Hart valluing Hart part
If my Gen Z on crack political views trigger or offend you in either direction, I have moderate and persuasive arguments for why I have these views that you will have difficulty debunking. I hope that makes people who share my political views happy, having to state my views, I enjoy the attention (from my repconblog)
I support Revolutionary Communism over woke idpol hustlerism. I am on team Revolutionary Communism
I am neutral in the Culture Wars in ways that align with my political views like in this blog (and I echo Ryan Grim's view this post and this video titled "Ryan Grim: The Culture War Is Not A Proxy For Race, It’s A Proxy For Class"). Also see this which I sort of am supportive of
To quote The Guardian "many on the 'left' (liberal 2.0 -liberal leftist side) have argued that such [culture war] battles [a]re 'distractions' from the real fight over class and economic issues." See this post by me for more
On lifestyle choices, I take no stand on the personal, social, or cultural preferences of individuals or groups except in ways that align with my political views in this blog.
A person’s lifestyle is just an extension of their property rights. I assert simply that each and every lifestyle choice should not violate the Non-Aggression Principle.
I reject elitism as the method for the dissemination of class consciousness. The cultural interests of the intellectuals and the interests of the working class (as a self enclosed class), have hardly anything in common except the largely general claim for humanly decent existence. I am Anti Elitist
All persons exist on a worldwide level while on a nationwide level, as a political and moral reality, there are two human categories: good people and bad people (based abstractly on moral competence)
“Nobody is superior, nobody is inferior, but nobody is equal either. People are simply unique, incomparable. You are you, I am I”
“You preachers of equality (and equity): your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue.” Friedrich Nietzsche
“The entanglements of bondage and liberty shaped the liberal imagination of freedom, fueled the emergence and expansion of capitalism, and spawned proprietorial conceptions of the self. This vexed genealogy of freedom plagued the great” Saidiya Hartman
The longstanding and intimate affiliation of liberty and bondage made it impossible to envision freedom independent of constraint or personhood and autonomy that was/is separate from the sanctity of property and proprietorial notions of the self.
"It is harder, but not less important, for us to try and communicate with those who do not agree with us on every issue. And it is important to see where if possible, and I do believe it is possible, we can find common ground." Bernie Sanders
I consider the key inequalities between people to be artificial and negative, which I feel should be overcome by this system. Then we can have my kind of equality
I have this view on Equity here and I am also Pro Equality (I support Equality of Opportunity but I do also reject Equality of outcome). I am Anti Equity (even though I acknowledge hat educators of color and LGBTQIA+ educators are disproportionately targeted by the anti-equity crusaders) so Christian egalitarianism (i.e Liberation Theology) direct action would be a better course of action as that stuff is superior to equity
We need to cancel equity like red statists try to do
I like 
equality but not equity
I support Equitism but when used in conjunction with other ideologies. (i.e I align with Leftist Equitarian ideology), (i.e I align with this type of Leftist Equitarian ideology )
In a perfect world, socioeconomic equality should come before liberty
If people believe that whiteness is not real and or is good, then pro whiteness or whiteness neutral policies become or remain the law of the land.
This pertains to all things from pushing for more women CEOs, women fighting on the front lines in the military, same sex marriage, transgender rights etc. Good and bad, right or wrong, morality is simply group opinion. Always has been that way and as is so currently like that
Economics exists to serve humans. Humans don't exist to serve economics. "As an economic doctrine, Justicialism proposes a social market, putting capital to the service of the economy and the well-being of the people."
I really don't have any firm fiscal views. I completely devoid of political ambitions (from my private political blog)
I am against anti totalitarian humanism. We are all human, What?
I support self control. I am against Totalitarianism
Revised free'er Survivor Big Brother type voluntary of the Fourth Political Theory Kind , Pan Seccionism (egalitarian Survivor tribes) see here and here
I support a socialist re-industrialization that is mixed with confiscatory taxes on investment that is both wasteful and parasitic (from my private blog sphere)
I venerate the Left Wing freed market entrepreneur fused with worker co-ops (like this) and the Marxist alternatives to small businesses and I want to keep them from dying out at the hands of corporations. I am pro labor (from my private blog sphere)
We need to put life at the center as to fight against all forms of sexist violence that women suffer. This is to articulate a response to the reactionary violence that is unleashed in the face of the struggle for justice, and it’s to defend the needed redistribution of wealth and to ensure along the way, that no one is left behind or denied their rights. Putting life at the center tells us about a feminism for the social majorities
We should support a feminism that has memory located from bodies , from the class, from desire, from borders etc We should support feminism that aspires to build itself up from margins but which also fundamentally that aspires to build the future of our country (the US) with clear constituent and constitutional vocation
I believe gender equality needs to improve in politics too. Unequal representation of women in politics is the cause of our democratic deficit.
Gender equality must be a principal which guides political action which is why I endorse mechanisms which allow women and men to apply to internal political leadership positions and in popular election positions.
Not only do I endorse more women in the representation of the political parties but also in forums, seminars, training schools, and similar instances which give concrete signals based on equality and non discrimination
Political movements need to be inspired by MLK with a universal image of humanity, which transcends all ethnic-racial differences and barriers (from my private blog sphere)
I support Social commons as an alternative to Neoliberalism
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs
My views on private property are a mix of Gary Chartier private property views, Benjamin Tucker private property views, these Left Libertarian private property views and Leninist New Economic policy private property views
I view the individual and the will of the individual over external determinants including society, groups, tradition (variable), and ideologies . I view the eventual abolition of the state as the fullest realization of individual liberty .
Without any government, I believe that individuals will pursue their personal objectives and work together in mutual self interest to create a stable and harmonious hierarchyless/patriarchyless society.
I support and believe in Self Determination, self reliance and not making excuses. No one has it easy, life is hard. It's human nature that some people may have it easier than other people.
To quote Rosa L “People who do not move don’t notice their chains”
Society in our socioeconomic world is governed by consistent and precise laws. No individual or religious faction or political force should interfere with those laws
Joseph Stalin was Santa Claus in real life during his Presidency of the USSR (if you are a kid in the west you believe in Santa Claus, if you are a Marxist-Leninist, Anarcho Marxist, Maoist you believe that Joseph Stalin was a good President. When you are an adult you believe Santa Claus doesn't exist, when you are non Marxist-Leninist/non Anarcho Marxist/non Maoist you believe Joseph Stalin was a red fascist dictator or at minimum a bad President
I support Left Center Libertarian Paternalism. I am glad that non marginalized activists, politicians etc use their higher up positions to lift up marginalized groups to where they are to give them equality.
It is like someone who is at the top of a ladder reaching down to pull people stuck on the ladder up. I support via a decentralized government/federal state (without concentration of power and anti tyranny) nudging to make this happen by safeguarding social rights (like education and healthcare), promoting an inclusive country and social rights (like public education) . This method would be based off of egalitarian liberalism combined with progressivism (with particular reference to the social liberalism in Europe),
I feel that a society's political life where political powers, authorities and decisions are decided and controlled by a diverse American nation for the purpose of reaching material welfare, freedom and fairness by all citizens, social groups and nationalities, and by the people that formed it
I feel that women, immigrants, BIPOC people (including Indigenous communities), LGTBQ+ people, and other diverse groups should not only recognized, but be championed as key protagonists in the growing calls for social, economic, and political reform.
To build on that, I support agonistic radical democracy where social movements attempt to create social and political change by challenging neoliberal and neoconservative concepts of democracy. This strategy is to expand the liberal definition of democracy, based on freedom and equality, to include difference
This agonistic radical democracy means the root of democracy and it rejects deliberative and liberal democracies oppressing differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews in attempts to build consensus. An agonistic radical democracy builds off of the fact that in a country, and in a social movement there are many (a plurality of) differences which resist consensus.
Agonistic radical democracy is not only accepting of difference, dissent and antagonisms, but it is dependent on it. This is based on the fact that there are oppressive power relations that exist in our society and that those oppressive relations should be made visible, re-negotiated and altered.
By building democracy around difference and dissent, oppressive power relations that exist in societies are able to come to the forefront so that they can be challenged.
So elements of this can be found throughout my blog, including on Participatory Democracy-Direct Democracy, Defensive Democracy, Dominant minority, Marxism expanding on Liberalism 1.0 (instead of Liberalism 2.0 expanding on Liberalism 1.0), Liberal Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Progressive Utilization theory, change from within, Libertarian Paternalism , Anarchism, forcing change (heaven is taken by storm), Autonomous Radical Democracy (as a DotP), Austromarxism, etc
Double Fishhook theory political model , I am a Alt Militant J Rawls Social Liberaltarian Anarchism (which is basically Left of New Political Centrism , which is called Leftist Right Wing Anti Statist *Boll Weeval Democratic (associated with Eveism of Peronism)
notes
Here is what a Boll Weeval Democrat is
I support the Progressive capture of the DJT working class and Ben Norton's advice here
(from my hyperlane blog)
I oppose the view that the number of adherents drawn to a cause, idea or program is what determines the strength of the struggle, rather than the qualitative value of the practice of struggle as an attack against the domination institutions and as a life reappropriation
My partial, or at times rejection or my wariness of every institutionalization or formalization of decision making, and indeed of every conception of decision making as a moment separated from life and practice.
This partial, or at times rejection or my wariness , as well, of the evangelistic method that strives to win over the masses.
Such a method assumes that the theoretical exploration is at an end, that a person has the answer to which all are to adhere to and that therefore every method is acceptable for getting the message out even if that method contradicts what the people are saying.
This leads a person to seek followers who accept their position rather than comrades and accomplices with which to carry on that person’s explorations.
The practice instead of striving to carry out a person’s projects, as best a person can, in a way that is consistent with one’s ideas, dreams and desires, by extension attracting potential accomplices with whom to develop affinity relationships and to expand the revolt practice.
I have either (1) A Max Stirner-esque critique of dogma and ideological thinking as a distinct phenomenon in favor of "critical self-theory" at individual and communal levels. Or (2) A Bouvier-esque critique of there being no inherent meaning to life, yet that we're forced to grapple with the physical and environmental drives we were raised with, to figure out how we want to engage with our fellow man/woman from there. Or (3) Some entirely different foundation.
I support decentralization—subsidiarity, secession (in ways that mesh with my blogs), nullification, and localism—for political units completely down to the level of the individual as a moral end and as a method of expanding choice and competition in a state for all individuals. In some ways the State is not the same thing as governance
As a Libertarian socialist I support decentralized structures that are based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations like citizens' assemblies, libertarian municipalism, trade unions and workers' councils. This can be seen throughout my blog
Sacrificing yourself for the 'greater good' is futile since our society is made up of individuals instead of a cohesive unit that is separate from the individual. Collective control is not consistent with anarchism and is authoritarian Real freedom can only happen in a truly free society
This is because I am on paper against collectivism and I find it pretty damn problematic
I feel that collectivism is of the subordination of the individual to the group and that is wrong (see here for more)
I reject the ideology of collective responsibility. This rejection does not mean I refuse social or class analysis. It means rather that I remove the moral judgment from such an analysis, while I refuse the dangerous practice of blaming individuals for activities that have been done in the name of (or that have been attributed to), a social category of which they are said to be a part, but about which they had no choice — i.e., “Jewish”, “male”, “white”, etc.).
On the social level, the reappropriation of life, in addition to its full reappropriation on the individual level, can only happen when we stop identifying ourselves essentially in terms of our social identities.
I do not really support the idea that anyone, either due to “privilege” or due to supposed membership in a particular oppressed group, owes uncritical solidarity to any struggle or movement
I recognize that such a conception is a major obstruction in any serious revolutionary process.
Creating collective projects and activities to serve the needs and desires of the individuals involved, and not vice versa.
I recognize that the fundamental alienation imposed by capital is not based in any hyper individualist ideology that it may promote. I instead believe that it stems from the collective project of production that it imposes, and this expropriates our individual creative capacities to fulfill its aims.
I recognize the liberation of each and every individual to be able to determine the conditions of his or her existence in free association with others of his or her choosing. (i.e., the individual and social reappropriation of life) as the primary aim of revolution.
The terms "left-" and "right-wing" refer not only to subjective views, which of course are ultimately rooted in the material basis of society, but also the objective function of concrete politics. I expand on this point below:
You have an idiosyncratic misconception of what the terms "left-" VS "right-wing" denote. As I explain here:
Broadly speaking, political conservatism refers to efforts to maintain (or "conserve") the status quo, whatever it may be. Since the first class societies formed some 10,000 years ago and generated widespread economic and general social inequality, conservatism has been characteristically anti-egalitarian; it has henceforth functioned to maintain this highly unequal state of affairs.
...and here:
"a political and social philosophy whose central tenets include tradition, hierarchy, and authority
Conversely, "left-wing" is defined in such ways as politics that "supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy," "the most liberal and egalitarian element of a political party or other group," "the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism," etc.
To be sure, left- VS right-wing politics are contradistinguished vis-à-vis their position on equality, with the former advocating it and the latter instead promoting hierarchies.
Karl Marx’s theoretical originality manifested through a ruthless criticism of the left-wing politics of his time, namely, the various bourgeois and utopian schools of socialism and anarchism
Like all other apparently left-wing anti-Marxists, these tendencies are pseudo-leftist rather than genuinely left-wing. This quote from the World Socialist Web Site article "What is the pseudo-left?" is apropos here:
The pseudo-left is anti-Marxist. It rejects historical materialism, embracing instead various forms of subjective idealism and philosophical irrationalism associated with existentialism, the Frankfurt School and contemporary postmodernism.
The pseudo-left is anti-socialist, opposes class struggle, and denies the central role of the working class and the necessity of revolution in the progressive transformation of society. It counterposes supra-class populism to the independent political organization and mass mobilization of the working class against the capitalist system. The economic program of the pseudo-left is, in its essentials, pro-capitalist and nationalistic.
Politics should instead draw from our conscious which reaps the moral uprightness (or at worst Vaush 'righteousness' [see Destiny subreddit for what that means]), and deep affection we should have for our universes' creator-higher power (even if G-d see Paschal's Wager, if your heart is hardened against religion/faith than just have deep affection for mother nature) . The focus should be on the bread of life , Emmanuel , Jewish Messiah, etc (or if you refuse to accept faith then look toward the stars i.e Pisces)
I am against groupthink. Groupthink is one of the worst parts of the human psyche and we should guard against it , whether it is in politics and business, consumerism, holidays etc. Who's with me?
From David French "With a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. In plain English, this means that when like-minded people gather, their views get more extreme. Our arguments reinforce one another to such an extent that the entire group will sometimes become more extreme than the most extreme person at the start of the deliberation"
Liberal 2.0ers are 'ideologically possessed', and thus its a matter of ideological purity, and purity tests. There will be always be new tests of purity and righteousness, like stuff you are supposed to and not supposed to do, think or say. Since they are psychologically 'possessed' by their belief system, their self-identification and ego is dependent on passing purity tests and looking good by the metrics of their ideology.
They become self-centered, and less empathetic - more prone to dehumanization, madness, hostility, hate and fear towards those people who are not of their ideology. This leads to an us vs them mentality where outsiders are viewed by them as threats or apostates, who lack in moral worth and deserve to be berated at the very least, shamed or harmed at the very most.
It is here where confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance comes into play, to shield them from changing their minds - since their ego is resting upon their ideology like a comfort item and they are scared of losing that comfort item. So their minds filter out or conveniently reframes and information that will not conform to their ideology, and pays added attention to what information does conform to it. They interpret information either too charitably, or uncharitably, based upon that.
Thats why fine reasoned takes by people such as Glenn Greenwald, Steven Pinker, Krystal Ball, Joe Rogan and others outside of woke ideology are interpreted as dumb or malevolent, and they will look past the clear meanings of what, say Glenn Greenwald, says. So in their distorted view, Glenn Greenwald really is saying dumb and or terrible things. When they say that people like Caleb Mauphin are nazis, they aren't exaggerating - their perception of reality is so messed up, that they can't see the difference. They are living a nightmare of their own making. Its only that they take it out on others.
“Being labelled erroneously just goes to show how binary political discourse has become," he wrote. "I had criticized the 'left', so I must be the 'right', or so their logic goes." Winston Marshall
No philosophy or ideology on Earth is the final arbiter of truth (within reason). We allow a matrix (i.e intellectual class) of elites and experts to decide what cultural issues we should support and not support. Who are they to decide what is moral and what is immoral or what views are acceptable or non acceptable. They are humans not Gods
I am opposed to politics that is inspired by fury, bitterness and grievances . Such resentfulness has no place in politics
"It's very difficult because I find leftcom analysis the most similar to my own, but I get the fuck off the train everytime they excitedly speak of revolution. I think a revolution in the mode of production is required before anything will get significantly better for most people. I think capitalism is in a decadent epoch: totally brutal, totally destructive, ready willing and able to commodify not just physical work, but people's emotional and spiritual core." (from my ppb)
Aimee has discovered a new ideology at the ideology store.
"To be honest the only thing I can do is to try to be forthright and honest with my analysis of the class forces producing the political phenomena of the present, to try to help people understand, and to hopefully see a bit more clearly. I think helping people demystify the fog of capitalist ideological conditioning has to hopefully be worth something, in the long run. That's what I tell myself anyway!"
Notice that anything to do with the real working class is absent in this quote.
"Honestly feel rather foolish for giving the Bernie possibility the time and effort that I did."
Aimee didn't even do one thing. (from my ppb)
Ghandi type Christian values (that are pro LGBTQ) are what makes the west great Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs
I support Protestant values and work ethic Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs
I also support Marxist work ethic. Once we abolish Capitalism, alter reimagine private property, and people own the means of production, people will work because they enjoy working, not because they are forced to work (like the Kibbutz in Israel)
1 Corinthians 9:22 Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs
Moreover we have to abolish the Capitalist value system of traditional conservatism to create a less divisive world where we are in control, free of stratified social classes, wedge issues and reactionaries on both sides . We need to radically change the role of the state in countries where the Washington Consensus once was prevalent including in the US.
In a truly Socialist society or Communist society, there are no need for social welfare, re-distributive taxation and regulatory measure.
This is because in a Socialist society or Communist society, workers have greater control of the means of production and in the workplace, and eliminate exploitation by directing the surplus value to employees.
In a Socialist society or Communist society , free access to the means of subsistence is a requisite for liberty because it ensures that all work is voluntary and no class or individual has the power to coerce others into performing alienating work.
Socialists and Communists are also non woke or even anti woke and are thus less race reduction than Social Democrats and Social Liberals, seeking to put more emphasis on eliminate inequality through eliminating classes and less and better targeted social justice activism as opposed to just diversifying the ‘oppressor and bourgeois’ classes. No classes no reductionism
Socialists generally want to achieve greater equality in decision making and economic affairs, while granting workers greater control of the means of production and their workplace and to eliminate exploitation by directing the surplus value to employees.
I critique the tendencies of unions and organizations to mimic political parties, acting as racketeers/mediators, with cadre-based hierarchies of theoretician and militant or intellectual and grunt, defaulting toward institutionalization and ritualizing a meeting-voting-recruiting-marching pattern... because I know we all have solutions for remedying these organisational processes whereby we can still achieve our goals.
I am not an advocate of a command economy or a planned economy. I do support at least some (Paternalistic) regulation of the economy etc as can be seen throughout this blog
I more than believe that its better for corporations to voluntarily reform themselves than for them to be forced to do so.
I could care less if the Catholic Church and other churches were to be Nationalized but it would be a unique solution to the Catholic Church and other churches being treaded on by the government since if they become Nationalized by the government, the government will be justified in treading on those churches since the government officially controls them
I sometimes do blame the Church for sometimes being an immoral inversion. For example, some sects of Christianity and Catholicism are an unhealed wound for the West due to their heretical anti liberal views. Some of these sects of Christianity and Catholicism forbid a liberal state which is a problem.
Minorities have been oppressed by the oppressive hiearchies of mother nature more so than by whites.
Some Christians say that when Christ comes back and establishes heaven on Earth , he will abolish hierarchies of state, capital and reaction. Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs
These Christians state that he will create a new type of existence with possibly different laws of nature for all people of all identities so nothing could separate people anymore and the lion will lay with the lamb. They go on to say that longer will personal property exist, everyone will share what they have like the Christians in the Book of Acts . It will be true retirement for all Christians Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs
The holy spirit will be the only drug we’ll use and need in that new kingdom Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs
I support free enterprise (ie commerce)
I support enterprise zones under our current economical landscape
Whites promote White run businesses . Whites small businesses always claim not to care about profit and just want to do what small businesses say they want to do. . But whites betray their capitalistic greed by purposely sell unhealthy products to make their products more mainstream
A small business owner being pretty darn reactionary is no shock if we realize that they are for lack of a better definition, under siege by all people because to their position.
Like the (non petite) bourgeoisie, they are pressured from beneath them and this pressure comes from the workers. They are faced with pressure from the real large bourgeoisie above them, who they compete with and tend to be indebted to, and on top of that, they have zero class solidarity with other SBO's for the reason that they are in non stop cut throat competition with them. Also, they are further vulnerable to changes in taxes, government policy, transnational markets, multinational markets etc.
Workers and the bourgeoisie at least have class solidarity amongst each other. The life a petite-bourgeoisie is rather wretched and in isolation. It's not shocking that they are ruggedly reactionary. They can never be worker allies, they can never be anyone’s allies.
I am opposed to politics that is inspired by fury, bitterness and grievances . Such resentfulness has no place in politics
The left , liberal 2.0 and the right both recognize that we have a sh*t system and cringe society, the left has the answers and explanations, liberal 2.0ers too, but the right is confused and still blaming Jews or immigration or whatever else the bourgeoise has planted as an enemy instead of themselves.
from here : "Firstly, the language of Left and Right is foreign to classical Marxism, which interpreted social contradictions in terms of objective class antagonisms, not with regard to the subjective differences of the political compass.
Secondly, Left and Right only emerged historically as the relative poles of bourgeois democracy, whose parliamentary terms only came into being and spread across the capitalist world to naturalize the bourgeois system of government.
Lastly, I emphasize how Marx’s theoretical originality manifested through a ruthless criticism of the left-wing politics of his time, namely, the various bourgeois and utopian schools of socialism and anarchism against which he sharpened his historical analysis of class society. Marxism, in my interpretation, gains its critical force by demystifying the Left’s habitual idealism, moralism, and utopianism, unhistorical tendencies marking the Left of Marx’s time and our own."
BUT as its above-linked About page states, its political heritage includes the revisionist, petty-bourgeois "New Left" movement of the 1960s-70s, which of course is associated with critical theory and idpol more generally. In other words, this organization is not genuinely Marxist and therefore by no means an authority here.
"the language of Left and Right is foreign to classical Marxism"
Even if we grant that this language is foreign to classical Marxism, this does not mean it is excluded from orthodox Marxist works—that is, those published after Karl Marx's death (1883) by great thinkers including Frederich Engels, Georgi Plekhanov, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Rosa Luxemburg. Indeed, Frederich Engels uses this language in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886):
The Left wing, the so-called Young Hegelians, in their fight with the pietist orthodox and the feudal reactionaries, abandoned bit by bit that philosophical-genteel reserve in regard to the burning questions of the day which up to that time had secured state toleration and even protection for their teachings. (bold added)
Additionally, as Vladimir Lenin writes in The State and Revolution (1917):
To the Right of Kautsky in international socialism, there are trends such as the Socialist Monthly in Germany (Legien, David, Kolb and many others, including the Scandinavians Stauning and Branting); the followers of Jaurès and Vandervelde in France and Belgium; Turati, Treves and other representatives of the Right wing of the Italian Party . . .(bold added)
Finally, in In Defense of Marxism (1939/1940) Leon Trotsky observes:
In both of the documents mentioned in the above letter, Shachtman revealed excessive adaptability toward the left wing of the petty-bourgeois democrats – political mimicry – a very dangerous symptom in a revolutionary politician! (bold added)
"interpreted social contradictions in terms of objective class antagonisms, not with regard to the subjective differences of the political compass."
The terms "left-" and "right-wing" refer not only to subjective views, which of course are ultimately rooted in the material basis of society, but also the objective function of concrete politics. I expand on this point below:
You have an idiosyncratic misconception of what the terms "left-" VS "right-wing" denote. As I explain here:
Broadly speaking, political conservatism refers to efforts to maintain (or "conserve") the status quo, whatever it may be. Since the first class societies formed some 10,000 years ago and generated widespread economic and general social inequality, conservatism has been characteristically anti-egalitarian; it has henceforth functioned to maintain this highly unequal state of affairs.
...and here:
"a political and social philosophy whose central tenets include tradition, hierarchy, and authority
Conversely, "left-wing" is defined in such ways as politics that "supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy," "the most liberal and egalitarian element of a political party or other group," "the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism," etc.
To be sure, left- VS right-wing politics are contradistinguished vis-à-vis their position on equality, with the former advocating it and the latter instead promoting hierarchies.
Karl Marx’s theoretical originality manifested through a ruthless criticism of the left-wing politics of his time, namely, the various bourgeois and utopian schools of socialism and anarchism
Like all other apparently left-wing anti-Marxists, these tendencies are pseudo-leftist rather than genuinely left-wing. This quote from the World Socialist Web Site article "What is the pseudo-left?" is apropos here:
The pseudo-left is anti-Marxist. It rejects historical materialism, embracing instead various forms of subjective idealism and philosophical irrationalism associated with existentialism, the Frankfurt School and contemporary postmodernism.
The pseudo-left is anti-socialist, opposes class struggle, and denies the central role of the working class and the necessity of revolution in the progressive transformation of society. It counterposes supra-class populism to the independent political organization and mass mobilization of the working class against the capitalist system. The economic program of the pseudo-left is, in its essentials, pro-capitalist and nationalistic.
Politics should instead draw from our conscious which reaps the moral uprightness (or at worst Vaush 'righteousness' [see Destiny subreddit for what that means]), and deep affection we should have for our universes' creator-higher power (even if G-d see Paschal's Wager, if your heart is hardened against religion/faith than just have deep affection for mother nature) . The focus should be on the bread of life , Emmanuel , Jewish Messiah, etc (or if you refuse to accept faith then look toward the stars i.e Pisces)
I support Bitcoin workshops and I have no real issues with Bitcoin
I support and encourage people to use bonds and to save their money in savings accounts. If war bonds come back, I would also support people using war bonds
We need an ACTUAL Build Back Better (Build Back Ourselves by Jordan Jardine). But on a more tactical to practical note, Build Back Better would be better if the politicians amended it to either reducing the number of years or used a hypothetical Conservative Party UK amended Build Back Better
I love role playing in marriages. Like having a husband roleplay in a marriage to roleplay having a responsibility to lead his household in a loving and gentle way, giving his life to his wife (like how Christ gave his life to the Church by dying) so she (the wife) can roleplay willingly submitting herself to her husband's leadership (from my ppb)
This is more fun than other types of BDSM marriage roleplaying like the Princess Lelia roleplay that Ross and Rachel did in Friends. roleplay not raceplay
I love roleplay where husbands play a role of being committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection, and biblical values (from my ppb)
I am an Anarchist in large part because I am a kantian. (from my ppb)
I am influenced by Trotskyist ideas (like this one and similar to this one, a bizzaro world version of this one too) (from my ppb and main blog respectively)
My combined economic views can be best described either as a mix of USSR like planned economy (ie like the one under Marxism-Leninism/Josef Stalin brought mainstream to be like the fictional "command and control economy" that Gavin Newsom runs in California in the mind of Ron Desantis
the type of retroactive hypothetical Capitalism that would have existed in the US in the early to early mid 20th century IF that early to early mid 20th century retroactive hypothetical US Capitalism was a mix of this type of economic system
a Humanistic type of this type of economic system (in the Old South only starting from the mid 19th century on), and this meme Conservative Communism ideology/the democracy that the United States has managed since FDR (and that was noticeably growing stronger in the early 2000s and is still growing stronger today) (from my private political blog)
which fused together can produce a Marxist-Leninism Social Authoritarianism type of ideology
Saying people are irredeemable when every sinner (whose hearts aren’t hardened) is redeemable in God’s eyes is wrong. “ To me, a very imperfect mortal, ever in need of God's grace, no one is beyond redemption. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself.” Ghandi “ It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to.”. C.S. Lewis Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs
Demonizing political enemies when God or the laws of perfection say that all sins are equally bad (except the sin of rejecting the spirit which is unforgivable), or that we are all equally as far from perfection as everyone else is far from perfection (since perfection is infinitely beyond our reach due to perfection being boundless) “ Perfection is only an ideal for man; it cannot be attained, for man is made imperfect.” Ghandi “No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good.” C.S. Lewis Filter this through my other complex and personal spiritual beliefs
“Christian” Republicans spew pure hatred at times or more than they are willing to admit
What the Gospel teaches is vastly different from how many if not most "Christian" right of Center right Republicans talk and act. It is hard to be surrounded by such hypocrites. Those hypocritical “Christian” Republicans should instead be as kind, compassionate and Christ like as Stacy Abrams who herself is a Christian, but a gooder one
It is also wrong for Liberal 2.0ers to use Christianity like dogma to demonize their political opponents worshipers
Dr Thomas Sowell says that Liberal 2.0ers do not find their opponents in error, but in sin.
To them, the Left Wingers, Blue Dog Democrats, Independents and Republicans/Right are not merely wrong or mistaken in their political ideology, but somehow evil for having one at variance with theirs.
Moreover, being “woke” is like being in a religion with no path for redemption. No matter how right your thinking, you will always be wrong due to past failings.
To me, seems like the idea of policing thought and culture used to be almost exclusively the Christian right. Now it's also the progressive left. "Actually you CANT say that joke, you CANT do this, you CANT do that, it's problematic." Hard to be cool when you have to mommy scold wrongdoers
Though if Republicans used Liberal 2.0 Christian like political dogma/wokeness as mentioned above and embraced this type of moral puritanism (can't beat the Liberal 2.0 'moral puritans' join them) instead and downplayed Christianity like the Republicans did pre 1970s , I would be ok with that makeover since that would be a natural progression for Republicans from Christianity to Socialism which should be there end goal.
Thus it would be a step in the right direction for the Republicans
Many forms of Socialism are a later form of Christianity. There might be genealogical" afilliation between Christianism and many forms of Socialism
Since the state is a political expression of organized society , it should not be a neutral agent but instead through a variety of creative and common sense, bipartisan methods not just economic but the distribution and the democratization of political, productive, gender, informational along with cultural territorial power and other spheres with inequalities exist .
The state must manage and regulate (within reason) of the economical system , being the owner and protector of strategic resources and the enviornmentand being able bodied to participate in economic production
I support political management with higher levels of transparency, participation, closeness (to the citizens), along with digital activism, citizen campaigns, public accounts done periodically etc
In addition, its management was characterized by raising the levels of transparency, participation, closeness to citizens and digital activism, reporting in different parts of the District with different platforms the details of his parliamentary work, through citizen campaigns, periodic public accounts
We all form and build the state which is for all of us. I support the creation of an inclusive and citizen state as the main guarantor of the common good and assurance of universality and decommodification of social rights at both a cultural level and institutional level (like an Inclusive Democracy)
The link between the state and citizenship is a powerful tool for the conflict between our current neoliberal model and a society that guarantees effective social rights
The combo of a strengthened state and expanded social and political citizenship must work with feedback between the two .
The more democratic and inclusive the state is, the better the state will collect the citizens will and the more effective it will be in its role (or maybe even paternalistic role) as guarantor. This is MUCH better than State liberalism and big brotherism by far
I support a state where power is distributed equally for the promotion and development of territorial and or national identities ,structuring itself in a way to generate real local governments thus being able toreaffirm territorial autonomy as a fundamental part of democracy
I am against denigrated democracies, I am wary of Liberal 2.0 adjacent causes due to that and the due to fact I frankly don’t care about that stuff due to our bourgeois system within that causing political nihilness in me
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have" Thomas Jefferson
The vast majority of politicians in the US, Europe etc are whites and that is an injustice
So with so many white politicians , it is a hard truth that naturally whites to have control of the political system. Whites have been major players behind relevant decisions .
Even in countries made up of mostly BIPOC politicians, whites are then promoted into power positions as advisers and ministers by these officials.
This injustice is why I support more political diversity as seen throughout this blog
I am against politicians being corrupt.
"If we lie to the government it’s a felony. But if they lie to us its politics" a quote from an unknown source
There is no left, there is no liberal 2.0, there is no right. There is only liberty, tyranny and the sliding scale between all three of them.
It is not so much about left versus liberal 2.0 versus right, but really the future versus the past
Not left , not liberal 2.0, not right but Forward.
Beyond/transcend the left, liberal 2.0 and right but against the center.
Reject the left , liberal 2.0 and right.
I don't see politics along a Left/Liberal 2.0/Right divide, I see politics along a Top/Bottom divide.
The perspective that makes some non far right things seem to be “far-right” is only from other sorts of Liberalism 2.0. The proponents of Liberal 2.0 doctrines are so self-absorbed that they can’t possibly come up with another type of social organization, and their complete existence is so keyed to one form or another of Liberal 2.0 command-and-control, they see all things through the same prism. And they all descend into warfare among themselves, each believing that theirs is the “One and True Path”.
A delusion that has endured since the rise of human based governance with the organization of clans and tribes. Tough person and obedient followers.
Even some left leaning libertarians have been pushed out of mainstream left spaces by WRONGLY AND FALSELY being called ‘far right bigot’ (if those particular left leaning libertarians are far right bigots so are 70 to 80 percent of Americans, Australians and Europeans since the majority of those countries are to the right of those particular left leaning libertarians on most issues)
Those ‘mainstream leftists’ who smeared left leaning libertarians as ‘far right bigots’ are a cult
A overlooked to significant amount of what is classified as "far Right" is merely classical Liberalism. The classic "Cthulhu swims Left"/Overton window: what was overall "Left"/liberal 50 or 100 years ago is currently "conservative" or "far Right". I do loathe muddling Left and Liberal though. I think Curtis Yarvin's simplified definitions suit immensely: American/Western Left is chaos, Right is order (Carlyle), "Right is right, Left is Left", Right is the absence of leftism.
See this article on how the Liberal 2.0ers are weaponizing the term ‘far right’ to smear, censor and delegit opposition. Far right is used nearly all the time by the Liberal 2.0 political machine as a derogatory label on people or views they strongly disagree with instead of an accurate one. Also see this and this
This is called Partisan tolerance.
Partisan tolerance was created by author Herbert Marcuse. Partisan tolerance demands that the enemies of the proto Liberal 2.0/Liberal 2.0 revolution must be forced into tolerance, but proto Liberal 2.0ers/Liberal 2.0ers are allowed to be intolerant against them. The reason is that there are "correct" opinions that are preferred, and "incorrect" opinions that must be challenged and defeated
Partisan tolerance is basically the same as political correctness, censorship, and cutbacks of First Amendment Free Speech rights.
Marcuse wrote that liberating tolerance would include tolerating the excesses of proto Liberal 2.0ers (and eventual Liberal 2.0) but not those of the Right and those outside the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group. Marcuse contended that the Right and those outside the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group. are deserving of intolerance.
In Marcuse’s mind, a non partisan tolerance leaves the established values intact, which leads to repressive tolerance.
So basically, Marcuse only accepted a partisan tolerance which is intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo or that promotes intolerance against movements from the Right and outside the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group , and toleration of movements from the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group
I support developing and improving directly with autonomous citizen councils and municipal spaces
This article is about McDonalds vs China and was written almost a decade ago. It shows an interesting angle on global corporatism and rising world superpowers intersecting (from my private blog sphere)
I love this inclusive casting call for the Lord of the Rings and I feel this type of casting call is a great way to make our movies and tv shows more inclusive while celebrating the uniqueness of each and every individual:
"A casting agency working for Amazon based in New Zealand said it was looking for only “unusual” or “funky looking” actors for the new series.
“Do you have an overbite, face burns, long skinny limbs, deep cheekbones, lines on your face, acne scars, ears that stick out, bulbous or interesting noses, small eyes, big eyes, any deformities, Skinny faces, missing limbs?” BGT Actors Models & Talent asked in an ad. (from my private blog sphere)
It is a privilege to be a human from Earth who is not of a non Earth race or ethnicity or species. It was a privilege in my past life to be the identity that I was in my past life (from my private blog sphere)
Liberals/Libs, Radical Progressives leftists etc generally use Strawman/Gaslighting/Bad Faith/Dog Whistle/Right-Winger/Russian Troll when talking to people who disagree with them, especially to other Liberals/Libs, Radical Progressives and leftists. It is wrong that they do this and it is why there is such infighting and divisiveness . This shirt here illustrates this point (from my private blog sphere)
The BLM riots were seen by some as a huge Capitalist attempt to liquidate the working class and to drive all people into Big corp's loving arms. That sounds like a Claremton Institute -Peter Thiel narrative but as seen in my non private blogs, that narrative as misguided and naive as it is isn't far off from having a bit of truth in it somewhere
On a related note it is wrong for people to make strawman arguments against BLM like chuds and OAN/MAGA nuts do. The BLM message is literally just basic statements that, ironically, All Lives actually do Matter (from my private blog sphere)
This NYT Faces of Power piece provides good insight into the socioeconomic power dynamics at work in the US in vital industries (from my private blog sphere)
I support marginalized youth (like empaths) and full rights for them.
I am against inherited aristocracy
Steve Hilton had a great episode on his the Next Revolution show Fox News on April 30 2023. I agree with everything that he said on that show. Here is one clip from it over here
from my rep con blog
I agree with this article from Jacobin on Incels and the economic issues which drive them to hit rock bottom morally based on that
Based on this, on this along with the wrong blowback that Jacobin and Bernie Sanders have gotten for correctly suggesting that right wingers, incels and Qanons are the way they are in big part due to them being poor or near poor and that Left Social Democracy/Progressive Socialism would help them not be that way etc it seems that right wingers today are being dehumanized where even talking to them stains any liberal or leftist as a 'fascist enabler', 'grifter', 'right winger' , 'conservative' etc.
I pointed out elsewhere but I will reintrate it here "It's baffling how liberals don't realize that by being so afraid of even talking about or being associated with some, basically neutral thing, be it a meme, a subculture, scene or social space online that the right has even so much as vaguely tried to associate itself with, they are literally ceding ground and surrendering said thing to the right.
They demonize right wingers like they are subhuman (though technically right wingers are but that is beside the point). It reminds me of what happened to Muslims after 9/11 or the Japanese during WWII. Right wingers deserve blowback and criticism but calling them extremists and treating them as an enemy is not ideal.
See here for more. I'll add more here later from other sources and standpoints on this (W.I.P)
The right barely has to do any effort to take over something it seems, just make the vaguest gesture that said thing is their turf and culture war obsessed lefties immediately hand it over to them because they are obsessed with appearing pure and free of anything even vaguely "problematic".
t now seems that Liberal 2.0ers have right wing phobia/conservaphobia. They just attack attack them even if they are talking about something totally unrelated (like homeless in Oregon). It is sickening, over the top and almost parady like. The primiative thinking of these Liberal 2.0 dolts (like the Twitter libs) it boggles my mind
Right wingers are bad but they are nowhere near as bad as they are made out to be above. The Republicans are more left than they were decades ago . It's just the Liberal 2.0ers and Dems have moved further left than the Republicans did in that time spam from my repcon blog
ADL is A Okay with me but it needs to be more A-temporal instead of moral absolutism, see here for more from hyperlane blog
Too much democracy is bad for democracy (too much of a good thing tilt) hyperlane blog post
Which 'hero' most represents our society?
I am a hater? :
Hate can be a powerful motivator or a destructive force. If you can use hate to change your circumstances without letting hate take control of you, why not take advantage of hate?
Hate is a response that has evolved with us; generally hate it is pro survival.
People hate people who hurt them, who rob them, who put them in risk spots. The problem though is, modern day (and modern day meaning the last couple of thousand years; a blink in an evolutionary eye) social pressures change way more quickly than people evolve. So it has become maladaptive in several cases
Adam Phillips went as far to suggest that real kindness is not possible in relationships without hating and being hated, so with that unsentimental admission of interpersonal frustrations and the associated hostilities that come with them, it may allow true fellow-feeling to come about. See here for more
Like PJ Proudhon, I write a wide range of often extreme thoughts—typically in such fragmentary form that forming any conclusions from his entries is next to impossible.
As a deradicalizer of extreme right wing and alt righters, I am a strong personalities and I make myself digestible to them by treating them as I do to create a conduit for my positions and philosophy to be internalized by them like Destiny did with Nick Fuentes and his Groyper army and Vaush does on Youtube to right wing extremists
I sort of reject every program, idea, abstraction, ideal or theory that is placed above life and individuals as a construct to be served.
This rejection thus is, of rigid organized religious, , the State/Nation (though Minarchism is ok), idpol, etc., but also of Anarchism, Primitivism, Communism, Freedom, Reason, Individuality, etc. when these become ideals to which a person is to sacrifice himself/herself, a person’s desires, aspirations, dreams etc.
I support using ideas, theoretical analysis and reason capacity to abstractly think critically as tools for realizing society’s aims, for reappropriating life and for acting against everything that stands in the way of this reappropriation.
This includes the rejection of easy answers that come to act as blinders to a person’s attempts to examine the reality someone is facing in favor of ongoing questioning and theoretical exploration
I am not really down or a fan of organizationalism, meaning the idea that any organization can represent exploited individuals or groups, social struggle, revolution or Anarchism ideals.
Therefore I also am extremely wary of all formal organizations (parties, unions, federations etc) which, (due to their programmatic attributes), take on such a representative role.
This does not I do not support the capacity to organize the specific activities that are necessary to the revolutionary struggle, but rather I am extremely wary of the subjection of the organization of tasks and projects to organizational program formalism. The only task that has ever been proven to require formal organization is formal organization development and maintenance
Omissions: My silence on any other specific government policy, law, ordinance, regulation-agency ruling, initiative, edict, control, etc shall not be construed to imply my approval. I want to enunciate my top priorities, but not the whole of my positions
I am opposed to Radicalism. It's been pretty easy to talk others into being less hostile to 'leftists' and make the distinction between Neoliberals, Marxists and everything in between. Making clear to rightoids that the cost of the cold war was the truth and what that means is also so important to get across. Ideally you don't be anti Christian while you do that ~ et voilà
Comments
Post a Comment