"The collectivist ideal is not just emotion, it's a false philosophical premise to which their emotions are attached." I am suggesting the beginning of the collectivist mind starts with internal psychological reliance on emotion only. More reliance on emotion than on thinking in early life results in a fearful attitude towards life, which collectivism feeds on.
At that point, people adopt collectivism philosophically. But the real REASON for sticking with collectivisim is not that it works, but that it continues to "feel right" in the emotionally controlled life.

I wil agree that the "leaders" want the social control and goodies that always accrue to them. But the masses go along with them emotionally as they have always done.

I postulate this as the reason the mass of people are unaffected by arguments based on reason. Thats not why they adopted collectivisim in the frist place.

The leaders' collectivist ideal is definitely control. But they get their power from people who are attracted emotionally because thats all they guide their lives by.

I think it all happens very early in life where the young people do not make the transition from helpless infants to being able to control their own lives.

The more paperwork, the more they feel as if they have accomplished something. They're morons. I propose that no new law or document of any kind should run to no more than 50 pages. Any more than that, and it's already too complicated to be understood. They do that in order to obfuscate the true intention of the document. Washington is not a swamp, it is an abyss, and even Trump will not succeed in draining it entirely.

I think my argument boils down to why collectivism is so addictive to humans. I say it’s what it emotionally promises that is so addictive that they go along with the ideas of collectivism , not because they have rationally thought about it, and regardless of the dismal failures of socialism

I think it’s basic human emotion that enables the blind addiction to collectivism. I think hillary’s Slogan “stronger together” , to which I would add “weaker alone” was spot on.

Carry this forward to what’s happening today- - the liberals don’t want a fixed constitution. liberals feel more secure with all people’s “together”. Liberals hate the whole idea of a trump who kind of made it in his own. I think the rise of collectivism is to justify and validate their emotional lay based decision. That’s why rational discussion with collectivists goes nowhere. It’s like trying to extract eels from a bucke. They just slip through one’s fingers. Sorry for ramblingt

I think what I don’t get is the purpose of the collectivism for the great mass of humanity that seems to be attracted to it. I get it that the leaders want power, but what does it offer the followers? That’s why I suggest that it’s the promise of mindless emotional coddling that attracts people. The whole collectivist philosophy comes later to justify it and support the idea that it’s achievable. I just have real problems understanding how the great mass of people even understand the philosophical underpinnings of collectivism. I would suggest the driving force is rooted somehow in some sort of fear of how they are going to deal with their own emotions. Think about it

The collectivist ideal is not just emotion, it's a false philosophical premise to which their emotions are attached.

Pragmatism and the Progressive version of socialism have no final objective. But the goal of socialism is collectivist control; from there it is just a sequence of variations.

More likely their aides' cousins brothers uncles secretary.

True enough. I am thinking their real goal is to be coddled into emotional nirvana, They want everything to guarantee their feel good state. If I am right, this a really amorphous and no wonder they can never get there. Socialism keeps promising that so it’s attractive. But a system based on the supremacy of emotion cannot work

"Equality" is their stated goal. However, arguably, the only place all mankind is "truly equal" is in the graveyard and the most stringent socialist/communist systems have been highly successful in making millions of people prematurely "truly equal". There is their end game.

That is all true and goes back to my premise we do not have 2 parties, with different ideology, or even premises, they both have the desire to rule, control and dominate, and take the spoils for themselves. Power is at the center of it. I just believe that there is a group, which includes both parties within, who are part of the "one world government" movement, and see themselves as the head of that government. People like that are deluded, because even if they got there, they would just fight among themselves until only one was left. The Constitution was left behind 80 years or more ago.

So when they try to get some sort of sympathetic sc judge appointed, what is the real end game of socialism, if there is one? Or is there no end game, but just a continual amorphous search for some emotional nirvana?

How would leftists know they finally achieved their objective?

The left doesn't think it's good for the country. They keep the pressure on to try to break whatever momentum the Republicans have, driving for a critical point at which everything would begin unraveling in favor of the Democrats in elections, impeachment, and who knows what else.

Republicans now support Roosevelt, Social Security, Obamacare, and a lot more programs based on collectivist premises. They are not in Washington just "to protect well paying jobs." They want the power and pander to those who vote for them. Look at the ideas driving that support, not 'job protection', as the motive. It is much deeper than a "political process run amok".

Yes, they are reading it. All of it, to find anything they can to interpret in using it in a politically damaging way. They disingenuously pretend to want documentation on which to decide when they already know; what they mean but don't say is that they want whatever they can get to use in a campaign to get others to oppose Kavanaugh or the Republicans on anything https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

They know Kavanaugh's position against racial profiling. The left always calls that "racist".

(Please proofread your posts.)

Yes, but it is such a poster board story of just what their tactics and policies are. Make up your maind as you are told, don't support anything that they do, even if it is good for the people and the country, it is all about the drive to one world and one state, and the dictator that will rule us all. They don't care about the constitution, that was proven in 1932 with Roosevelt and Social Security. It is all part of their defense of the Plan. Kabuki theater with yammering cast.

Of course they aren’t reading it. Any of it. When you announce you will oppose any nominee, and then double down the day the notion monation happens by public ally reiterating you will vote against, your cries about documents are utter bullshite. As if that isn’t enough, Booker’s “see he is a racist in these documents I’m beroicslly not breaking rules by releasing these pages@ fiasco showed Kavanaugh against racial profiling. Clearly not only is he not reading it, neither does his staff.

Who's the clown who 'downvoted' a fact?

They start by convincing themselves that it's justified, then vaguely imagine it somehow "working" and impose various kinds of force to try to create what they imagine. When it doesn't "work" they try something else, endlessly, never losing the ideal moral 'vision'. They never question if the moral goal is proper. It doesn't have a 100% failure rate to them because none of it matters in comparison with the moral goal. That's what progressivism is (in the early 1900s sense, not the New Left): empowering expert bureaucracies to progressively change rules and restrictions "pragmatically" to achieve what they imagine socialism doing if fully implemented with their intended imagines outcome.

Bingo Bango bongo, you hit for the cycle with your response Dr Zarkov99.
Many Blacks for Trump.
Funny most of the moderate dems that I know ignore the hard leftist shift of the party and see any example as just a goofy extremist and most dems are not name calling or anti-Fa ...and don't want to get rid of ICE .so there is nothing wrong .
I guess as the saying goes don't argue with stupid as they will bring you down to their level and beat you with expirience.

Trey Gowdy's take on the Kavanaugh hearings in 7 mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-MAB...

I wonder about the purpose of continuing something that has 100% failure rate. Perhaps we are talking about to sides if the same thing. They are emotionally attracted to socialism and need to keep the hope of socialism alive. Then they justify the endeavor by convincing themselves its justified.

Good god EVW, you hit home!

They do read, and their hysterical "squawking" is contrived demagoguery. They didn't care what was in the ever-changing Obamacare bill -- beyond whatever it took to keep enough of a coalition together to pass it -- because it wasn't intended to be a lasting plan, only establish more power and more precedent for government control, while making such a mess of health care nationally that they expected people to beg for more government control in the next round.

It's much more than "keeping a hope alive". "Hope" isn't the goal, they promote their moral ideal of collectivism and sacrifice to spread it, and they rely on it to the extent it is already intellectually and psychologically entrenched. As long as they have that, their stabs at statist policies don't have to work; they can always try something else and something more extreme, consolidating more power.

The disasters tell people they are unhappy; it doesn't tell them what is right. The only significant political opposition the left has had to worry about is the Republican theme of 'me too but slower', which is only a variation on the process and serves as a scapegoat, used to blame the results on and as demagoguery to push faster. Republicans may occasionally roll back the degree of some particular controls, but don't stop, let alone reverse, the trend.

All that prevents the whole process from going over the cliff now are the remnants of an American sense of life that balks at the extreme measures even while the moral goals are conceded. With little philosophical opposition to the establishment intellectuals, that sense of life has been diminishing. People still want their smart phones but vote for more collectivist policies. They want a higher income but increasingly vote for government-guaranteed minimum wages, 'family leave', and subsidies for medical care, education and everything else.

There is no question of "if socialism actually did work"; it doesn't and can't. Whatever is still accomplished is in spite of the collectivist statism, not because of it or compatible with it.

Whether the best people would leave depends on whether there is somewhere to go, which there increasingly is not in "one world" -- which is "one neck for one leash". What we do know is that the best stop producing or severely cut back. Very few continue producing while idealistically embracing the sacrificial ethics.

In the Soviet Union the only creative 'production' was by some theoretical scientists who thought they could continue their intellectual passion in fields like mathematics and theoretical physics -- until they were killed or ordered to do the impossible. The only people who "wound up rich" were the party elite, just like their feudalist counterparts, and even that level of wealth is arrested or collapses, with those at the top the most susceptible to assassination.

so they want to keep the hope alive at all costs- turning THAT into the real goal. It doesnt matter if the system is successful really. I wonder what they would do if socialism actually did work. It probably wouldnt turn out the way they wanted anyway. The productive people would either leave or would wind up rich and screw up the whole equality thing.

Their collectivism is pursued as a moral ideal. They don't know what they think would make it "work" in economic or "practical" terms. They will keep tinkering and more in an endless pursuit of what they regard as a moral system. That is what they regard ultimately as the standard and the goal. All the rest is Pragmatism.

These are the same liberals who said you have to sign the Health Care bill, to read it. They don't read, they just squawk. Not crazy about his connection to the crooked Bush family, but don't want Dams nominating another pedophile supporter.