Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 201 to 206 of 206

Thread: Are you a leftist or a rightist?

  1. #201
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    161
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Those who identify with the 'left' see me as a 'right'-wing extremist. Those who identify with the 'right' see me as a 'left'-wing extremist.

    Politics is a battle of interests. Not the moral or the immoral, the right and the wrong, the good and the bad. It is the battle of groups and the structure in which they desire the world to be. I identify those who see the world in 'left' or 'right' with the rabble.

    Between the 'left' and the 'right' I am equally disgusted. Modern politics is a battle of moralisms. The rightist berates me for saying: 'goddamn!', the leftist berates me for saying: '******!'. The rightist berates me for defending the revolution of the oppressed, the leftist berates me for defending the authority of the oppressor. Isolated from these two group interests I say: 'to the victor belong the spoils! let god stamp the seal of nobility on those who emerge victorious in this struggle!' but as an individual part of society I say: 'the world shall be how I will it to be and all those who oppose me deserve death'

    Now in the broader historical sense of the struggle which I identify my world to be in, I identify myself with the 'left' in this struggle. In this struggle I intend to be the victor, and I would defend the status quo of my revolution to such an extent that would make any conservative blush.

    My ideal society would be a free association of producers notwithstanding my harsh criticisms of 'egalitarian' ideologies and 'revolutions' in the past which occurred in the name of 'equality' and especially the Alpha Enlightenment value of 'progress' . Obviously I am not a fan of what today we deem as the 'capitalist mode of production' but it should also be obvious that the reason why I oppose the 'capitalist system' is because my ideals and my individuality get the short end of the stick in that relationship. Simultaneously I am also sympathetic to those who oppose general 'freedom'. Particularly my dual, whose primary 'modus operandi' is power over others. In other words I support the power of proletariat over bourgeoise, and believe from this will arise a new aristocracy. See: §257 of Nietzche's 'Beyond Good & Evil' to understand what it is that I am elucidating to. And yes to right wingers I am aware of Nietzsche's hostility towards proletarian movements and no quoting him does not contradict my worldview at all. Right-Nietzscheanism is as ignorant and stupid as Left-Nietzscheanism as Nietzsche takes with one hand what he gives with the other.

    I hope I did not offend anybody as it was not my intention.

    *Edit: The forum censored one of my words in the third stanza. The word in is an epithet for 'homosexuality' that begins with the letter 'F'. I have absolutely no problem with what contemporary morality has labeled 'homosexuality' and would absolutely defend the right for 'homosexuals' to be as they are. In fact I associate 'homosexuality' with high cultural achievement as 'homosexuality'— or more accurately pederasty has been a theme in many great literary works. The censorship of this word in this post reminded me a time in which I was talking to a girl and referred to a group of males whom I deemed to be weak as '******s' in a critical way. My use of language was immediately met with condemnation from her and that I should be more considerate to the feelings of others. Mind you, the 'feelings' of 'others' who were not even present in the conversation to begin with. Needless to say, that individual has cut off contact from me after that exchange due to my refusal to admit my wrongdoing. If this was any indication of the future of our conversations then I am glad than she did— because there is nothing that I most abhor than those who try to police sentiment. However, I do not hold this person in contempt for their view as it could be that they hail from a place in which gay people were a marginalized group and probably associate that sort of language with unscrupulous people. Again however, those who try to police speaking in such a way as to remove 'insensitive' language deserve to have the shit kicked of them by an SLE.
    Last edited by Anonymous; 04-21-2022 at 11:34 PM. Reason: ******

  2. #202
    LϺαο Not A Communist Shill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default





    I am currently baffled by the rage around transgender identity and think more time should be spent on green issues
    .

  3. #203
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    161
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hello @Subteigh, first I want to say that you are the first person I am responding to in this thread because yours is the only post which I read (whilist editing a post I made). I generally do not enjoy reading other peoples' opinions on politics because they tend to be quite horrible and do nothing in me but inspire a hostile reaction (at the persons views, not their person) at worst and a critical one at best. Nothing in your post aspires hostility in me but I do however wish to be critical of that chart which you posted. It is so flawed that I can immediately identify the political views of the individual who created it. They strike me as average-above in openness, high in agreeableness, average-high in neuroticism. The archetype of your standard western petit-bourgeoise social democrat. The idea of being 'good', 'just' , and 'moral' likely lives rent free inside their head.

    Let us start with the first axis: 'economic' which is so confined in the logic of bourgeoise political economy to a point in which it parodies itself.
    In the fiscal policy of modern states I find that 'higher taxes and spending' result in the redistribution of wealth by taking it from working people and giving it to those who don't. For example, my father was a skilled tradesman of median income who had 1/3 of his earnings taken by the state in order for it to do with it what it pleases. The impact of this policy can be 'positive', such as funding the creation of infrastructure in the form of public works and health services; or it can be 'negative', such as funding class warfare in the form of imperialism and state policing. Now since 'higher taxes and spending' was placed in the left-wing bracket and there is no other information to work with, I will interpret that by 'higher taxes and spending' this person means to say re-distribution of liquid assets from the highest wealth bracket (bourgeoisie) to the lowest (proletariat). Wealth redistribution is of course, absurd. First of all 'money' is not 'wealth'. Wealth takes the social form of money as a means to facilitate exchange. However wealth itself is buildings, factories, land, and people. In other words means of production. In order to 'redistribute wealth' from the bourgeoisie you would have to have to first convert the means of production into liquidity, which will take the form of either the sale of estates or most often through loans given out by the central bank of the state. Upon receiving the 'redistributed' wealth the recipient has to exchange that money in the economy, while those who own means of production continue their accumulation of capital. Even in this ideal scenario wealth redistribution doesn't actually do anything to solve the basic contradiction inherent in the capitalist mode of production which still continues in this arrangement. The reality of 'wealth redistribution' is actually much worse than that. It takes money from working people and gives it to those who don't. No wonder 'conservatives' are so weary of any form of 'socialism'. There is a reason why Stalin called 'social democracy' the moderate wing of 'fascism'. Wealth redistribution is redistribution of wages into the hands of the bourgeoise.


    As for government regulation of business, in order to participate and have influence in 'government' it is necessary for one to have capital. Financing campaigns, lobbying officials, running news stories all require capital. Government regulation of business is really only 'regulation' by that of the higher bourgeoisie over the lower. It helps the higher bourgeoisie and it hurts the lower bourgeoise. Now that should explain the motive of the peit-bourgeoise ideology known as 'libertarianism'. 'Nationalization' again just gives the means of production to the higher bourgeoise. I believe this should address the 'right wing' section of the chart quite adequately.
    And no before any rightist gets their panties in a twist no I am not a communist and no I have absolutely no attachment to Karl Marx or his theories. I just find his critique of the capitalist mode of production to be most convincing. Libertarian response in the form of marginalism is based off a misreading of Volume 3 of Kapital. You can find a response to Böhm-Bawerk in Rudolf Hilferding's 'Böhm-Bawerk's Criticism of Marx'.


    Also I find Marx's theory of Historical Materialism to be rather dubious and he inherited the same error Hegel made in his dialectic all the while substituting spirit for matter. Other than that there is absolutely no '-ism' which I follow.


    Now the second axis: 'national' which is so confined to the cultural hegemony of bourgeoise ideology to a point in which it basically parodies itself.
    The leftist 'internationalists' that I know tend to oppose the European Union. They see it as an exploitive imperialist bourgeoisie organization that should be destroyed. 'Global' interest over 'national' interest is phrase mongering abstraction that doesn't actually mean anything. It reminds me of a quote by Carl Schmidtt:


    “The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded of a somewhat modified expression of Proudhon’s: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.”


    In other words people who believe is some abstract 'global' interest are just people with giant egos who think that their worldview is somehow aligned with the interests of the entire world. AKA people with giant fucking egos. I don't see how being an EU skeptic is 'right wing' period. Mass immigration is a form of class warfare used by the bourgeoisie to drive down local costs of labor. Working people have every right to be 'EU-Skeptics'. 'National Interests' is another abstraction because there is no such thing as a 'national interest' but an interest of different groups of the nation which we can divide in many ways. Nationalism is another form of egoism but with far less breadth than 'internationalism'.


    Now the third axis: 'social' which is just stupid and obviously made by someone who thinks 'social liberals' have actually been permissive to 'minority rights'.


    It's 'liberal' to allow people to do their own things. Minority rights is 'liberal'. Supporting the dominant culture and majority is 'conservative'. To give an example, the government of the united states enforced desegregation out of the barrel of a gun. It was the majority of the American population who agreed to 'desegregation' and a minority who did not. By the logic of the axis, the policy of desegregation was an authoritarian act against the will of a minority and was in support of the dominant culture. But obviously the person who made it doesn't think 'desegregation' was 'right wing'.



    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I am currently baffled by the rage around transgender identity
    I have no desire to engage rationally on the issue of 'transgenderism'. No child is born in the 'wrong body'. I fucking know for a fact that that if I was a child of one of those wretched subhuman siccophants who push transgender propaganda they would have no doubt convinced me that I was one. They would have tried to make me 'socially transition' or whatever.

    I know who you motherfuckers are. I know where you live. I know your fucking Twitter handles and Discord servers. You people are so lucky to be born in the time that you are because you have been born in an era where get to witness the wrath of an IEI—a privilege which is usually reserved for the few. On behalf of all IEIs MK'ultra'd into thinking they are women—I will make you witness hell. It's not a place that you go to after you die. It's something that exists here on this world.


    Reign-Of-Terror-Facts-Featured.jpg

    Amen.
    Last edited by Anonymous; 04-23-2022 at 07:40 PM.

  4. #204
    SlytherinPower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    By the lake
    TIM
    4w3 so/sx
    Posts
    1,044
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteronfireee3 View Post
    I don't really like to identify myself with politics,

    I'm a Christian first, who happens to vote republican bc republican policies are more in line with Christian values (if you don't agree with this, you need to read your Bible)

    Problems happen when you put politics/ideologies above the authority of God

    While the devil can use left (democrat), or right (republican),

    Currently in 2022, the devil is using mostly the left to do his bidding

    The reason why America is going the direction it is bc America has forgotten God.

    This country's foundation was founded on the Bible (God's Word), setting the standard of morality

    When you don't have a standard, you base your morality subjectively/ relatively based on the opinions and emotions of the people and trends around you. That is moronic.

    The devil has used false progressive doctrines (feminism, forced transgenderism, and now up and coming pedophilia) to disrupt and confuse societies natural order. Hence why things are so chaotic now.

    And as society continues to become more and more corrupt and perverse, it will eventually destroy itself
    Yeah I want to personally beat the crap out of any of these people talking about "minor attracted person". & then saying not all of them offend. Cuz honestly idgaf if someone's never offended, we don't need people that find toddlers sexually attractive normalized. Annnnnd idk how any LGBT people would want those people associated with them since they're pushing it as just another sexuality.

  5. #205
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Leftie here, mainly because I support worker's rights; unions; and checks & balances against government, big business, and any other source of centralized power.

  6. #206
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Land of The Free
    TIM
    ILI-DC™
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Politics are so Beta.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •