We had a lunch lecture where this environmental scientist gave a talk about critical materials and how big of a problem our reliance on these are. He links the whole thing up with politics pretty well, explaining how various political actors are involved and benefit from this or that.

At some point, he even mentions how in the netherlands, policy doesn’t get passed without a buy-in from industry. It means quite a lot, cause this guy is government hired in recommending policies.

Then he contradicts himself in the next paragraph by saying that this is the curse of democracy that people make stupid decisions.

I ask this guy about the contradiction. How you simultaneously harp about profits over needs, the evils of consultancy firms, and the inability of the Dutch government to do anything but pursue corporate interests, while also talking about the problems of “democracy”?

He just tells me “we are a democracy that’s why the Dutch government listens to industry”. Well not exactly that, but at least that’s the message I get when he talks about all the corporate controlled parties winning the elections and how that’s what the people chose.

Dude is this close to realising that the definition of liberal democracy is “legitimised rule by corporations” .

Of course, the lecture ends with a book recommendation for a book about the collapse of human civilisation. And a recommendation to go vote and participate in political parties.

Unlimited death upon elections.

  • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    41·
    1 day ago

    I wonder what it is that keeps even the most politically engaged, and highly educated libs, like the one you are referring to, on the treadmill for so long?

    If the existing political system is untenable, then that means that they are morally required to overthrow it, an endeavor that involves a lot of hard work, personal risk, and sacrifice. As Nechayev said:

    The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.

    The revolutionary knows that in the very depths of his being, not only in words but also in deeds, he has broken all the bonds which tie him to the social order and the civilized world with all its laws, moralities, and customs, and with all its generally accepted conventions. He is their implacable enemy, and if he continues to live with them it is only in order to destroy them more speedily.

    The revolutionary is a dedicated man, merciless toward the State and toward the educated classes; and he can expect no mercy from them. Between him and them there exists, declared or concealed, a relentless and irreconcilable war to the death. He must accustom himself to torture.