The Minority Argument killer
ℹ️ ⚔️ Information Warfare ⚔️ ℹ️
Let us propose a hypothetical - some leftie comes at you with a "minority" support argument. Ive been playing with this, and found the dark heart at its core. It all boils down to the idea of the minority. Heres 5 bullets that i think will help kill it in all but the most brainwashed. It certainly will hit them with a dose of cognitive dissonance.
- The deepest, and one of the most diverse minority groups in the world is the super rich. They exist among all races, are usually numbering less than 100 wherever they are, and have the most to lose in life from the majority.
- This "minority" is the one you are most deeply against as a leftie (and we here hate most of them for being cabalites too, but that's a tangent), and yet it always seems to benefit the most from your efforts to help what you think are minorities.
- This specific minority you claim is "the white man", thus ignoring the plight of poor white men and women all over the world, and presuming there are no wealthy black, arab, asian, or other non-white individuals. So racist, isn't it, to presume wealth based on skin tone.
- As this minority has the smallest size of all groups, but the greatest influence in how the world works, surely this negates the idea that "minorities have no influence" ?
- Most of this minority is probably footing the bill for your side's activism, and we can prove it with receipts. They certainly are the biggest beneficiary.
If they try to redirect it, just focus on the minority point, and keep them from claiming its only a PoC issue.
Which is why im not comparing elites with other elites. Im comparing elites to their local regions consistently, and the 99% of others there, consistently.
To put it another way, you are directly biasing the data to more western societies using your methodology.
You presume western societies are controlling non western societies when you bias to western societies as per your presumption, instead of presuming there is no bias to apply at all (because they are all independent actors).
That may not be what you mean to do with what you say, but by trying to jam in the country ranking into the methodology, that is precisely what you are doing.
By weighting to the US and Europe (by using total worth aligned to a single currency), you ignore the relative impacts altogether of the 1% in lesser countries, and by consequence the influence they hold. You are forcing a comparison between liberia and the usa to begin with by applying rankings, then probably dropping Liberia from the data altogether due to it not qualifying for the individually ranked global set, all by your methodology. Im trying to show the view of comparing the 1% as a "global group" vs the 99% as a "global group", which is the actual "elite" vs "the masses" calculation.
The 1% of america in effect controlled america, as proven by recent events. The 1% of liberia in effect controlled liberia. The 1% of any nation can easily steer that nation's trajectory for the future, especially with the institutions in place today.
In any case, i have given you more than enough time to find the real flaw in my argumentation, as there is only one core flaw to the arguments i made. I had to make it, as I'm arguing by using a left wing argument to begin with (peril of the game).
This flaw is the undeclared supposition that groups conceptually have any existence in of themselves. This is actually (in the case of "physical identity" traits) a false premise.
A group exists so long as individuals associate themselves to that group, but no group exists without an individual to represent it. Ergo you can have individuals unaffiliated to a group or affiliated to it, but the group is just an abstract, a label, created to ease computational burdens and seek out new and fascinating correlations.
Lefties love to claim the group identity is real for basically any grouping possible, but any non-ideology linked group very rarely ever acts as a unified entity, and even then tends to such action because of a single ideological, or mixture of several ideological views, not some inherent and immutable trait. The idea that there is a racial, gender, sexuality, or even intelligence identities exist is meaningless because such examples of hive mind do not have any real means to exist.
Such group analysis or hive mind like activity only remotely works/exists via ideologies to predict how someone will act, as ideologies create mental rulesets that force a set of probabilities of action forward or backwards. To boil it down into a hard example - The socialists and Commies will use the government to get what they want, while capitalists use trade and capital.
This sole aspect of groupthink is very useful to predict both outcome and motives, and even the cabal conceptually applies here.
The cabal itself has an ideology, where its wider members act as a unit to further the core of its members for some shared gains, and any actor inside or outside the group that goes against the group now assures their own demise (well until recently). Enough members have enough vested interest in their own survival to assure this state of affairs stays constant for as long as possible, but it only exists in such a form because of the ideology in play.
This is why it is soooo easy to spot a shill generally now. People pick up on patterns of activity over months and years, and their patterns are very easy to spot over time.
Not really? I am asking a question about a relative group that exists everywhere, and by your own admission, too. You are simply trying to alter the argument to one you can do easier quantitative analysis against.
Using a list that is going to be weighted to the west has literally no bearing to my argument, and conflates global elites with the local elites by nation. Weighted means it is literally biased in any case.
Why should i normalise this to the dollar when the rand may apply? Or the dinar? Or the yen? Or the pound? Why not the rupee?
Strictly speaking, anyone who owns property in the west is in the global 1%, effectively when weighted in the way you recommend. Ergo by your own requirements, you will force weight western societies as being the one percent via this analysis, and obfuscate with a weighted bias all insight on how diverse the real 1%, the cabal, actually is.
I dont see how ive backtracked. There are ccp elites, and dont really appear at all in forbes' data because they can simply state "this belongs to the country" and poof no asset count against an individual. Doesn't make the ccp less of an elite group, esp. The core hundreds that have real authority. If anything, it shows them as a more endangered minority if the majority en masse acted against them.
Again, presuming a western societal value system can be applied globally not only forces a huge bias to westerners being the majority of the 1% (and thus forcing the data to a more eurocentric ethnicity), it ignores the ways socialism creates elites and how it identifies them. Hint: its not via asset value.
Also im not sure how it is wrong to say there more total elites in the 1% of china than the 1% of america even if the american ones have more total wealth than the chinese.