First, let me clear up what the left/right spectrum is. Traditionally, you had the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The House of Commons supported the interests of commoners and the House of Lords supported the interests of the lords, aka the elite. This is the real left and right.The myth that right wing = authoritarian:Today, it seems that "leftists" think the right wing is authoritarian, but to me, authoritarianism implies abuse of power. To simply have authority isn't to be an authoritarian. The right wing believes in a tall vertical hierarchy and the left wing believes in a flat hierarchy.The myth that right wing = small government:Another confusion is with how the right wing sees themselves. I have friends who say they are libertarian, and they think this makes them right wing or conservative. Technically, you could say there is a version of libertarianism that is elitist (ex: John Galt), so they would be right in that sense. However, what I said to my friend is that power is power. If you have a tiny government that doesn't restrict business, and then you have a single monopolistic business that has power over everything, how is that not an authoritarian situation, effectively doing the opposite of what your libertarianism may have intended (assuming it wasn't elitist intent).The West, or at least America and its cultural sphere (I've always seen it as the Protestant countries that are the most neurotic about liberalism, so it's the Anglosphere and the Germanic countries), has a very strong left wing streak in the classical sense. 1/2
>>532239850Both my right wing buddies and my left wing family are against steep vertical hierarchies. My right wing buddies probably think I am not as "conservative" as them because I make fun of MAGA, but I am probably much more open to the idea of a monarchy, considering there's no real representation in the American democracy anyway. I also think it's cute when my left wing family wants to tax billionaires, despite the fact that a single company (such as Black Rock) controls more wealth than all of the US billionaires combined (12T vs 8T, if you were wondering). That's kind of besides the point, but it shows the natural animosity towards power.Everyone has a knee jerk reaction to anything even resembling a monarch (although they don't have a problem with an executive acting like a monarch, if it's in their favor). and it got me thinking. This is like a revulsion to power and authority, even if it were justly and fairly used. I'm not sure if this started as a political idea or as a philosophical idea which became political (probably the latter), but this has inevitably carried over into gender relations, and I see two things:1. Women view men as powerful and so they inherently hate us. This means that better your qualities as a man, often the more you are hated by women, particularly those who don't know you.2. Men are afraid to demonstrate power/authority because they also associate that with bad things.I think this is at the center of the gender divide, which also means the collapse in fertility rates, sex rates, marriage rates, etc. 2/3
Everything that isn't voluntary= left.Only freedom is right wing, especially economic freedom the root of all freedom
The American left and right will never "go back to normal" whatever that used to be. It will end in violence, and the left will lose. Can't wait.
People can blame other things like women getting education or higher paying jobs, dating apps, the pill, etc. These are all factors, and the first one is arguably the strongest factor because it literally pulls women out of the eligible dating pool for marriage (assuming they won't put school aside), but these are ultimately choices. Someone still has to make the choice, and why would they do that? I'll answer for you: slave morality.I think slave morality is one of the ultimate tools to divide the masses because slaves are not smart enough to see they are tearing down the very structure that they need to rise up.Now, psychologically, we could go deeper. I think slave morality is a coping mechanism for being lower on the natural hierarchy. One doesn't have to be a slave to have slave morality, but one becomes a slave from it.I think it also comes from lack of experience with adversity, ironically. In other words, you imagine yourself a slave because you are too afraid to step outside of your comfort zone. Psychologically, this means occasionally allowing your ego to shrink when you are wrong, or you meet someone who is better at something than you. The modern person never has to admit ego defeat. They live sheltered lives where their ego is always accommodated, and there's always space for their coping to coexist with reality. In other words, it is somewhat of a privilege to have slave morality. That's why I don't even think it would be the average mentality of a slave. A true slave is completely mindbroken and submissive, but a slave moralist is completely confrontational at all turns.Perhaps we should say "master morality" is just being a realist, and "slave morality" is just being an idealist who is out of touch with the nature of power in reality.
The glowniggers are illuminating this entire thread
Left and right ideas came from the french parliament during the french revolution. Left and right is unique to democracy. If we are in a room, we will most likely arrange ourselves into the two factions most incompatible, and then the middle ground between them. Left and right is not defined by any specific ideology, but rather by relationships between competing factions. In democracy, this competition is built into the system. In a monarchy, there is no left and right. There is simply a hierarchy going up to the king. Left and right are "the left side of the hall" and "the right side of the hall." They are defined by their opposition to eachother. This helps explain such confusions as why radical left wing and radical right wing governments acted very similar to eachother in the 1940s, or why radical right wing muslims in britain are allied with radical left wing queers, or why radical right wing westerners agree on many ideological points with radical right wing afghanis, but neither wants the other to share their country with.
>>532240152
>>532240075The right is still fundamentally leftist. If you mean that the group that is pushing DEI, hormone blockers for kids, and feminism... ya, they'll probably die off within a few decades, if we don't get send into a totally different kind of world dominated by technocratic elite.That being said, perhaps you're looking at it wrong. Perhaps the left is being setup on purpose to fail. The elite don't ACTUALLY want a world dominated by leftists. They just want us to believe that the world is dominated by leftists. That makes it easier for us to cope, and they wouldn't want people to wake up about that.>>532239987>Only freedom is right wing, especially economic freedom the root of all freedomKek, total economic freedom leads to economic despotism. Pick up a history book.
>>532239850Democracy is a tyranny of the retarded. It’s obviously more likely that a monarch could just miraculously happen to be based, opposed to millions of retarded brown pawns “voting” for based policies every couple years
>>532240242There were centuries of parliaments before the French Revolution though, and yes they included a monarch as well.You have an operational definition that is useful if you can't explain the underlying cause, but I think you are missing that there actually is a real cause for the divide.
>>532240315Can you expand on your second paragraph?
>>532240438The divide is nonsense. In any democracy there are going to basically be two factions fighting for power, and then the middle ground between them. In order to understand modern politics we have to think outside of the box. Left and right have no actual meaning outside of which faction is in power. For example, in 1917 the radical Bolsheviks beat out the less radical Mensheviks. Despite the Bolsheviks being described as far left, they ended up acting similarly to the purportedly far right nazis in Germany. Or today in Germany AfD is far right, while the purported centrist faction is censoring speech and trying to outlaw political opponents. The left right spectrum has nothing to do with ideas or beliefs, it is only ever about the contest for power which takes place in a democracy. The need to try and make all the "left wing" factions of history line up with eachother despite their radically different behaviors is a symptom of being stuck in this box.
>>532239850>>532239875>>532240108Grok is this nigga for real?
>>532240325There's more to it than that. Democracies are vulnerable to outside intervention in ways that a monarchist government is not. The monarch has the ultimate skin in the game for his country to succeed. And just to be clear, I am not pro-monarchy, but I am pro- some form of aristocracy that this nation was founded on.The second thing I wanted to mention is that monarchism -> mercantilism -> capitalism is a clear progression. Mercantilists wanted a positive balance of trade much like an actual monarch would, since that is pretty much the definition of economic health in a kingdom. Mercantilists are private businesses who still want the country to be ran by a monarchical government. Capitalism is a step further, where they throw out the trade balance question because the only thing that matters is the health of individual businesses, even at the expense of everyone else. Capitalism, in this light, almost seems like a subversion of mercantilism, but mercantilism also seems like a monarchist economy masquerading as something that benefits the people.There were some big economic ideas that shaped the early United States. Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay were two of the biggest proponents, and then Abraham Lincoln and JFK also became major proponents of the ideology. Not so coincidentally, both were shot. The essence is that in order for a government to be sovereign, it must print its own money, which means there is no middle man that makes money off of debt created by the government from spending. Rather, all money is IOU printed by government, and its value is based on the overall trust of that government. If governments spend wisely, then the currency appreciates, so incentive is in the right place. The American school of economics also believed in tariffs like mercantilists, and they believed in central planning like the more regal French court (England was European backwaters until the Black Nobility arrived in the 1600s and made it their new capital).
>>532239850...OH JOY...MORE RIGHT / LEFT RETARDATION...THANK YOU FOR EXPLAININGSOOOOOO COMPLAX...AND HAS ***FUCK ALL*** TO DO WITH MODERN POLITICS>YOU FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE.
>>532240523You don't find it odd that the WEF is composed of some of the most powerful people on the planet, and yet they are all flowers and hugs? You'll also find connections between European nobility and the Club of Rome, which published papers in the 1960s that kicked off the fears for Global Warming and overpopulation. The Venn Diagram between these two groups is pretty much a circle.Do you know about the Fabian Socialists in Britain and how they're connected to the Anglo-American Establishment Elite, defined by Carroll Quigley? I'm talking about the South African Lord Milner and Cecil Rhodes. You probably don't know the whole story about how Marx was a paid asset of the British Foreign Service or how the British had projects like Marx all over the globe. Read all of this: https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/conf-iclc/1990s/conf_feb94_intr_nbs.htmlYou also probably don't know that the two largest thinktanks in the US, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Council for National Policy (the left wing and right wing establishments, respectively), were founded by the same people. Or, that the CNP was formed by members of the former John Birch Society.You might not even know that the Cold War was fake and gay, that by spreading fear of communism, they were able to accentuate the power of the Bretton Woods System and the later Petrodollar/Dopedollar (considering the same people are involved in global narcotics trafficking and starting wars whenever people want to sell their oil for non-USD, I think it's a good name). You most likely don't know that 9/11 was used both to engage in more war to defend the Petrodollar AND to destroy evidence of their activities in the 80s/90s. Think: Bush, Clinton, Ollie North, and the use of financial derivatives that they had no intention of paying back — see the Bank of New York and the mysterious debt they couldn't clear in the days following 9/11 and the loophole that the government gave them to clear it.
>>532241831Funny how Trump has close ties to this Ukrainian arms dealer who use Bank of New York for money laundering. That couldn't be relevant, could it?
>>532241921You don't think Trump's ties to Russia are his involvement in the CIA sending billions of dollars in cash to Russia for much of the 90s, or that the uncleared debt by Bank of New York, or the mysterious fire in Building 7 was related to hiding this evidence? Some say there was even a special operations team sent into Building 7 in the early moments of the "attack". I wonder what they were doing there.We're straying from your original question, but I just find this all too ironic to not bring up.
>>532240438He's correct on the terminology at least. The left/right divide comes from the vote which the French parliament held on whether to allow Louis XVI to veto the constitution or not. Those who sided with him moved to the right of the president and vice versa. Ultimately anything that is not absolute monarchy is left wing and the rest is cope.
>>532240811>In any democracy there are going to basically be two factions fighting for power, and then the middle ground between them.No, in a democracy, there is one hidden power and any number of other demographies that think they are in power. It seems like the most stable number is two because at any given time, the majority thinks they are in power.
>>532240811>For example, in 1917 the radical Bolsheviks beat out the less radical Mensheviks.This is called a color revolution, and Britain did it all over Europe in the 1800s. Communism was first tried in France and Germany, but it didn't stick. They pushed it to Russia, where it happened to succeed. Up until the 1900s, Russia was one of America's closest allies and philosophical partners.>far right nazisThe Nazis were ironically pretty centrist in my opinion. The rallying cry was basically throw out outsiders. The only retards who think outsiders that abuse your culture should stay are the losers who need you to support their insane demographic in return.>Germany AfD is far right>is>while the purported centrist faction>purportedThis is your problem. You are allowing other people to define words for you. If you don't control the definitions of words, you don't control your own thoughts.
>>532239850completely accuratechrist is king
>>532239850>>532239875>>532239987>>532240075Absolute fools, the political spectrum is a myth made to control the masses. Stop hating people for their political ideology and start enjoying your life while fighting the satanic pedos.Not that I actually do that though, I'm too lazy for that
>>532241498This guy knows what I'm talking about
Bump
>>532244557This is such a tired line. "Hey morons stop resisting the deranged lunatics who contribute nothing to society and actively plot ways to kill you and your family."Nah.
>>532241831I'm genuinely interested. Not asking to be a smartass.I'm a hard sciences guy. Social/political "science" is too annoying for me to try to sort out. Too many "well what if this/that guy is lying because he's biased" and there is no objectivity in any of it, so I usually just tune it out because I don't have the time/interest to go down those rabbit holes. It's become pretty much impossible to stay neutral in modern times and I want to make sure I pick the right side when the violence starts. I'm pretty firmly on the "conservative" side based on my own values aligning with theirs, and I see no way the left wins any sort of civil war scenario. I'm just curious how such an amazingly illogical and overly emotional group of people (libtards) gains such a following.
>>532241225That last paragraph just sounds like MMT.
>>532246770Social/political science is objective. Skill issue.
>>532247651You're right. I should start by referencing that actually. It just sounds scary because it sounds like Keynesian economics which is used by the establishment to justify continuing their private central bank fuckery.
>>532246770You're projecting this one aspect of culture out into the future without projecting everything else. If you look at those other things, they will be far more important than any political movement in terms of shaping our future. Never forget: culture is downstream from law. Elite theory shows this. Check out Neema Parvini's latest book for good reference material. As a hard sciences guy, you should appreciate that polymath Vilfredo Pareto is the founder of elite theory.https://www.amazon.com/Applied-Elite-Theory-Neema-Parvini/dp/1923478400
>>532239850https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication
>>532240315They create absurd leftism to make strides towards dismantling the family, but the party is not designed for the future. Neither party is.They finance leftism to scare normal people who are "Right into voting for the fake republican party. Most people if you took away the stressors would NOT vote republican cause those cucks are turbo gay and retarded, but because leftists are AIDS ridden numale jews, they vote for Ted Cruz.Humiliation ritual top to bottom. Don't vote. Act like you don't know what's going on.
>>532246361I'm literally telling you to kill the pedos! We need to unite and find a way to make the life of everyone better.
>>532247937Domestication based on creating a false/superficial sense of wealth. You trade your freedom for wealth.This applies to humans, to animals, and to wives too.
>>532247723It isn't. Get gud.
>>532248220>Domestication *is based>>532247937My point is, domestication creates privilege (really, a false sense of privilege), which creates weakness. Stronger methods of entrapping human souls (metaphorically speaking) results in a denser, more domesticated, more slave moralist society.I'm actually just riffing on your point. I don't mean to take all the credit.
>>532247918Interesting, thank you.
>>532248394I think demographic collapse, the rise of AI, peak oil, and the ponzi scheme of world finance are all bigger concerns that culture war crap. There's probably a lot more that I'm not thinking of.
>>532248883AI is definitely a catalyst for making people even more into cattle than they already are. It's gross how readily these farm animals are just relinquishing agency over their own lives in exchange for convenience.
>>532248020Honestly this is probably the best way.
>>532247787Out of curiosity: are you an ardent monotheist?
>>532250011I'm ardently non-religious, but not from the perspective of god vs no god (to be quite honest, this seems like a matter of IQ, and no I don't care how arrogant that sounds). I mean non-religious is the sense that I don't put the trust of my wellbeing in the hands of institutions who supposedly have my best interests in mind. I don't assume custom is good, so I don't trust institutions that supposedly conserve custom, like churches. I also don't assume government is good, and I see religion and government as two sides of the same coin.Ironically, I am in some ways talking about myself earlier in this chat, but also doing so as a retrospective of how I too have been fooled (or domesticated, as my one post put it).
>>532250011Oh, and specifically I think all of monotheism is a ritualized, degenerate misunderstanding of gnostic philosophy. I would go with Buddhism if you needed something semi-mainstream to start with, and I would just tell you to completely ignore any part of it that tries to talk about god. Assume it's a book of philosophy. After that, you'll need to know energy work, but the best way is to do it, not read books about it. I also don't think it's as interesting to talk about, but physical excellence isn't just vanity. Aesthetics are self-respect and self-development.
