BadDoggieRenegade
Registered
- Messages
- 82
- Reputation
- 22
- Location
- 757 A/C-236XX Zip Code
- zBucks
- 0
- Sex
- Male
- Race
- Will Not Disclose
- Origin
- USA
Economic/Political 'Yin/Yang'-Critique of Establishment NWO/TRUMPIAN Dogma
Trumpian, aka neo-Libertarian, dogma relies too much on the economic forces being the leveraging determiner of the politics [See the economic analysis of Michael Lind (2012)]. This view disregards the emotional energy of the humanistic ethos of individuals and their collectives. Equally flawed is the Neo-liberal NWO that relies on a political framework in which a preferred economic system exists [The fatal flaw of neoliberalism: it's bad economics by Dani Rodrik (2017)]. This also discounts the provincial and individualistic aspirations of the contrarian niches.
Governance is more the Yin of collective composition of economic arrangements-for their own sake, sorted for a manageable cohesive social order.
Both the Neo-libertarian (Trumpian) and Neo-liberal (NWO-Establishment) dynamics infringe on the integrity of the individual for either economic or political expedience. Because of these infringements the Right and Left extremes are the inherent, consequential and balancing dynamics when the societal order becomes ossified in its non-responsiveness to those L/R-populist objections.
Since the populist dynamics is more an intangible virtue, plus rare and anecdotal social-pathological militant actions by comparative small collectives, they are disregarded until they reach a threatening critical mass of asymmetric action against the authorities in-charge. Even the present-day Trumpists with their political State-rights leverage and martial gun-culture comprise by some estimates less than 25% of the populace. The cohesiveness of that 25% makes them formidable, but not overwhelming without another 15-20% who favor any sort of order for their cultural "well-being".
It's for that extra marginal percentage of people to obtain the political will for either of the competing claims that gives politics its venue of importance. For the unorganized 40% of the remaining 55% only their narrative interpretation of 'in the course of [cultural] events works as the obstruction to the aspirations of the Neo-libertarian/Trumpists and the Neo-liberal/NWO-ist.
[Ed. epilogue-WE are in that 40%. Without a martially-maintained and aligned, political land base that's more than scattered metropolises, we're provincial enclaves of diverse (not bad, per se) cultural expressions as vulnerable to the whims of external forces as any formerly ransacked and plundered economic entities, such as Tulsa of June 1920.]
Trumpian, aka neo-Libertarian, dogma relies too much on the economic forces being the leveraging determiner of the politics [See the economic analysis of Michael Lind (2012)]. This view disregards the emotional energy of the humanistic ethos of individuals and their collectives. Equally flawed is the Neo-liberal NWO that relies on a political framework in which a preferred economic system exists [The fatal flaw of neoliberalism: it's bad economics by Dani Rodrik (2017)]. This also discounts the provincial and individualistic aspirations of the contrarian niches.
Governance is more the Yin of collective composition of economic arrangements-for their own sake, sorted for a manageable cohesive social order.
Both the Neo-libertarian (Trumpian) and Neo-liberal (NWO-Establishment) dynamics infringe on the integrity of the individual for either economic or political expedience. Because of these infringements the Right and Left extremes are the inherent, consequential and balancing dynamics when the societal order becomes ossified in its non-responsiveness to those L/R-populist objections.
Since the populist dynamics is more an intangible virtue, plus rare and anecdotal social-pathological militant actions by comparative small collectives, they are disregarded until they reach a threatening critical mass of asymmetric action against the authorities in-charge. Even the present-day Trumpists with their political State-rights leverage and martial gun-culture comprise by some estimates less than 25% of the populace. The cohesiveness of that 25% makes them formidable, but not overwhelming without another 15-20% who favor any sort of order for their cultural "well-being".
It's for that extra marginal percentage of people to obtain the political will for either of the competing claims that gives politics its venue of importance. For the unorganized 40% of the remaining 55% only their narrative interpretation of 'in the course of [cultural] events works as the obstruction to the aspirations of the Neo-libertarian/Trumpists and the Neo-liberal/NWO-ist.
[Ed. epilogue-WE are in that 40%. Without a martially-maintained and aligned, political land base that's more than scattered metropolises, we're provincial enclaves of diverse (not bad, per se) cultural expressions as vulnerable to the whims of external forces as any formerly ransacked and plundered economic entities, such as Tulsa of June 1920.]