aurum

San Francisco in the 60’s: Key memes: being, not doing. Anti-matierialism, inner happiness.

Found this article on her standing so far: https://morningconsult.com/2023/03/06/marianne-williamson-biden-polling-2024/ And here I think is the most telling statistic: “Just under half of potential Democratic primary voters have heard of Williamson, but only a third have formed views: 20% view Williamson favorably and 13% view her unfavorably.” The way I interpret that, it essentially means no one still knows who she is or what she is about. This is partly why I think 2024 isn’t realistic for her. She just doesn’t yet have the exposure for something like a presidential run. How can you win when almost no one has heard of you? We will see how this number changes over the next two years. I’m sure it will improve. But if she is planning on running again in 2028, it seems like the best move she can make is to use this run to set herself up for that. Think more long-term rather than 2024-or-bust.

I would love to see that. I still suspect atm that her chances for 2024 are nil. But I will be happy to be proven wrong. I do think 2028 could be a serious run for her. She won’t have to unseat an incumbent interparty president. And she will have more exposure and more of a proven track record by then. I also assume Bernie is done running given his age, which means his base needs a new person to rally behind. I think she needs to stick to the strategy she as already been using: just talk about the issues people care about in a way they can relate to. You can talk about God a bit because that’s what you are known for, and Americans still mostly like that. But don’t go into crystal new age land. Because almost no one knew who she was, for one thing. All the people you listed are established politicians. That’s true. That will hurt her chances in a general. But that also hasn’t been the focus of her campaign at all. She is taking a (mostly) secular approach to things, while sprinkling in some spirituality here and there. Which I think is her best strategy. That’s probably true. But Bernie did come close to at least getting the nomination. And I’d argue Biden is more progressive than progressives give him credit. Progressives will not and should not just roll over and play dead. They are going to keep pushing the Overton window. Even if they don’t win, there is some value in that.

She does have the ability to win over some progressives. I feel this is a good representation of how many SD Green progressives view Marianne: In essence, many progressives will see her as kind of woo. But still preferable to SD Blue. The challenge though is that this will be the most charitable response she is likely to get. The lower you go down the spiral, the less people are likely to relate to Marianne. And that happens to still be a huge percentage of the population. Side note, I wonder if Marianne will be Kyle Kulinski’s bridge out of atheism and into spirituality. He seems to respect her. Should be fun to watch what happens.

It’s not correct to blame everything on his Lieutenant. Osho and his teachings both clearly played a huge role in everything that went down. Hosting sex orgies and taking all your follower’s material possessions is probably a good place to start.

He did the same thing in India: https://www.oregonlive.com/rajneesh/1985/07/rajneeshees_leave_legacy_of_un.html Well then that was his mistake. It’s not enough to just attend to your spiritual practices when you are the head guru of spiritual commune of people who worship you. And yet he couldn’t govern his own communes without the whole thing imploding. It was old.

I don’t see that happening. At the end of the day, the Dems will rally behind the nominee. Which will probably be Biden unless he drops out. Just like they did in 2020.

She is running on the democratic ticket, not third party. So it won’t hurt Biden’s chances against the Republicans: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/03/04/marianne-williamson-presidential-campaign-2024.html

It’s possible but I’m not holding my breath. Trump wasn’t trying to take the nomination from an inter-party incumbent president. He actually had quite a lot of things in his favor, as goofy as it sounds. Osho? You mean like I’ve-got-99-rolls-royces-and-don’t-pay-taxes Osho? I’m fleeing the country if that happens lol

Well she is running. The question is whether or not she will win. Which, for better or worse, I sincerely doubt she will. I also assume she must understand her chances seem nil, which makes me wonder what her motivations are. Just to make some noise and seed a message? Practice run for 2028? Maybe both?

I agree with that. This is where I think it gets hairy. Most conservatives are interested in doing just what you described. Perhaps not through genocide or ethnic cleansing. Normie conservatives are not that extreme, and in that way we can draw a distinction. But nonetheless that is often part of the essence of conservatism. It’s a position many conservatives hold who I don’t think rightfully would be labeled fascist. What else is MAGA but a mythical past that can be achieved by the purging of degenerates? This is not a fringe position. Yet not all trump supporters are fascists. Or if you want to say they are fascists, then I argue the term loses its value. Again, this sounds like a slightly more extreme version of the standard conservatism we have today. Many conservatives are very happy with these traditional roles. But I wouldn’t label them fascists per say. I think that’s a good distinction. But one of my points was that this is all relative to how you define what is “normal”. And people do have different opinions on this. Different heuristics and epistemology for how we should even go about answering the question “what is normal?” If you define normal solely through the lens of many progressives, it can start to seem like everything conservative is fascism. Abortion rollbacks become fascism because to some progressives, abortion is “normal” and “obvious”. LGBTQ rollbacks are fascism because LGBTQ rights are “normal” and “obvious”. Of course not every progressive is thinking this way. But I’ve seen it enough that I think it’s worth mentioning. I agree with all that. Good video, I think he has a real point about fascism being more about personality and motivation than particular opinions. I still find his heuristics for fascism vs conservatism lacking, but perfection is not necessary to pragmatically avoid fascist traps. It’s a solid explanation overall.

Notice the fighting and lack of integration with SD Blue / Orange.

Yes. I think those are some better pragmatic heuristics. Certainly democracy is more fundamental than any particular political opinion and crucial to maintain. And political violence should also be a clear sign that a line has been crossed.

I agree that we can and should make a distinction between fascism and conservatism. And that some of today’s modern conservatives have legitimately slid into a territory that should be labeled fascism. I think what I am getting stuck on with this topic the degree of relativity when it comes to labeling things as fascism. For instance, @DocWatts you say that normal conservatives will be open to basic human rights already extended within the overton window and not eradicate them. And I think that’s a good rule of thumb to distinguish between healthy and more toxic conservatism. However, the whole problem is that progressives and conservatives do not sometimes agree on what is a “basic” human right in the first place. A progressive might argue that LGBTQ marriage is a basic human right, while the conservative does not see it that way at all. Does that make the conservative a fascist? Whose relative definition of a “right” are we using? The error I feel I see a lot of SD Green progressives make is that they are implicitly assuming that their relative definition of “rights” are political truths are actually absolute. And they are not. This leads to a noticeable amount of progressives labeling conservatives “fascist” when that label really just doesn’t fit. Or, the label itself just become pointless because essentially conservatism = fascism in their mind. @EmeraldTo use your example, if conservatives rolled back the majority of the progress that has been made for the LGBTQ community, I would appose it. But I would not generally call it fascism. I would call it conservatism. Rolling back LGBTQ is precisely what conservatives are interested in. We also saw this with the overturn of Roe V Wade. Many progressives called it fascist. When in reality, this is just what conservatives want. This is what conservatives fighting against “crazy social experiments” looks like. To them, abortion IS dangerous leftism out of control. My concern here that a) we become unable to distinguish between conservatism and actual fascism and b) an increase in political polarization by labeling those who disagree with you as fascists. This labeling does not come without a cost and needs to be applied accurately.

It really seems to be like fascism is just conservatism taken to its most extreme. Almost all of these points could be made of standard republican conservatives we have in the US. And yet I don’t see them necessarily as fascists. It’s more like fascism-lite.

Interview from Tubby Love, guy in the video: “TJ: What kind of spiritual influences do you have in your life? What pulls you? TL: *singing* “Jah Love is everywhere!” Jah man. TJ: So Rastafari? TL: I believe that Rastafari is one way to say it, but it’s the same. It’s all the same to me. TJ: Just God. Just Jah. TL: Yup I and I. Like I said earlier, I’m a sprit inside of a body, and I feel like the breath of life, Aloha, the breath of life is in everything. Everything is alive. Everything is moving. These walls around us are made out of trees. You know what I’m saying? It’s all connected. I believe in the connection of all things, and I believe that’s what I and I is. I am this, I am that, I am comma that. So the same breath that is in me is in all beings. I and I! “

Andrew Rousso is mostly Green. This a good example. Key memes: anti-producitivty, worker unionization, government regulations

@Michael569 Been through this same internal struggle A LOT. The solution for me has been taking on a 9-5 that at least puts me in the right direction of my LP, even if it’s not exactly what I’m looking for. So I’m able to get the capital I need while still feeling close to in alignment with what I want to do in the future, plus building skills. If that’s not an option for you, then I’d say you just have to weigh the benefit of the extra capital with time loss on your LP. No perfect solution here.

*scientist opens up Leo’s skull after death* *sees only a paper note with writing* * “The brain is imaginary, you fool” * *scientist Awakens on the spot*

None of that means women are “too picky”. You are defining pickiness relative to what is good for your dating life. But consider that is your problem, not the problem of women. Consider instead what is in the best interest of women.

Yes it’s related. “Whiny” can be similar to having a victim mentality.

More like: Liberalism wants to address larger societal problems related to patriarchy and toxic masculinity which lead to rape. This correlates with an increase in responsibility for men and all those in power to not abuse it. It’s not about victim mentality, it’s about a leveling of power dynamics and higher ethical standards. That’s what Green cares about. Of course some progressives can get stuck in victim mentality. But to smear all this as being “woke” or “being a victim” is precisely the error the right wing is making. That is a strawman and cherrypicking.

Yes, feminism and acillary progressive ideologies are demolishing traditional ideas of what it means to be a man or a woman. This is not a mistake, this is the evolution of consciousness and natural consequence of societal development. But there will be challenges on all sides. Those who cling to their old identity will see said new ideologies as wrong, bad or evil. They will lash out and feel confused. There may be an existential crisis. This is how it always works when the ego is threatened. With all these emotions being stirred up, this does create a market for grifters to exploit. And most of the time these grifters themselves will not even be conscious of what they are doing. They are suffering from the exact same problem. They also are subscribed to these reactionary ideologies. Thus, it's fearful men selling to other fearful men. Men are going to have to redefine masculinity outside of what it previously meant. Which may include some of the traditional elements, but also will likely exclude others. Transcend and include. Of course this does not explain ALL of the behavior found in these alt-right communities. Some guys are just pissed because they've been through a real bad divorce / breakup and these anti-women narratives appeal to their bitterness. But there is a larger dynamic going on outside of that.

@Someone here Of course some liberals can be very immature and irresponsible. But I’d argue your read of the room is off. A liberal who has made it to stage Green tends to actually be more responsible than conservatives. What you interpret as liberals not taking personal responsibility is actually an increase in their circle of concern. Which transcends and includes personal responsibility.