.win communities for non-political speech are coming.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
There is such a thing a apolitical systems within a society, and liberalism is not the problem. Leftism is.
What we have is the problem that Leftism has been unceasingly aggressive for 200 years and is in a massive push to seize total control. Politics is about the assignment of power & control, and the Left is attempting to seize power & control over all things, making all thing political because they are on the attack. The color of a paperclip should not be a political discussion. It is only a political discussion because Leftists are attempting to give power to a bureaucrat in order to make that bureaucrat an ally.
LIberalism would be a rejection of all of those things. The problem is that the term "Liberal" was co-opted by leftists. No Liberal should be arguing for a strong centralized government with unlimited jurisdiction at the expense of individual liberty. The Left has murdered language so hard that they are calling Liberals "Conservatives", and Leftists/Socialists "Liberals", and Communists "Democratic Socialists".
This is all wrong. Equality is only of value in how the state seeks to judge you via the law. Other than that, equality doesn't exist. Inequality is a natural state of being, the point of liberalism is to grant people liberty from tyranny so that they may advance themselves. Any sort of "Equality" outside of that is Leftist double speak for "outcomes the Jacobins determine to be just". Inclusion is a Leftist doctrine that means "give my slaves access to your privacy". Liberalism doesn't solve the cosmic injustices of life. It simply frees people from tyranny. Marxists and Commies are the modern Left, and there is nothing decent about them.
No, again, this is just a Leftist attempt to create a problem that will require the only solution to be a bureaucratic make-work scheme. A liberal has nothing to say about the color of a paper-clip.
That is the argument of a totalitarian. Which is why I suspect you consider pinkos to be "decent". You have no right to claim a needed distribution of power in all things, because most things should be denied the grasp of a political activist at the point of a gun.
Nonsense. Liberalism does not construct anything rootless. It denies the state the right to make the individual subservient through coercion. The Individual has plenty of roots: family, religion, neighborhood, social group, clan-group, tribe, etc. An individual need not be forced to dragged into any group with the violence of the state. The individual chooses his loyalties for himself, whether those decisions or good or bad, they are his to reap the consequence of.
Liberal Rights, the Social Contract, Free Speech, and Republicanism exist to help hold back the power of the state as coercive mechanism to enslave the individual to the demands of the state.
You are correct that American Conservatives are Liberals. The US is a Liberal country founded by a Liberal revolution. However, the word "Conservative" in American parlance exists to co-opt Leftism's attack on the hold-outs of Liberalism in the US during the mid 20th century.
Outside of that "Conservativism" is a meaningless term that exists at the behest of the Leftists to describe a political opponent in the same way that "Rightist" does. Leftism exists purely as a philosophy of War as a principal. As such, it has no ideological basis outside of the quest for power. By definition, this means that anything outside of those immediate demands for power is an opposition movement that can be labeled "Conservative" or "Right".
All you have said in your statement is that non-Leftist movements predate the American Liberal movement. Yes.
You're misconstruing things. The rhetoric of Liberalism is attractive to damn-near every individual. No one approves of enslavement (particularly if their enslavement is a possibility). Everyone likes some amount of liberty. Self-ownership is probably the philosophical foundation of Liberalism that is most arguable, and it is antithetical to Leftism. The Left bastardizes the rhetoric of liberty to suit their needs. This is what happened to the French with "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" Jefferson & Lafayette's definition of those words is nothing like Robespierre's. They're oppositional.
But this is always what the Left has done. Exploit a single tactic that is useful in a quest for power.
BLM is a National Socialist movement. There is nothing Liberal about it. It is anti-Liberal. It is the revolutionary socialization of a race into a homogeneous body politic. A Volksgemeinschaft. It's rhetoric is also anti-Liberal. It is explicitly Leftist. And it is explicitly a violent, revolutionary, collectivist, racialist, socialist, rhetoric. Even among Liberal Revolutionaries, you will not find this kind of rhetoric.
It's success comes at the expense of the Corporate Establishment Left weaponizing racialism to solidify Leftism behind their offers of power. It is a containment device.
I've been there.
The issue is not really one of whether or not Liberalism means anything to the people, the issue is that it is a Tribal society. The government is effectively a tribe that is only beginning to become powerful enough to challenge other tribes. Liberalism, nice as it is, isn't really anywhere in the equation. In fact, the government identifies itself as an Islamic Republic. That's ... not even kind of Liberal. Liberalism is antithetical to Islam.
Securing Afghanistan relies mostly on creating loyalty and friendship between the government, villages, provincial leaders, and warlords. Other ideological arguments are simply irrelevant to the equation.
Then the communists won't mind me re-asserting the original definitions of the words they've raped.
I never said that a rootless individual exists. I actually said that they don't. I said that Liberalism denies the State the right to coerce the individual into being subservient to the state. I told you that individuals are rooted in many things, you ignored it and acted like the state is the root of individuals. It's a Fascist argument, but like all Leftist ideologies, it's wrong.
Keep pretending their antisemitism isn't real either. Racialist Marxists are just National Socialists.
The dominant ideology in our society is not Liberalism, it is simply Leftism using Liberalism as a skin suit to make it palatable. That's been the name of the game because Americans repeatedly react badly to the rhetoric of Socialsim, because it is contradictory to Liberal values. While American cultural millieu embraces Liberalism, it's institutions have been decidedly since the Roosevelt administration, but you could argue that the Federal government had embraced Leftism under Wilson.
No, I understand it honestly. This is why Leftist groups and whole political wings have repeatedly taken up contradictory positions on the exact same topics. They will side with anyone, including Islamists, Anarchists, Nazis, and Royalists, so long as there is a promise at power. The common equation for Leftism is about the seizure of power. What to do with that power has always been irrelevant Leftist leadership, and the outcomes of the use of that power are also irrelevant to the leadership. If you take power as a Leftist to end starvation, and 90% of the population starves, this is never considered a failure of any Leftist policy or government by the Left. To an ideology that currently preaches equality of outcomes; it is a fact that outcomes of their policies are always irrelevant to the Left. The only thing that matters is whether or not they have achieved power. Nothing more, nothing else, ever.
No Leftist holds a position of principal; only of power. To a Leftist, principals exist only to manipulate useful idiots into doing their bidding. Principals are a tactical weakness to a Leftist. It exposes them to position they must defend. They will abandon any and all principals for a tactical advantage. They must always change their position to a more defensible 'moral high ground' if their current position is too threatened. They always do. The most consistent thread of the Left is it's focus on power, and it's seizure thereof. The consistency of their tactics is unquestionable. The Left, will never voluntarily hold a position that weakens their grip on power, but maintains some principal.
"Right wing" ideologies do the opposite. They are all principled, whatever they may be. A royalist will remain a royalist, no matter it's utility in seizing power. A Theocrat will remain a Theocrat. A Liberal will remain a Liberal. A Militarist will remain a Militarist. An Anarchist will remain an Anarchist. This means that the "right" will maintain a position that may become indefensible if properly subverted. This the purpose of all Leftist aggression: to subvert or attack the enemy position until it is indefensible, then destroy it. Once destroyed, the ground may be held by any Leftist occupying the territory. A Leftist can and will hold any ideological ground. Whatever ideological moral high ground is the most defensible, becomes avowed principal of the Left in that specific time, at that specific place. Take my examples: A Leftist Liberal is a "Social Democrat", a Leftist Anarchist is an "Anachro-Communist", a Militarist Leftist is a "Revolutionary Gaurdsmen", a Theocratic Leftist is an advocate for "Liberation Theology", a Leftist Royalist is a follower of Napoleon.
Leftism has only one principal of note: War. The seizure of power by conquest of will. Nothing else. Not even the maintenance of power, just the seizure of it.
Which is also my response to this:
Leftism has no values beyond power. Within Leftism, there is nothing of value besides power. There never is, never was, and never will be. Leftism does not need Liberal values for anything. Leftism simply claims values that may prove useful during it's current campaign, but they are never held sincerely. They are nothing but a temporary means to an end. Liberal values are no different than any other set of values under Leftism. Liberal values may even be held in conjunction with other contradictory values simultaneously! The Anarcho-Communist is an excellent example. An anarchist that espouses the values of anarchism and a rejection of authoritarian systems... demanding full-throated totalitarianism among all things as a rabid collectivist to fulfill asserted demands of homogeneous outcome. A Communist system can never be Anarchist. They are a contradiction in terms. But, the values of anarchism may be an attractive weapon for the purposes of the Leftist. That is all that is needed. The values are now weaponized.
It is about rhetoric. Liberal values are particularly attractive to many individuals. Hence, they are weaponized. Leftism needs no special affiliation with Liberalism, Anarchism, Tradtionalism, or any other ideological foundation. Leftism is independent of all standard philosophical ideologies. It is only a philosophy of War.
On that same note:
Capital is simply another means to power. This is why all Socialist systems inevitably generate Corporatism. The concentration of power over the economy requires it's corporatization and cartelization into a cast of ruling elites subservient to the party/state.
You might as well be saying that the Left is fully in the service of firearms. It's a meaningless statement. To Leftist, it is just another commodity that exists to be exploited for power.