Political purity
I have slight Asperger’s, and I am not the best at communicating my political views.
If every Greatest Generationer and Silent Generationer alive and dead read my political blog, 94 to 96 percent of Greatest Generationers and Silent Generationers would say I was Left Wing (left of the Democrat party), 88 percent of Greatest Generationer and Silent Generationers would say I was far left
If every baby boomer alive and dead read my political blog, over 88 to 91 percent of baby boomers would say I was Left Wing (left of the Democrat party) or left center and 82 percent of baby boomers would say I was far left or alt left. I expand on this and other points below here
Purity test logical fallacies here, here, here, here, here.
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 nazbols, 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.
Just because a Left Winger doesn’t agree with a Liberal 2.0/Democrat view doesn’t mean they aren’t Left Wing or that they are Right wing. It’s like a Liberal calling salad ‘fascism’ or ‘communism’ because they don’t like salad.
“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
Association fallacies here, here, here
My leftism litmus test passed here
I am still to the left of nearly every American, Canadian and European see here and here
My political purity on feminism/woman's rights here, abortion here, Queer/gay issues here
I have the ability to effectively manage criticism with politeness, reason, and conviction. My views can not only changed a person's mind, but I can change peoples minds with charm, conviction, and humor - traits in me you would see repeatedly as you got to see more and more of me
There is nothing wrong with my political views, my political views are my opinions, and they are as valid as other opinions
Maybe if I get criticized for not being ‘left enough’ it might be a case of shooting the messenger. I will only be critiqued by the Liberal 2.0ers and no one else since I critique them
If the Liberal 2.0ers including the MSM, Academia, uniparty etc are wary of me or even wanting to confront me for my views I must be doing something right
I want a stateless, classless, egalitarian, hierarchyless society so keep that in mind when viewing my blog views
Why do I sound ‘to the right of Jane Fonda’ on a minority of issues if I am Left Wing ?
Well this proves that I am at worst between Radically Centrist and soft Center left
Answer 1) Countercultural/Youtuber Shaun type of Contrarian
Because being a 4pt and or having views ‘to the right of Jane Fonda’ in a Liberal 2.0 society is counter cultural , fun, disruptive, challenges social norms and thus its more fun to be counter cultural than being mainstream
Just like the New Left hippies in the 1960s were countercultural in a conservative society, I am a 4pt and or in rare times have views ‘to the right of Jane Fonda’ in a Liberal 2.0 society.
Like in the 1960s kids shocked their parents with long hair, promiscuity, edgy music, I embrace the 4pt and or have views ‘to the right of Jane Fonda’ as a way to shock our Liberal 2.0 overlords
It is way more fun to be a Youtuber Shaun type of Contrarian than to be mainstream. I love taking the opposite side of some select mainstream Liberal 2.0 political views. Being different is truly liberating.
I am circumstantially by effect, but not by really by cause.
I am not going against the grain for the hell of it, as though whatever is the popularly (not necessarily majority) accepted, and thus “correct”, take will be eschewed for the absolute opposite as a type of spite or protest.
My central ideology is Marxism that is juxtaposed by the subideologies I highlight and by me avoiding partaking of idpol which makes me appear contrarian only due to the populist understandings on liberalism 2.0 don’t accept it-
I would never earnestly set out to say and do the opposite of anything in Liberal 2.0 discourse just to subvert expectation or rattle cages. I would state that I have earnest issues with the way id is being utilized as a tool by the MSM, social media, state/political party, and by tribal sects
When I critique idpol and reject overkill-buzzfeed ipdol for example, I would seem like a contrarian to every person still stuck at any spot on the IDPOL spectrum. (like like how heroin addicts won’t trust people if they’re in the circle but don’t boot up and jack
I tend to interrogate myself and ask if my priorities are in the correct place and are based off my principle fundamnetal values (as every fellow leftist should).
I always avoid taking political stances which don't align with my values and thus I never legitimately take political stances because the people I declared my mortal political foes (Liberal 2.0) happens to have the opposite political stance. Because to do that would literally mean I don't have real virtues.
The cause (i.e stereotypical) Contrarians (real Contrarians) are annoying as can be. Real Contrarians don't have *any* true beliefs they won't chuck if those beliefs become too popular or they sensed it's better to go after the status quo in another way. Real contrarians are just as flakey as the "Socialists for IDpol!" (trade mark pending), they are merely a different sort of flake. I am not that type of 'Contrarian'
Answer 2) Left Wing critique on Human rights
Personally and legality wise, I don’t really care about human rights since human rights are a bourgeois concept that at times are used to defend the right. Systematically, I am morally apolitically progressive on human rights (as noted below in my Mark Twain moral evolution quote)
Human rights can be seen as per Karl Marx in a negative light “the rights of egoistic man, of man as a member of bourgeois society, that is to say an individual separated from his community and solely concerned with his self-interest”. These alleged universal rights of the abstract individual would in reality promote the interests of one particular social type; the possessive individual of capitalism.
Not only due to the context in which these rights emerged, but also in their very form, these rights would be linked to bourgeois ideology – the ideology which the Communist Manifesto described as having drowned all emotion “in the icy water of egotistical calculation” and having ripped apart all feudal ties, leaving behind “no other nexus between people than naked self-interest”
In some ways, human rights could be seen assumed to translate the ethos of “social atomism” – an ethos which is which is blind to the class divisions that are its very social conditions for existence.
However this article shows that Marxism finds a way to rightfully support human rights while acknowledging the early Karl Marx way of thinking on these matters
Answer 3) Post left critique on Morality
I go beyond morality . I either (1) do a moral nihilist critique of morality/reified values/moralism. Or (2) I take a subjective ethics of ambiguity viewpoint. Or (3) I talk of morality from an entirely different foundation.
Morality is a system of reified, abstract values, values which are taken out of any context, set in stone, and then converted into unquestionable beliefs to be applied regardless of a someone’s true desires, thoughts or goals, regardless of the situation in which a person finds themself in.
Moralism is the practice of reducing living values to reified morals, and also of considering oneself better than others because that person has subjected himself or herself to morality (self-righteousness), and of proselytizing for the adoption of morality as a social change tool.
When a person’s eyes are opened by scandals or disillusionment and they begin to dig down below the ideological surface and they received ideas that they have taken for granted their whole lives, the apparent coherence and power of this new answer that they find (whether in religion, leftism or even anarchism) can lead them to believe that they have now found the Truth (Truth with a capital ‘T’).
Once this starts to occur people too often turn onto the path of moralism, with its attendant problems of elitism and ideology.
Once people give in to the illusion that they have found the one Truth that could fix everything — if only enough other people also understood this Truth, the temptation for them is then to view this one Truth as the solution to the implied Problem surrounding everything that must be theorized
This leads them to build an absolute value system in defense of their magic Solution to the Problem that this Truth leads them to. At this point moralism takes over the place of critical thinking.
The main issue with Moralism is that people are exploited or dominated by capitalists (or alienated from society or from the productive process. etc.).
The Truth is that the People must take control of the Economy and/or Society into their own control.
The biggest hurdle to this is the Ownership and Control of the Means of Production by the Capitalist Class which is backed up by its monopoly over the use of legal violence through its control of the political State.
To overcome this people must be approached with an evangelical fervor to influence them to reject all forms, ideas and values of Capitalism and to adopt the culture, ideas and values of an idealized notion of the Working Class in order to take over the Means of Production by abolishing the Capitalist Class power and constituting the Working class power (or its institutions that are represented, or even their Central Committees or its Supreme Leader) over all of Society
This tends to lead to some type of Workerism (usually including adopting the dominant image of the working class culture i.e the working-class lifestyles), a belief in (more often than not Scientific) Organizational Salvation, belief in the Science of (the victory of the Proletariat in) Class Struggle, etc.
Also tactics that are consistent with building the fetishized One True Organization of the Working Class to contest for Economic and Political Power.
A whole wage value system that is built around a particular, very oversimplified conception of the world, and moral categories of good and evil are substituted for critical evaluation in individual and communal subjectivity terms
The spiral into moralism is never an automatic process. It is a tendency which naturally shows itself whenever people start down the path of reified social critique.
Morality always involves stalling the development of a consistent critical theory of self and society.
It short-circuits the developing strategy and tactics that are appropriate for this critical theory, and it encourages an emphasis on personal and collective salvation through living up to the ideals of this said morality, by idealizing a lifestyle or culture as virtuous and sublime.
In the process this demonizes everything else as being either evil perversions or evil temptation
One natural emphasis of this then becomes the petty, continuing attempt to enforce the boundaries of virtue and evil by policing the lives of any person who claims to be a member of the in-group sect, while self righteously denouncing out-groups.
Like, in the workerist milieu, this means attacking any person who doesn’t sing the praises of the virtues of the working class (or one true form) organization or to the virtues of the overbearing image of the Working Class culture or lifestyles (like beer drinking as opposed to drinking wine, rejecting hip subcultures, or driving a Nissan instead of a BMW).
The goal, is to maintain the lines of inclusion and exclusion that are between the in-group and the out-group (the out-group is variously portrayed in highly industrialized countries to be the Middle and Upper Classes [Petty Bourgeois and Bourgeois], or the Managers and Capitalists big and small).
Living up to the standards of morality means sacrificing specific desires and temptations (regardless of the your situation that you may find yourself in) in favor of virtue rewards
Don’t ever eat meat. Don’t ever drive SUVs. Don’t ever work a 9–5 job. Don’t ever scab. Don’t ever vote. Don’t ever talk to a Right winger. Don’t ever take money from the government. Don’t ever pay your taxes. Don’t ever etc., etc.
Not a very appealing way to go about living your life for any person that is interested in critically thinking about the world and evaluating what to do for oneself.
Going beyond Morality involves constructing a critical theory of a person’s self and society (always self-critical, provisional and never totalistic) in which a defined goal of ending a person’s social alienation is never mixed up with reified partial goals.
It involves emphasizing what we have to gain from radical critique and solidarity rather than what we must sacrifice or give up in order to live virtuous lives of politically correct morality.
Hard Atheism and the Ethics of Desire: An Alternative to Morality by Joel Marks may provide some alternatives for morality
It is obvious that Slippery slope is real. Social and political changes happen in gradual steps, not at once. Whether it's the military/political situation revolving around Germany in the 1930s or whatever is happening currently with corporate race/sex b8ing, this all happens gradually.
People who supported early changes might disagree with what comes next, but there are always new people who are looking to make new changes, using the previous changes as justification to do so.
See here for more
Answer 14) 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.
Answer 15) 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
Answer 16) 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
Answer 17) When I criticize Liberal 2.0 ideas , I am vastly doing so from the LEFT not the right
Answer 18) To win the favor of the working class which includes a lot of Conservatives, on the basis that they’re supposedly reactionary , I may tend to espouse views in this blog that can be seen as being Liberal reactionary, largely for the purpose of electoral politics, to gain votes
Everything is falsely labeled as 'white supremacy' these days, and everything is falsely labeled as racist to some deluded wokies, I will compile a list of views and if having any of them is considered 'racist' or 'white supremacist' then I don't care if I am labeled a 'white supremacist' or 'racist' for having those views (because a that point those words literally lose their meaning)
Comments
Post a Comment