The Post-Modern left happily weathers Modernist arguments of @jordanbpeterson & @Fired4Truth. Much more fearful of postmodern Pepe.
Is this accurate:
Much of the alt-right wants separation (as Malcom X advocated). They perceive other groups as behaving parasitically or with hostility.
How about the left? What do they want?
They are Marxists, or under the sway of Marxists. They see the history of the world in terms of class struggle. Unlike 100 years ago, today’s classes are ethnic/gender classes (as opposed to economic). They perceive the world as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed.
So what do they want?
To destroy the classes of people who they deem to be oppressors?
Is that it?
Edit. I suppose you can also say that left wants what they always ask for: “MORE!” But what is the long-term ideal toward which they think they’re working.
The host is arguing that today’s political figures are race hustling and ignoring economic projects and programs.
But isn’t this the macro picture of what happened over the course of the last few years? Cultural Marxism has replaced Economic Marxism?
Instead of telling the history of the world in terms of proletariat versus bourgeoisies (economic class warfare), it is women, gays and darker skinned races against straight white men (cultural class warfare).
From my vantage point you’ve been left behind as a proponent of a philosophy which has a long history of radicalizing extremely quickly and leaving its moderates behind, if not declaring them enemies.
Moderate leftists who think they are victims, for example, economic victims, very quickly find out that the aren’t victim *enough*. People who are bigger victims than you quickly push you aside and claim to possess a superior moral position because they are superior victims.
Anyway. I will avoid an argument. Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong.
Father Merrin (from The Exorcist) describes the propaganda of the left:
“I think the point is to make us despair; to see ourselves as…animal and ugly. To make us reject the possibility that God could love us.”
If you can’t understand the minimum wage, you should be denied political power and treated like a cute but dangerous child when it comes to economic matters.
Whether a person can understanding the minimum wage should be a fundamental test. Can they distinguish between short term and long term? Can they distinguish between how the world is and how they want it to be?
The explanations by Hazlitt, Friedman and many others are so crystal clear.
Surprise: Bay Area Restaurants Disappear After Minimum Wage Hike
The left mistook positions of power for power; they won authority,but lost the culture. So now theyve lost authority too. God Bless America.
Is @Madonna poll dancing on a cross an example of tolerance or hate?
How does the left countenance their hypocrisy???
Originally, the point of the left was fighting poverty. The argument went that Communism produced more wealth because it removed the inefficiency (greed) of those who owned the means of production. Communism was superior because it produced MORE WEALTH. Nobel prize winning economist Paul Samuelson told everyone this was inevitable.
All those scores of millions of people were murdered in the name of helping the poor. (Paul Samuelson, that degenerate monster, posited the question of whether communist wealth did not make its oppression worth it.)
Then, in the parts of the world where people had defended themselves against the communists and kept the snarling horde at bay, CAPITALISM created never-before-seen wealth. Capitalism ended poverty.
Capitalism delivered the promise of early communism’s most starry-eyed proselytizers.
As I like to say: The Messiah of the left has arrived, but the left has no need for a messiah that actually shows up.
The left abandoned their fight against poverty and forgot that it ever existed. They’ve anointed a new messiah, one that is guaranteed to never arrive and ruin their bloodlust for destroying social orders: equality.
It turns out that the gender gap in tech related fields is smaller in poorer countries. In Mexico and Turkey, a proportionally higher % of women go into tech than in the US and Canada.
While there are different ways to interpret this data, it seems likely that given more freedom, many women express themselves by going into more socially oriented fields.
The gender gap could just as easily be interpreted as evidence of liberty and prosperity, than as oppression.
Prosperity seems to encourage gender dimorphism.
In this era when “I identify as” has replaced “I am”, why is it so hard to accept that given the opportunity, many men choose a more masculine imagine, and many women a more feminine one, than each of them would be able to choose in a poorer society?
Answer: the left needs victims. They are nothing without an angry and restless class of victims.
Compare sexual dimorphism in birds which evolved with / without evolutionary pressure from predators and starvation.
Question from a libertarian friend: Why honor soldiers who’ve fallen in unnecessary wars?
Answer: This is where Rothbardianism ends– Survival is not a individual endeavor and honoring martial virtues (duty/honor/courage) ensures a society’s continued ability to solve the acute prisoners’ dilemma of facing physical danger.
Victims searching desperately for oppressors. But its hard to brand rejection of parasitism as oppression. Expect more melting snowflakes.
Goal of leftist ideology isnt truth it’s action. Specious enough to inspire action (usually by providing an excuse + an enemy). Dangerous.
A bit of advice for all my leftist friends (if any of you still read my FB wall):
If you’re serious about being a leftist, you should get with the program — poverty is out, because it’s just too RIDICULOUS, and equality is in. Your peers made this pivot long ago and you should too.
Signal your moral superiority regarding inequality and you’ll still get a few suckers to admire you. Signal your moral superiority with “poverty”, and you’ll just look stupid.
I know what poverty looks like. I’ve seen it in Afghanistan and Tanzania. And I live in Ukraine which is far poorer than ANY american demographic. Officially, among the people designated as “poor” in the US —
76 percent have air conditioning.
66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
97 percent own at least one color television.
62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
73 percent own microwave ovens.
More than 50 percent have stereos.
33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
99 percent have refrigerators.
Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths
This is why the LYING left has abandoned the poverty argument. The left murdered millions of people in their defense of the poor, and then capitalism solved poverty. Your messiah has come. But the lying, power-hungry left, has no use for a messiah who actually shows up.
So, poverty is out. Inequality is in. Inequality is better because it has been around among humans for 50,000 years, and eradicating it is impossible — so you can have your “permanent revolution” as Lenin advised.
I’ve been puzzled by how the left, even faced with a perceived anti-christ as president, never considers that states’ rights, and limited government are virtues. Why don’t they get this?
I think I’ve figured it out. Their survival strategy is parasitism. They can’t allow their potential hosts to flee place themselves out of reach or flee to other jurisdictions.
They correctly sense that a gigantic centralized apparatus is the enabler of their parasitism. So there’s no “live and let live” for the left.
They need BOTH a powerful centralized government AND control. They are deaf and blind to the fairly obvious risk of the powerful apparatus they build falling into the hands of someone they despise.
I am tired of pointing out leftist hypocrisy. It’s too easy. My new interest is underlying causes. Here are a few theories, and after writing them, they all seem like restatements of the same theory:
1. Thomas Sowell’s paradigm that conservatives see the world in terms of trade offs, while the left sees it in terms of good vs evil. If you believe yourself to be fighting evil, lies are more acceptable.
2. Haidt’s morality chart showing Harm-Care and Fairness as the ONLY positive dimensions of morality for radical leftists. (Sanctity, Authority, Loyalty are not only less important, but in fact, negatives.) Perhaps they are on one hand, desperate to exercise Harm-Care, and on the other indignant toward the “Sanctity” and “Authority” of the rules of debate: truth telling, consistency, precise meaning.
3. Evolutionary biology as the consilient field of all social sciences: The left is intuitively female, the right is intuitively male. If you’re exercising the moral instincts that evolved with childrearing, it makes perfect sense that you treat every impulse and whim as if it were a universal principle. We want mothers to care for babies and families in such a devoted, uncompromising way. But this moral intuition cannot be allowed to govern all of society because it’s so inconsistent and impulsive. It needs limits. The male moral intuition evolved to solve the prisoners dilemma of facing danger as a group (duty, honor, courage), and therefore, much more readily embraces “no matter what” type rules and principles.