>

Yes, thank goodness the elite billionaires are graciously allowing a literal president to speak at their exclusive 1% plutocracy lobbying shindig
Extremism rises when the system in place is failing citizens and is corrupted. Bad living conditions are in contrast with riches of few, people stop seeing it for its glamour and lean towards seeing it as a class injustice. Tensions rise, desperation turns into blame, reason to violence. Rise of extremism is natural reaction to something. >

A breakdown of 70+ years of continuous global progress, due to a string of crises that affect every continent simultaneously, and no clear way out is a very dangerous time for our species. There have been dark periods in the past, but there generally was widespread belief that they would be resolved (either via religious dogma or via an escape from the mundane life cycle via nirvana/enlightenment). The 2020s are fertile ground for con men and doomsday cults of all varieties, even if the prior problems had begun to emerge in individual countries like the USA and Brazil in the 2010s. >


no clear way out is a very dangerous time for our species

Eh, i don't think humans are going away anytime soon, we're a tenacious lot, sure the vast majority of us will die off in the coming climate crisis and we'll be propelled back into a pre-industrial society, but unless something extreme happens like an asteroid strike or a gamma-ray burst cooks us alive i don't see us going anywhere.
In the words of George Carlin "The planet is fine, the people are fucked." >

Not dangerous in terms of extinction, but dangerous in terms of an explosion of terrifying regimes and cults interspersed with, and at times using, highly advanced robots and AIs. >

There's not going to be any major industry left to build or maintain said robots or AI, it could only exist in a highly developed, highly technological society. They will only contribute to a more rapid collapse, they're not going to survive the outcome, unless we somehow manage to invent a factory that is entirely self-sustaining, then maybe we'll get something like the Matrix or Skynet. >


There's not going to be any major industry left to build or maintain said robots or AI, it could only exist in a highly developed, highly technological society.

That assumes a complete, global collapse which I see as unlikely. New Zealand alone probably can ride out the storms, especially with all the foreign oligarch capital there, although there might be a long stretch of Depression-like conditions. >


That assumes a complete, global collapse which I see as unlikely.

And i see it as inevitable, COVID already put a massive strain on the global supply network, something much bigger like climate change flooding cities and mass killing crops will definitely break it.
Unless New Zealand somehow manages to develop complete economic, industrial and environmental autarky before things get ugly i don't think so.
The issue with our current global economy is that every country is in someway dependent on others, once climate change becomes real (or more real than it already is) things will start to go very quickly, countries like New Zealand might fare better but i can't imagine the people living there will be keen on just trucking along as usual whilst the rest of the world collapses around them.
Anything not produced on New Zealand they will have to make themselves, and depending on what that is they might not fare so well in that regard. >

I've always heard that a complete and irreversible collapse of industrial civilization would stem from the loss of knowledge and would require something even more catastrophic than that (i.e. a thermonuclear war affecting every inhabited continent or a complete global blackout due to a solar flare or gamma ray burst). NZ might not fare as well as it has recently (higher prices relative to wages, scarcities of exotic goods), but they aren't going to forget how to operate modern technologies and the decay will likely be long enough for an alliance of local elected officials and international billionaires to co-opt countries like NZ, Uruguay, Iceland, Chile, and maybe even Canada without having to resort to bunkers. Although admittedly you are starting to run into problems where attempts to decarbonize end up having costs elsewhere, from massive lithium mines to the truth that walkable cities at more than 3-4 stories' density require lots of steel and concrete. >

Well the loss of knowledge would happen over a single generation, if your parents don't work in a factory or as plumbers or whatever because, well there aren't any factories to work in or any pipes to fix because the entire infrastructure is completely broken, and your whole family is too busy trying to sustain a bare-level subsistence farming then the knowledge will be lost very quickly.
If we're lucky some good Samaritan will empty out libraries of any and every book they can find and then wrap them in wax paper and keep them dry and maintained in a bomb shelter somewhere for the future, but for the first few generations after the collapse people will be far too busy just trying to stay alive to really learn or care about how a car works, there isn't any fuel left to run the thing so it's completely worthless. >

Which again implies a collapse so bad that even New Zealand loses electricity and infrastructure, and while they won't be "just trucking along" you have to explain how that happens. >

It started by allowing corporations to buy politicians. >

Politicians should only be able to buy a extremely broad index funds.
Or invest their money in the countries equivalent of a future fund. >

They’re called government bonds, and there are a few varieties. But if we’re going to allow investing by politicians, that should be the only place they’re allowed to invest
Something something peanut farm >

Nah, bonds are guaranteed returns right? That gives them no incentive to to grow the economy.
Bonds become more attractive in bear markets in fact.
It is also unfair to put them out of stock investment entirely. >

It’s not unfair to put them out of stock investment. Politics is a choice. Choosing to go into it should come with necessary sacrifices.
And as I said, there are a variety of different bonds, but the general idea is they reflect the health of the US government and country as a whole, not just of Wall Street >

If politicians were limited to middle-class wages, only people who were already rich would agree to do it. >

This is a ridiculous and untrue message often spread, that ignores the basic truth that some people get into civil service to serve others. Some people are fine with middle class wages. Many people actually get into local politics in a nonprofit manner. >

Or... counter point... you look at societies with low paid public servants and see a culture of open corruption. 
Some people are fine with poverty wages too. But it makes a few thousand dollars very tempting because it's 'change-your-life' money. >

Ok, so, crazy thought: no one gets paid poverty wages. That’s called slavery. >

That was my point. Just because some people work jobs w/ "X" wage - doesn't mean it's something worth striving for. He said some folks are fine with middle class wages - and will do civil service work. Well, it's look around to see some folks doing the work for even less. Teachers a classic example.
I want smart educated folks to be able to go in politics without hamstringing their financial security. Trump was just fine donating his salary, but AOC wouldn't be able to do the job without hers. >

Isn’t “speed” part of the appeal of tyranny though? Being able to make whatever decision you want without consideration for the wants or needs of others? >

Yeah, look how fast China can get major projects done. Pretty easy to get a new power plant or rail line built when anyone who bitches about it gets killed for their organs. >

Property law is actually pretty strict in China, there's just no private land ownership >

that audience knows, they've got the receipts >

Yeah Davos a joke. >

Speaking to a room who buys tyrants >

Not necessarily, but billionaires will chose capitalism under fascism over paying a bit more taxes in a domocracy any day.
So now that shit is slowly hitting the fan and there's a risk of people actually standing up against unbridled capitalism, demanding their fair share, billionaires will pour mountains of money into far right politicians who will defend capitalism even if it means the end of democracy. >

That's because democracies aren't taking tyranny seriously.  There are extreme right wing movements in nearly every democracy now, and they're all working together like globalists (coordinated by Steve Bannon and his ilk and sponsored by Russia) to overthrow democracies.  Most of them continue to operate unimpeded despite having committed numerous crimes for which they haven't been held accountable.  It's time to hold them accountable.  The fascists who are trying to overthrow democracy belong in prison for life.  The turning point in this war against fascism will be when democracies decide to take the problem seriously and start going after fascists and arresting them for their crimes. >

Democracies will never take the problem seriously as long as they are run by neoliberals >

Further dividing the opposition to fascism only makes the problem worse. The socialist party in the Weimar Republic said similar stuff to what you’re saying now, and refused to work with any of the other political movements. This is one of the big reasons the Nazis came to power. 
Let’s learn from history. We should be unifying the opposition to fascism. >

I can’t tell from your comment whether you know what a neoliberal is. It sounds to me like you think it just means liberal that isnt far left enough
US Neoliberals have fomented coups and supported autocratic murderous dictatorships throughout the Americas for the past 70 years or so. See: Pinochet, the Duvaliers. The only difference now is they are applying similar policies in the US, Canada, and Europe. >

You are a cretinous hotdog who knows nothing. 
That was the GOP, notable anti-communist christian conservatives. A NEOLIBERAL IS LITERALLY A MODERATE LEFT POLITICALLY PERSON. We believe in free trade, multiculturalism, and high population density amongst other things.  
Let’s also ignore that the USSR also supported violent coups in the middle east and asia, because we want to keep the idea that communism = good happy pacifism and that neoliberal = evil warmongers who won’t let bernie be president >

What in tarnation, a lot of people on Reddit have this bizarre idea of what neoliberal means. I think it comes from the 2016 primary... I don't know.
Neoliberal is a right wing economic philosophy. Yes free trade is part of it, but so is massive deregulation and reduced government spending especially on social welfare.
That's not center left. I know a lot of center left people in this country and they all want increased government spending on social welfare and an increase of regulations on the environment, labor, etc.
Where progressives and the center left disagree is on how far to go and which areas to prioritize. And process/electability/partisanship issues. But on policy aside from immigration, they have nothing in common with neoliberals.
If you're actually a neoliberal, like textbook neoliberal not weird reddit bastardization, then you're pretty right wing on economics. Far outside the mainstream of even the democratic party, maybe Manchin/Senema/Gottheimer kind of a Dem but not the center and certainly not center left. >

Dude was so wrong and strong. Neoliberalism is a really old political concept. It definitely does not mean “MoDeRaTeLy LeFt PoLiTiCaL PeRsON”. Read a book, ya goof.  - an actually left of centre political person >

Tyranny is the norm for us backwards species.
Democracy requires earnest efforts and vigilance at all times. 
Humans should remind politicians daily that tyranny can run in both directions. (Though fancy people have a different word for when peasants employ tyrannical behaviors towards their enemies.) >

Tyranny is not the norm, it just feels that way because the way society is currently organized works towards that model of control. >

Wouldn’t you argue that most of history is tyranny? 
Nothing is natural in this sense, society is what you convince people it is. >

Most human history happened before cities existed. We're about 200,000 years old and tyrants are around 7k years old at best. There simply wasn't the ability to concentrated large enough slave/thrall populations until recently. 
To prop up tyranny you need might, to have might you need weapons and soldiers, to maintain soldiers you need to appropriate wealth, to appropriate wealth you have to police many with few, to do that you need to geographically concentrate them, to do that you need irrigation and agriculture.
Even after the rise of tyrants it's only the last few generations that independent subaltern peoples have truly been brought under the thumb of centralised states. Look how easily state building efforts fell apart and how little control governments had over people far from the capital. >

He is not wrong. We are too blasé about democracy, as if it is some inevitable hands off natural end state. The opposite is true. Complacent, alienated or otherwise disengaged societies have almost always slid towards some form of tyranny. 
Democracy is a fragile, volatile thing that can only exist as a constant, conscious, careful balance between competing forces in order to maintain a state of acceptable equilibrium in the face perpetual instability. An eternal experiment of sorts. Fair and prosperous democracies are some of the most difficult things humans have attempted. 
Vigilance, always. Indifference is a slippery slope towards peril. >

What could happen now is those in power employ a little thing called “Necessity Over Freedom” where they can justify anything they do for the good of the nation, even if it’s destroying anything that does not share their stance. That’s the fascist thing they want. Freedom to destroy anything that isn’t them.
What is as the public should have done and we could still do (if we got our heads together) is to as a collective society, enforce our laws on those that believe themselves above it and make sure they know who is the majority here. Yes, it’s a little extreme and a bunch of people might die. But what’s the other option? Lay down and give up? 
TLDR: Instead of exposure and shame, you apply swift action and justice. >

Tyranny from greed >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)


"The time the Free World uses to think is used by the terrorist state to kill," Zelensky said ahead of a meeting of Ukraine's Western arms suppliers in Germany on Friday.
Polish President Andrzej Duda, whose country has offered to send its Leopards, called it a "Very, very, very good idea" on Tuesday.
"I hope it will be very positive for Ukraine. Unofficially, I have very good and positive signals," Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko told AFP on Wednesday.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Very^#1 Ukraine^#2 World^#3 country^#4 Leopard^#5 >

It's because of the power social media gives propaganda. 
There's a lot of money and power to be had in propaganda. So dictators and aspiring dictators alike are putting a lot of resources into it, and there are enough idiots in the world, that allows them to be very successful at it. >

Tyranny is easier to make a dollar off of. >

He's not wrong. It feels very much like accounts of the 1930's and the rise of fascism I've read about. Then too it was a world wide problem. Mussolini's granddaughter and Steve Bannon moving to Italy after admitting his intent to create a multinational movement seems pretty clear among many other things. >

I’d wager we’re in the midst of a global business plot. It seems fascism is on the menu, this time they own the technology to be able to get it done. >

It seems like no one in this thread knew what Ukraine was like before he took office. >

It's true the west has to stop dealing with/tariff countries that don't meet our expectations of basic human rights.  
Let's start with countries that allow slavery. >

Time to stop dealing with the US, they explicitly allow slavery in the constitution!
Here's proof for those downvoting me, from the 13th amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Emphasis mine >

This is an impressive piece of whataboutism >

I'm just responding to the comment who said we should stop dealing with countries that permite slavery.
I wasn't the one to bring slavery up, I was just showing that the OP really does not agree with what they themselves said. >

Listen to the money >

The guy who bans opposition parties is speaking from experience >

Both Britain and America banned Fascist parties at the outbreak of WW2, Zelenskyy banned the Pro-Russian Party at the outbreak of the invasion. >

No it didn't that is just a straight up lie, the majority of the upper ministers in the party were poenly pro Russia.
"On 5 November 2018, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest associates and chief of staff to former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Medvedchuk was elected chairman of the party For Life political party's council.[27][28][29] Medvedchuk was also leader of the Ukrainian Choice NGO, a socially conservative pro-Russian political group and partially prohibited in Ukraine as openly anti-Ukrainian."
" On 24 February 2022 Russia launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine.[57] On this day party member Illia Kyva expressed support for the invasion and blamed the war on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and urged him to resign."
Regional offices supported Ukraine and the fractured from the main party and formed their own, THESE ONES ARE STILL ALLOWED 
" On 26 March 2022 the faction Opposition Platform – For Life in the Odessa Oblast Council ceased to exist.[65] 18 deputies joined the newly formed deputy group Our Home is Ukraine.[65]" 

They told people to join volunteer militias 

Again the main party did not, the only ones that did were regional offices that formed their own parties, THAT STILL OPERATE. 

Do us both a favor and read the thread before commenting plz

Do us both a favour and stop spreading easily debunked russian propaganda. >

Sure fascists race to grab what they can, like a thief would.  Democracy moves forward and gathers its strength like a river its tributaries. >

About that… the river is dry. Turns out Nestle has a bottling plant up river. >

Oh the ironyyyyy!
Anyways... >

Unchecked capitalism has corrupted democracy unfortunately >

It's always easy to spot which Reddit links were shared to places where Russian bots/trolls congregate and coordinate their propagandizing. They flood the comment section spewing the same talking point like the good little mindless parrots they are.
See: this comment section. >


They flood the comment section spewing the same talking point like the good little mindless parrots they are.

See also: the comment above mine. >

I understand that assassination is unpopular because it creates power vacuums that only get filled up with new tyrants. But there can't be an infinite number of tyrants, and there's got to be some sort of tipping point where it becomes the highest priority option. >

This guy is so 2022. NEXT! >

'No do not waist more of our tax money on wars created by the US We don't stand by this war at all it could have ended but the US is the main course not Russie'
​
- A Facebook comment I found >

And as the world gets more and more crowded, things are only going to get worse. 
As people get more desperate and less educated, they become easy pickings for authoritarians. >

What an utterly insane thing for him to say. He talks like he hasn't been systematically destroying the existing "democracy" in his own country. >

Systematically purging Russian influence in Ukrainian society when it’s at war with Russia makes sense to just about everyone with a developed brain >

Haha sure... if that's how they tell you to portray it. I understand the importance of narratives. You should check out some news articles about Ukraine and their democracy from before the war started. Journalists used to call out the corruption and lies, but all that stopped as soon as we started sending them billions. >

Ukraine has a corruption problem. You’re not saying any new information. 
But each year Ukraine gets a better and better score on corruption rankings. 
And there was little to no controversy with Zelenskyy election nor has his term finished. >

Corruption aside, we're talking about democracy here. I don't think you can defend banning opposing political parties and religions. Textbook tyranny from Zelensky. >

Wow, had that shit all queued up and ready to paste I see...
None of that matters. It's still tyranny whether you got duped into justifying it or not. 
Everything in Ukraine has ties to Russia. Zelensky has set a precedent where he can label something as "Russian" and outlaw it. People included. Wartime doesnt give you an excuse to consolidate power and hurt your own people. It's a political party, not an army. It's a religion, not a secret society of pro-Russia insurgents. >


Wow, had that shit all queued up and ready to paste I see…

It isn’t hard because like I said in my last reply: this is well documented and a huge Russian talking point to smear Ukraine. You can find dozens and dozens of articles from multiple publications across multiple countries slices multiple political ideologies (as represented by my list of links). 

None of that matters. It’s still tyranny whether you got duped into justifying it or not.

So facts and reality don’t matter and you’ll just continue believing whatever it is you believe? That saves us a lot of time. 

Everything in Ukraine has ties to Russia. Zelensky has set a precedent where he can label something as “Russian” and outlaw it. People included. Wartime doesnt give you an excuse to consolidate power and hurt your own people. It’s a political party, not an army. It’s a religion, not a secret society of pro-Russia insurgents.

The great part about this post is everyone can now see you ignore and downplay 7 links in favor of continuing to push your propaganda 
Don’t let me stop you, not like there’s any indication I can >

Hahhahaha holy shit... why are you doing this to yourself? I've said my piece. I'm not pro russia or pro ukraine. I'm pro freedom and democracy. Like actually, objectively speaking. I didnt drink the kool aid from either side, and my opinion remains objective and unbiased. Just stating facts with no spin. 
You've dug yourself so deep into this narrative that you'll fight tooth and nail for just a small glimmer of something I might be wrong about. Good luck to you, hope you can pull your head out of your ass someday. >

Nothing taken to the extreme is good. The extreme of freedom is anarchy - it’s always a balance between the freedom of one vs the rights of another. 
When a party is sponsored by an antagonist state you’re at war with - the balance shifts just a tad to security.
Aka yes his actions are more authoritative - but there are legitimate cases when it’s necessary for the executive to do so, often written into the powers of the office. Same as emergency powers - legitimate in a natural disaster and war - less so when you make up can emergency just for the power grab >

Bought and paid for. >

Lol. He thinks Davos cares. >

Davos is full of aspiring tyrants. >


aspiring

lmao >

says the guy that outlawed opposition political parties >

Well, why don’t you explain your comment in full now.
When did that happen?
What was the reason?
Why do you disagree? >

Not taking a side but if you google the first link is to NPR (many other links) where you can find that last year the Government of Ukraine banned and dissolved 12 political parties, including the largest opposition party, using power granted under Martial Law.
Some radio and TV stations have also been banned and dissolved, including many leftwing independent organizations. >

You neglected to mention their ties to Russia. >

So all opposition is tied to Russia, gotcha. >

Nice straw man. Opposition is not illegal. >

That doesn't even make sense. >

I'm sure the opposition political party in Ukraine would agree. >

Shhh Ukraine man good democracy man. Go to sleep now. Forget that the major parties of Ukraine are just two rival oligarchs. >

Very happy some of the best and brightest from around the world are letting this brilliant man speak out against fascism.  Thank you to everyone at the World Economic Forum, from anti fascists everywhere.