffer the following diagram, that shows the problematic with much anarchist / left-lifestylist localist-type thinking, that *combines* the social modes of work roles, with localist *community*-type living and consumption, to necessarily unsatisfactory ends.


Rotation system of work roles

Spoiler: show
Image



---


blackjack21 wrote:
1. Anti-social Personalities: Sociopaths generally need to be imprisoned--no respect whatsoever for the life or property of others. Psychopaths often should be too, but they are frequently leading large organizations because they lie with alacrity and have an ability to manipulate people to work in larger groups. Then, you have your narcissists (they will never be compatible with socialism, except joining the party apparatus and self-dealing), people with borderline personality disorder (run hot and cold with people and parties), and oppositional-defiance disorder (always confront and reject authority).



Why don't you apply this personalist kind of analysis to *Trump*, whose *politics* itself are personalist -- ?


blackjack21 wrote:
All of these people, at times, tend to be a drain on a society.



What is society *for*, except for *people*, of all kinds, ultimately -- ?


blackjack21 wrote:
race and culture mixing



Racist.


blackjack21 wrote:
Increase it to a biblical mass of Babel where people cannot speak to each other, because they don't share a common language and you end up with very serious discord.



It's called 'Google Translate', and 'Wikipedia' -- look into it:


https://translate.google.com/

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10

I am not familiar with China's history but how do[…]

How to deal with Trump?

Because they get to go to jail when they are lyin[…]

US bombs Syria

*My* take is that the U.S. empire *needs* the r[…]

@Verv , @Potemkin , @Political Interest , an[…]