My real polemic idpol and idealogue view
Polemic
I am Left Wing (by Canadian and European standards), Alt Left and Fourth Political Theorist-Anti Centrist (mainly Anti Liberal 2.0)
I can also be described as a Militant Democratic Moderate (i.e Omniliberal-Post Conservative Populist), Left Wing Paleo Bull Moose Progressive, Contrarian
I have cultural Left Wing Autarchism tendencies along with social tolerance and economic populism
I support republicanism and federalism
I would support a true Third Party (US) that is powerful and big as the Democrat Party and Republican Party
As it is now, I am a politically dealigned Independent and I support the Forward party (US) and some of their endorsed candidates, the Libertarian Party (LP), the Class Unity Caucus within the Democratic Socialists of America party within the Democrat Party, Populists in the Democrat Party, the Libertarian faction of the Democrat Party, Blue Dog Coalition of the Democrat Party, New Democrat faction of the Democrat Party, the Worker's World Party, PSL and Big Tent/Catch all parties .
I would support the Freedom Caucus in theory since I am Left Libertarian but I have not done so in practice since Jared Polis left that caucus.
I support the Labour Party UK (Keri Starmer Labour UK/Jeremy Corbyn Labour UK /Momentum/One Nation Labour/New Labour/Blue Labour/Guild Socialism sects of Labour Party UK’s trade unions/Communitarianism factions in Labour UK)
If I was alive in the 1960s and politically active, I would have been a stimulating member of the New Left
I don't care about the success or failure of any political party in the US. I have my own agenda in politics that doesn't follow party lines or ideology lines. I help politicians of all parties if it pushes my agenda forward . I prefer to “go my own way" as opposed to letting my ideas be influenced by those around me
I am not a Progressive
I am an uber SJW
I support individual freedom that is autonomous from the political ideology of left and right while I retain some elements of leftism
I am glad that I am a Libertarian Socialist because Libertarian Socialism is the proper and natural extension of Classical Liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society.
Marxism is good because it is an extension of Liberalism and is a better extension of Liberalism than Liberalism 2.0. But Marxism should not be mixed with Liberalism 2.0
I agree with what Vaush said here “When (Karl) Marx and following theorists wrote on capitalism they weren't writing 'capitalism and liberalism are worst things to ever happen to humanity, they are the greatest oppression of workers'. No. Marxism is supposed to be an extension of liberalism not a rejection of it, a true promotion of unity, fraternity, and freedom, and liberty, etc. That's what Marxism and that's what leftism is about, it's about bringing the messaging of the liberal movement forward, to make it better, to make it get stronger, to make it true to its principles.”
So elements of this can be found throughout my blog, including on Participatory Democracy-Direct Democracy, Defensive Democracy, Agnostic Radical Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Progressive Utilization theory, 4pt, Autonomous Radical Democracy (as a DotP), Austromarxism, and any other view which fuses together Marxism and Liberalism 1.0 together
This also explains why I am a Liberal Socialist, Libertarian Socialist, Market-oriented left libertarian, Left Wing Free market anarchist-anarchistic socialist/Mutualist
I am an Egalitarian
It is great to be an egalitarian because by being an egalitarian I can actually see the forest through the trees unlike many others who cannot
I believe that Equality trumps Equity . To quote Rosa L “For a world where we are socially equal, humanly different and totally free” We have a right to be equally different and free
“You preachers of equality that comes after freedom and equity: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue.” Friedrich Nietzsche
“The entanglements of bondage and liberty shaped the liberal imagination of freedom, fueled the emergence and expansion of capitalism, and spawned proprietorial conceptions of the self. This vexed genealogy of freedom plagued the great” Saidiya Hartman
The longstanding and intimate affiliation of liberty and bondage made it impossible to envision freedom independent of constraint or personhood and autonomy that was/is separate from the sanctity of property and proprietorial notions of the self.
I consider the key inequalities between people to be artificial and negative, which I feel should be overcome by the type of state I write about in this blog
I support equal liberty and I feel that equal liberty rests on political, social and economic equality of opportunity. The principle of equal-liberty is an 'open-ended horizon that allows for endless permutations and elaborations.
I believe that equality is more important than (and comes before) freedom (including intrinsic freedom)
I support the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in our society in order to increase the distribution of skills, capacities and productive endowments . I support my combined economic systems (which naturally acheive income equality) as the means to achieve this.
In my opinion, Equality should not come secondary to liberty. Equality should go beyond the formal equality of rights so as there is no tension between the two and no separation and conflict between individuals as passive recipients within society.
I like this quote in this post on equality
I feel that Liberty (and its realization) is collective as it should be shared instead of being diminished and thus being 'only imaginable in the contest of the liberty of all', It should be accompanied also by social and economic equality.
We need to revive the authentic liberalism from the 19th century with younger and more modern traits and liberal cultural values that make more sense in these contemporary times
The reason I am like I am on many issues is because I have empathy and I am a Libertarian
I believe that human rights like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should remain as human rights.
But I also believe that equality (equality is my guiding light and equality is more important than liberty, equality comes before liberty), justice (based on the enlightenment egalitarianism) and solidarity (based on pathological altruism , empathy and Golden rule solidarity) should be added as human rights. So I defebd 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 and this meme)
Rights should always have been framed around the POSITIVE (i.e sex positive) than the negative . I support such Positive rights (including me conditionally supporting Sex positivity as can be seen throughout this blog primarily in the gender lgbtq section])
Negative rights promote hierarchy and are about what people cannot do while allowing through that hierarchy power the permission to do things via rights
Positive rights on the other hand, are hierarchieless and are about what people CAN do. They don’t make distinctions between what is prevalent and what is outside the norm. They thus blur the line or even remove the line between what is and isn’t socially normal/acceptable creating a streamlined, natural and smooth element to the concept of rights.
We must balance rights. We should respect rights such as right to health (in a way that meshes with all of my combined socioeconomic views) and adequate standard of living (adequate by my standards). We should strengthen other rights like freedom of speech and property rights
I like this quote by Benjamin Tucker “if I go through life free and well off, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally is more well off. Liberty will ultimately make all men and women well off; it will not make all people equally well off.
Authority may (and may not) make all people equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living". Keep in mind I incorporate egalitarianism into my views but Tucker’s view above does factor into my views
On ethical issues, my views tend to be left or lean left, with socialist roots even the radical component. I respect politicians freedom of conscience
I support the common good especially maybe Common good constitutionalism
I am neutral in the Culture Wars in ways that align with my political views like in this blog
I support Family (before we abolish and then reimagine it), nation (not blindly see Nation and migration section), honor, duty
I support individual reforms to better protect liberty
I am Anti Establishment. While it is fun to say “Heaven is not taken by consensus: it is taken by storm”, (I i.e that force alone makes something just [within reason and meshing with UN human rights laws when applicable]) we should always use the way that Podemos “takes heaven” instead of through storm
Freedom exists for those with the force to take it - the moment that your loyalty is to yourself rather than any spooks, you begin resistance. "The masses" won't do this at all
I have major issues with demand making to people in power, so instead I choose the practice of direct action and attack.
I am very wary of the idea that we can realize our desire for self determination by making piece-meal demands which, at best, only offer a temporary amelioration of the harmfulness of the social order of capital.
I recognize the necessity to attack this society in its totality in order to achieve a practical and theoretical awareness in each partial struggle of the totality which must be abolished.
Thus, furthermore, the capacity to see what is potentially revolutionary, what has moved beyond the logic of demands and of piece meal changes in partial social struggles, since, basically , every radical, insurrectionary rupture was sparked by a struggle that started as an attempt to gain partial demands, but that in practice moved from demanding what was desired to seizing it etc
I am Anti Elitist but I recognize that the current Anti elitist movement has been hijacked and corrupted by ill intentioned Right wingers (like MAGA) to promote bigotry , anti science and similar trollish and non sensical ideas .
If being inclusive, supporting egalitarianism, supporting diplomacy ,being pro science and supporting other Left wing or Liberal things that Right wing anti elitists are against is ‘elitist’, then I guess by those right wingers definition I am ‘elitist’
I am Anti Statist which can be seen throughout this blog. I am generally against centralized state power. At absolute minimum, I am against government bureaucracy especially inefficient government bureaucracy
I am opposed to the state - as an enforcer of institutions, submission, and force.
“Whoever lays his /her hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him/her my enemy.” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
To quote Max Stirner, "agitation might rather be declared against establishment itself, the State, not a particular State, not any such thing as the mere condition of the State at the time; it is not another State (e.g. a "people's State") that men aim at, but their union, uniting, this ever-fluid uniting of everything standing. — A State exists even without my co-operation: I am born in it, brought up in it, under obligations to it, and must "do it homage." [huldigen] It takes me up into its "favor," [Huld] and I live by its "grace."
I go beyond and also critique morality . 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 be against (insert Democrat/Liberal 2.0 pet cause here), 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 and critiquing 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
Insurrectionary anarchism is a good way to gain self empowerment where one can feel joyful of themselves and go beyond morality . It is truly revolutionary, relies on informal organization and small affinity group type of organizations. This creates targeted methods, permanent class conflict and a refusal to negotiate or compromise with class enemies all to create a better world
Two types tangiblely better worlds we can create using such truly revolutionary and self powering methods ,are a Bioregional /Libertarian Municipal society or the type of pro environmental society I outline here
Revolution and insurrection are not synonymous. The former is radical change of conditions, of prevailing status or condition , the state or society, and is thus a political or social act.
The latter has a transformation of conditions which is an inevitable result, but doesn’t start from that, but it starts the discontent of human beings with themselves; it’s not an armed uprising, but of a rising up of people, without the regard for the arrangements that spring from it.
The revolution is aimed at new arrangements, while the insurrection leads us to no longer let ourselves be arranged. It instead seeks to arrange ourselves, and set no radiant hopes on any institutions. Permanent revolutions are good because they change things in a manner where revoltions don’t take people by surprise since they are ongoing.
It is not a fight versus the establishment, since, if this prospers, the establishment would collapse of itself.
It is only a working of a person’s way out of the establishment. If they leave the establishment, it is dead and falls into decay. Since now their aim would not be the overthrow of the established order but their rising up above it, their intention and action would not be a political or social intention and action, but, since they are directed really toward themselves and their ownness, an egoistic intention and action
The revolution demands that a person makes arrangements; the insurrection demands that a person stand or raise themselves up
Jesus was not a revolutionary, but he was instead an insurrectionist, a rebel. To quote Max Stirner,
“The time [in which Jesus lived] was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for 'political intrigue', and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took the least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? [...] Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. [...] [Jesus] was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. [...] But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to [...]; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator[.]"
Good quote by Hannah Ardent "Generally speaking, violence always rises out of impotence. It is the hope of those who have no power to find a substitute for it and this hope, I think, is in vain. Violence can destroy power, but it can never replace it."
I support outsiders who band together in their individualistic struggle against society and in pursuance of their own curiosity, pride, and instinct against society. We need more political hegemony of citizens who don’t have a lot of influence or political voice
I support devolution of powers. Something between states’ rights (including the California independence movement) and something that fuses together California melt culturalism, open localism and
I believe the state inherently violates personal autonomy and that is wrong and we need to stop that abuse
I feel liberty and equality can’t be implemented within the state, since it interrogates all forms of domination and hierarchy. So hence my views throughout this blog
“The limits of political emancipation appear at once in the fact that the state can liberate itself from constraint without man himself being really liberated; that a state may be a free state without man himself being a free man.” Karl Marx, (1843)
Humans lived in societies that did not have formal hierarchies long before the establishment of formal states, realms, or empires. So we should get back to that way of life
Until the state is abolished, I conditionally am ok with the state and similar institutions nudging people to make decisions that I deem defensible that serve their own long-term interests
At minimum there should be a social contract of consent between us citizens and the State which includes the non-aggression principle which i support
The government is wrong for getting involved in schools (like Ron Desantis in Florida or the DOJ with teachers unions or Gavin Newsom requiring students take Ethnic study classes), for restricting religious freedom (like banning burquas in France or allowing Satanic groups to hurt Christianity, Islam and Judaism), trying to restrict gun rights, trying to limit migration (like Joe Biden’s 42 policy) and slippery slope things that may come from that
I support social justice. Right wing alternative facts don’t matter when there is justice to be had
I support grass-roots empowerment and e-democracy, and direct democracy. The more hands on Americans are with politics, the more this idea fromMark Twain can be realized:
“Moral evolution can happen many times apart of the government/state and relations between people can emerge with freedom from the government/state. Most relationships in life should not be characterized as conflict as the left and right might have it. It's good to have mutual and humane respect for others as individuals. It's also good to do positive and unselfish things without having to grapple with the political ramifications of doing those positive things. “
I don’t believe that the Constitution is infallible and I think it has a few issues. I support bringing back the Articles of the Confederation only if it won’t be abused by right wingers
Even though I am an anti statist, I do not fetishize states rights (I don’t even really care that much about states rights tbh) and I am not a constitutionalist .I do not support the Tenth Amendment .
I believe in some ways the constitution has failed us .But at the same time our laws should be grounded in the Constitution .
I support much higher social justice, but the type of higher social justice that realizes the sad fact that the western idea of human rights are rooted in colonialism and white supremacy
Maybe Common good Constitutionalism might be a good way to fix our Constitutional issues . This sort of meshes with my views on rights (like moral rights, natural rights, positive rights etc) throughout this blog. It also meshes with my views and ideals of Civic Nationalism, social solidarity, and 4pt
For example, Common good Constitutionalism says that "Catholicism itself holds that the natural law is written in the hearts of all men and women, and is in principle accessible to the universal natural reason common to all”.
Thomas Aquinas wrote that law is “an ordinance of reason made for the common good by him or her who has charge of the community, and promulgated". Common good constitutionalism adopts this definition of law, and it treats positive law as a promulgated ordinance of reason, where "ordinance of reason" invokes that law which is ascertainable reason, or the natural law.
Natural law provides the background legal principles, like "do good and avoid evil," which are not necessarily determinate as applied to concrete cases.
Positive law, thus, is made when a public authority makes a practical determination within the scope of the natural law.
Like public safety is furthered by having automobiles drive on one side of the road, but nothing about public safety in and of itself requires choosing one side of the road or the other side of the road. So within the requirements of public safety, the public authority is free to determine a concrete application, which is driving on the left or right side.
Within the context of judiciary, the interpretation of legal texts should be made in light of the natural law principles that are made solid by the text. They require review for rationality, but only if the positive law doesn’t offend reason (the background natural law principles like the judiciary should defer to the legislating authority.)
Back to the driving example, to require driving on the left side of the road doesn’t offend reason, nor does driving on the right offend reason. Both sides further the common good by promoting public roadway safety, and so either determination that is made by the legislature should be deferred to.
Common good in Common good Constitutionalism is not defined as a utilitarian aggregation of individual goods, and it is not defined as a tyrannical subjugation of the individual to the community. Instead, it is the unification of individual and community goods which leads to personal and social flourishing.
A Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals judge once wrote in his concurrence in United States v. Tabor this
“The classical judge would attempt to discern what common good is desired by the statute and recognize that a statute can have a purpose toward the good of the individual, a purpose toward the good of the community, and an additional good in harmonizing the interests between the two. A statute—a lex—is an attempt to codify a higher law that a nation or a people all know to be true and good, even if it were to limit individual freedom in certain circumstances."
So according go this, individual goods or rights should be justified in light of their contribution to the flourishing of the community
I support maximum freedom
“Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently”. quote by Rosa L
I feel that a society's political life where political powers, authorities and decisions are decided and controlled by a diverse American nation for the purpose of reaching material welfare, freedom and fairness by all citizens, social groups and nationalities, and by the people that formed it
I feel that women, immigrants, BIPOC people (including Indigenous communities), LGTBQ+ people, and other diverse groups should not only recognized, but be championed as key protagonists in the growing calls for social, economic, and political reform.
To build on that ideal, I support agonistic radical democracy where social movements attempt to create social and political change by challenging neoliberal and neoconservative concepts of democracy. This strategy is to expand the liberal definition of democracy, based on freedom and equality, to include difference
This agonistic radical democracy means the root of democracy and it rejects deliberative and liberal democracies oppressing differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews in attempts to build consensus. An agonistic radical democracy builds off of the fact that in a country, and in a social movement there are many (a plurality of) differences which resist consensus.
Agonistic radical democracy is not only accepting of difference, dissent and antagonisms, but it is dependent on it. This is based on the fact that there are oppressive power relations that exist in our society and that those oppressive relations should be made visible, re-negotiated and altered.
By building democracy around difference and dissent, oppressive power relations that exist in societies are able to come to the forefront so that they can be challenged.
So elements of this can be found throughout my blog, including on Participatory Democracy-Direct Democracy, Defensive Democracy, Dominant minority, Marxism expanding on Liberalism 1.0 (instead of Liberalism 2.0 expanding on Liberalism 1.0), Liberal Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Progressive Utilization theory, change from within, Libertarian Paternalism , Anarchism, forcing change (heaven is taken by storm), Autonomous Radical Democracy (as a DotP), Austromarxism, etc
I champion diversity and protecting people’s inalienable right to pursue their version of the American dream without questions or interference. Diversity is cool
The Moral authority Law (verbal ‘violence’[extreme un pcness, online harassment] non physical violent and non sexual laws like select victimless crime laws, punitive laws and unjust laws, basically the type of laws Agorists and Benjamin Tucker want to break for an Anarchist society or the type of laws that Rosa Parks correctly broke in the 1960s) and Human Rights (for the most part) etc are the only ideas that aren’t physically tangible or touchable concepts.
Christianity also is abstract as God purposely made Christianity like that
Those ideas are spooks because they are only ever a made-up idea that the individual has created, the idea of a good citizen is defined by people and individuals and yet, it has become a corporeal and ever existing concept and phenomena which compels people to act in accordance.
Individuals are haunted by their own ideas, this idea has become real and now forces people to follow it. People decided what a good citizen was and made up the consequences for breaking this "rule" and now we are trapped due to us embracing our own ideas . There are no sacred ideas, objective facts or real meanings (apart from higher powers) But still, I am a tolerant person who fights injustices
I am tolerant in a traditionally liberal (NON Liberal 2.0) way. I am basically this type of tolerant
I support grace and tolerance, integrity and smart innovation
Mark Twain said it best "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"
“If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You. Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative. When Old, You Have No Brain”
This article provides a unique take on Progressivism vs Conservatism
Liberals cutting off friends because they are not pro LGBTQ or them saying social issues are the only issues that matter is wrong, Eurocentric and childish. You can’t be an Anti Imperialist if you are like that
It is ok to in justifiable circumstances for the use of the state to achieve social justice , to get power , people at the top (gov) need to weild it to them from their pedestal of power
Having a savior complex can give people with such a complex who help others meaning in their lives and self worth. But people should try to force themselves to help others for unselfish reasons before helping others
I am against people throwing other people, especially in work and politics under the bus
I am against anti totalitarian humanism
I support self control. I am against Totalitarianism
I support bodily autonomy. I feel that only the self may rule their own person.
I support individualism, but both individualism and social anarchism are useful
I am an Individualist and I support Individual sovereignty.
I feel that individuals are entitled to freedom. I recognize that the family unit and household can be as exploitative as the factory. I am strongly in favor of individual liberty. I support emancipation of the individual. I support Individualism . (but not blindly or rugged laissez faire)
I balance between the Individual and the state
I support Individual liberty and unifies the social, individualist, and market schools of anarchist thought,
I am ok with rugged Individualism but as a force of Individuals each bringing their own unique reality to compliment each other in a moral relativist sort and rugged sort of way
Sacrificing yourself for the 'greater good' is futile since our society is made up of individuals instead of a cohesive unit that is separate from the individual. Collective control is not consistent with anarchism and is authoritarian Real freedom can only happen in a truly free society
This is because I am no fan or radical cheerleader of collectivism and I find it pretty problematic
I feel that collectivism is of the subordination of the individual to the group.
I reject the ideology of collective responsibility. This rejection does not mean I refuse social or class analysis. It means rather that I remove the moral judgment from such an analysis, while I refuse the dangerous practice of blaming individuals for activities that have been done in the name of (or that have been attributed to), a social category of which they are said to be a part, but about which they had no choice — i.e., “Jewish”, “male”, “white”, etc.).
On the social level, the reappropriation of life, in addition to its full reappropriation on the individual level, can only happen when we stop identifying ourselves essentially in terms of our social identities.
I do not really support the idea that anyone, either due to “privilege” or due to supposed membership in a particular oppressed group, owes uncritical solidarity to any struggle or movement
I recognize that such a conception is a major obstruction in any serious revolutionary process.
Creating collective projects and activities to serve the needs and desires of the individuals involved, and not vice versa.
I recognize that the fundamental alienation imposed by capital is not based in any hyper individualist ideology that it may promote. I instead believe that it stems from the collective project of production that it imposes, and this expropriates our individual creative capacities to fulfill its aims.
I recognize the liberation of each and every individual to be able to determine the conditions of his or her existence in free association with others of his or her choosing. (i.e., the individual and social reappropriation of life) as the primary aim of revolution.
Being anti Individualism is misanthropist
I am indifferent to Bourgeois Individualism
I am ok with the 4pt views on Individualism and Collectivism
I am against collective Individualism . I feel that individuals are entitled to freedom
I view the individual and the will of the individual over external determinants including society, groups, tradition (variable), and ideologies . I view the eventual abolition of the state as the fullest realization of individual liberty .
Without any government, I believe that individuals will pursue their personal objectives and work together in mutual self interest to create a stable and harmonious hierarchyless/patriarchyless society.
I support and believe in Self Determination, self reliance and not making excuses. No one has it easy, life is hard. It's human nature that some people may have it easier than other people.
To quote Rosa L “People who do not move don’t notice their chains”
Society in our socioeconomic world is governed by consistent and precise laws. No individual or religious faction or political force should interfere with those laws
I support Left Center Libertarian Paternalism.
Since the state is a political expression of organized society , it should not be a neutral agent but instead through a variety of creative and common sense, bipartisan methods not just economic but the distribution and the democratization of political, productive, gender, informational along with cultural territorial power and other spheres with inequalities exist .
The state must manage and regulate (within reason) of the economical system , being the owner and protector of strategic resources and the enviornmentand being able bodied to participate in economic production
I support political management with higher levels of transparency, participation, closeness (to the citizens), along with digital activism, citizen campaigns, public accounts done periodically etc
In addition, its management was characterized by raising the levels of transparency, participation, closeness to citizens and digital activism, reporting in different parts of the District with different platforms the details of his parliamentary work, through citizen campaigns, periodic public accounts
We all form and build the state which is for all of us. I support the creation of an inclusive and citizen state as the main guarantor of the common good and assurance of universality and decommodification of social rights at both a cultural level and institutional level (like an Inclusive Democracy)
The link between the state and citizenship is a powerful tool for the conflict between our current neoliberal model and a society that guarantees effective social rights
The combo of a strengthened state and expanded social and political citizenship must work with feedback between the two .
The more democratic and inclusive the state is, the better the state will collect the citizens will and the more effective it will be in its role (or maybe even paternalistic role) as guarantor. This is MUCH better than State liberalism and big brotherism by far
I support a state where power is distributed equally for the promotion and development of territorial and or national identities ,structuring itself in a way to generate real local governments thus being able toreaffirm territorial autonomy as a fundamental part of democracy
I am against denigrated democracies, I am wary of Liberal 2.0 adjacent causes due to that and the due to fact I frankly don’t care about that stuff due to our bourgeois system within that causing political nihilness in me
I am a supporter of Democracy I guess
Though I am very wary of and or pessimistically appraise democracy and the quantitative illusion. I feel that democracy restricts accountability and freedom
I am ok with a Constitutional Republic
I sympathize with Oswald Spangler’s Anti Democrat stance even though I am not really Anti Democrat
I don’t see the many advances that have been made
I oppose the view that the number of adherents drawn to a cause, idea or program is what determines the strength of the struggle, rather than the qualitative value of the practice of struggle as an attack against the domination institutions and as a life reappropriation
My partial, or at times rejection or my wariness of every institutionalization or formalization of decision making, and indeed of every conception of decision making as a moment separated from life and practice.
This partial, or at times rejection or my wariness , as well, of the evangelistic method that strives to win over the masses.
Such a method assumes that the theoretical exploration is at an end, that a person has the answer to which all are to adhere to and that therefore every method is acceptable for getting the message out even if that method contradicts what the people are saying.
This leads a person to seek followers who accept their position rather than comrades and accomplices with which to carry on that person’s explorations.
The practice instead of striving to carry out a person’s projects, as best a person can, in a way that is consistent with one’s ideas, dreams and desires, by extension attracting potential accomplices with whom to develop affinity relationships and to expand the revolt practice.
I support Defensive Democracy in some cases when I deem it justified (and I would never support Defensive Democracy in situations where it excessively repressed of civil rights).
Defensive democracy is a collections of laws, legislation that is delegates and court rulings which limit specific rights and freedoms in a Constitutional Republic Democracy in order to protect the existence of the state and its character, human rights and institutions.
Defensive Democracy refers to major conflict that could come about in a Democratic Constitutional Republic country between adherence with such country’s values, (like freedom of association, the right to be elected, and between preventing parties, groups and peoples who are anti democratic from abusing these principles.
idpol
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
Sadly, humans on Earth are said to be biased by nature, and Fordism like soma/Transhumanism might be a good way to fix this by implanting things into humans to remove their biases so our planet can officially and finally be cured of their bigotry forever . Blame nature change nature
Moreover, if that Anti racist baby book can literally fully stop whites in particular at near birth from being racist forever (like an Anti racism vaxx), I would rationalize the Anti racist baby book being required reading for newborn babies. This way there would be less division in our world
Think of the two above examples (and other examples throughout my blog like using a economically egalitarianism and creating a society without hierarchies, patriarchies, classes, government, reprogramming bigots etc) as ‘social engineering’ (to instill a resistance to/immunity from being discriminatory against really any identity groups on Earth) in people at a very early age so there would be no reason to need to have wokeness, identity politics, hate crime laws, affirmative action etc since through these changes no one would want to do that stuff ever
I am Anti hierarchies, Anti power-subordination and Anti patriarchies. I also disavow classism and the existence of classes . I support Natural Rights, as echoed by our founding fathers who said that "All people are created equal". I reject caste systems
I support Horizontalism as an alternative to hierarchies .
I support Anarchist affinity groups but I do NOT support corporate affinity groups or government affinity groups at all. When we abolish corporations and the state we will thus abolish corporate and government affinity groups. See this for more
States play a big role in the oppression of people if all identities. The birth certificate defines our gender, age etc while legal guardianship traps us in the patriarchal family structure which includes, for better or worse, marriage
Hierarchies are intrinsically dangerous to people who are marginalized. Anarchism spectrum ideologies (like Anarcho Libertarianism) are good because they take down hierarchies. It is all about individual freedom and self determination
Object-oriented ontology is bull****. There is no such thing as Human Priveledge and if there was such a thing I would fully support Human Priveledge since Humans are superior to non human objects
I am against Rectification. “True humility is not thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less”. C.S. Lewis
The Left Authoritarians wrongly use Rectification to force people via public shaming to believe and say false things and lies, seemingly against their will and that is wrong. You catch more flies with honey than you do with hate .
The Left Authoritarians also wrongly brainwash people using Rectification into believing those false things and lies, and that is also wrong. You catch more flies with honey than you do with hate
This provides some good insight into the issues of approval seeking. This blurb from Anarchisms FAQ of expands on this
However to quote Vladimir Lenin “ Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state.”. and expand or go beyond that line of thinking
Aspects of these views of rights can be found throughout this blog
Abolishing identity categories (like via Queer Anarchism, Queer Theory, Queer neutrality/queer anti-identitarianism, Gay Shame movement, Anarcha Feminism, Gender Acceleration, etc) is better than idpol and Intersectionality
I have major issues with modern Intersectionality, some of which is expressed here
I echo the wall of text on the death of Ross Perot, and the real intersection of boomer capital / race politics from this post that I made here
A understated problem of Intersectionality is that Intersectionality causes people to focus less on their main identity (BIPOC, LGBTQ, woman) because they have to focus on multiple identifies along with it (like poc Transgender woman instead like poc woman , Transgender woman or poc) . So Intersectionality waters down idpol
Intersectionality is contrary to Marxism, because Intersectionality is contrary to historical-dialectical materialism (historical-dialectical materialism is a core tenant of Marxism)
Intersectionality is a metaphor that is clumsily conceptualized in an attempt to describe how people can be discriminated against for various things at one time, in an attempt to argue that discrimination laws should account for this.
It has zero to do with what should be our main concern as a Socialist, which is exploitation.
Our concern ideally should really be the material needs of the masses, not the interpersonal implicit biases that could informally live within our subconsciouses that we are either tasked with purging like some sort of sinful inclination, or nurse in the interest of fetishized "marginalized groups," which is what the majority of intersectionalists actually advocate for basically.
Better to just downplay or even ditch this intersectionality oppression ontology altogether and instead fight for the workers (at least in theory or pragmatically).
Intersectionality has become a sneaky substitute for the traditional left notion of solidarity developed in the process of ongoing collective struggle against the class enemy. Intersectionality is bad because it buries and negates class struggle.
The Liberalism 2.0 inner party (journalists and academics) try to unite the outer parties (various base voters of different cultures and races-ethnicites) by re-framing the conflict as external to keep cohesion.
In project management people are trained and have a way to prevent scope creep, how do social movement prevent this scope creep while avoiding to be cast as hater.
Intersectionality claims that all the disparate groups have one common cause and one common enemy.
While it may ostensibly unite them, it makes them very incapable of solving tensions among the groups, or addressing any cause that isn't the common enemy. That's how we get hot takes like "black-on-Asian crime is due to internalized white supremacy."
Though some say the opposite in that intersectionality leads to them creating a straightforward ranking system - the more "minority modifiers" they have, the more support they should get. There's no system beyond that.
Intersectionality says that types of oppression like sexism and racism have a multiplying effect which results in a unique and even more extreme type of oppression.
The only framework that is used to relate to the different types of oppression is an immaterial hierarchy of social dominance.
Standpoint theory makes things exponentially worse since it presumes that only people who are experiencing discrimination can understand it.
Therefore to undo systems of oppression they have to listen to the most oppressed people, even if it is just the 0.5 percent. However, who is the most oppressed is an unresolved question within Intersectionality
So originally Intersectionality was specifically used to describe the experience of African American women, whose experience of racism during the 1980s was different from African American men, and whose experience of misogyny was different than white women’s experience of misogyny . Through “adding those experiences together” it was clear it didn’t make sense to accurately describe their experiences.
The word intersectionality originally was used by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in her discussion of a civil rights lawsuit filed by a black woman who alleged that she had been discriminated against as a black person AND as a woman.
Absurdly the court rejected her claim, saying that the plaintiff needed to choose whether she alleged discrimination on the basis of gender or of race, but not both. Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality to cover these instances of multiple and overlapping oppressions.
As a legal theory it hasn’t gained a whole lot of traction. But in the worlds of politics and the nonprofit industrial complex intersectionality has become a pervasive buzzword.
For instance, African American men face racism by wrongly being considered “thuggish” or “bad workers,” and white women experience misogyny by wrongly being considered “weak” or “domestic,” , yet nobody considered African American women “thuggish” and they weren’t given the relevant “benefit” of benevolent sexism to be considered “above” or “too delicate for” working and therefore better served as homemakers.
Instead, African American women were wrongly seen as too sexual, too emotional, but also angry and strong (which are actually good traits).
These contradictions between how blackness in the “prototypical” male was seen and femaleness in the “prototypical” white made it so that just adding black and female together wouldn’t show the full picture.
The common enemy is and should be capitalism, even if they don't recognize it as such.
Intersectionality was originally in line with Marxist beliefs, but it was ripped away from it over time and the ideology was co-opted by Liberal 2.0ers.
Maybe a mix of class reductionism + intersectionality can salvage this deluded modern form of Intersectionality
By the fruits you shall know them.
Diversity might have some advantages, but cohesion is not one of those advantages.
All politics boil down to out-group versus. in-group and through this grouping lense, the in-group are the oppressed (like, perception rules all, you just got to appear marginalized to be counted as the in-group).
There is a lot of power plays by various groups and individuals to vie for the highest positions and because of their foundations, this is about being the biggest victim. Some people call this the ‘oppression olympics’ , and it is easy to see why.
The fracturing become very obvious when harm is done to an internal group and it can't be blamed on the outgroup. Like if African Americans attack Asians, or when poorer BIPOC harass white women, etc.
Naturally the opposition tries its darnest to use these contradictions to split the enemy's base. Liberal 2.0ers attempt to combat this by keeping a cover on internal infighting by giving them a common enemy in the white majority.
This chases a lot of white people completely into reactionary politics (like the Right Wing)
Nobody likes to be blamed for things that they didn't do, but everyone has their own scapegoat. (even white American Liberal 2.0ers and men to a lesser degree).
Even when the collective identity is taken into account, they clearly pin a lot of things on these groups that other ('their own') groups do just as much or more.
It is why you see absurd claims that the two sex categories we have are some European invention, as if the majority of the world, save some minor cultures, haven't done the same division since forever.
But 'whiteness' (whites themselves being the creator and original carriers of this ‘sin’) serves as a metaphorical ‘evil force’ in the Liberalism 2.0 and to some extent Leftist worldview and so everything seen as bad must originate from it. It's like Christians seeing the hand of Satan in every misfortune (“foosball is of the devil Bobby”).
Intersectionality is at least now, basically another word for idpol. The purpose of idpol is to divide everyone. It does more harm than good, it changes nothing, and idpol makes the Left completely impotent, because the ideology of idpol says you have to do it all the time to the exclusion of all other values.
The fact that large corporations are now pushing this is very suspect to say the least.
With traditional idpol you can just have various blocs that act discretely. But at the very least there's coherence.
With at least modern Liberalism 2.0 intersectionality, it's literally just too many variables to account for and the inevitable progressive stack that will rub people the wrong way.
You cannot tell the majority of Hispanics that they have to be discreet and be defined by the concerns of Trans Latinx bodies
The average African American is not going to be silenced so that an immigrant Lesbian African American woman can speak over them.
The Asian community is not going to accept racial affirmative action if it screws them over, and they aren't going to be defined by half black Asians because most Asians aren't half black.
Modern, Liberalism 2.0 Intersectionality is a warped take on the existing good ideal concept of solidarity, except that intersectionality only pays lip service to class struggle and that is an issue for me.
Primary politics in the US are poisoned because you have to cater everything to the least representative factions of the two major parties and the MSM, which includes genuine ethnonarcisists and flighty PMC attention seekers among the Democrats and the freaky televangelicals and race nationalists among Republicans.
The irony is that the Liberalism 2.0 and or Progressive stack basically imposed a hierarchical structure on occupy: the most marginalized are allowed to speak first and dominate the discussion.
Then, possibly, if there's time left over, others who are less marginalized may speak. Albeit a structure with none of the benefits of hierarchies in the first place: clear accountability, clear points of communication during action or times of confusion, and better delegation of specific responsibilities or expertise
Though I do see some positives in Intersectionality. Intersectionality shows how people shouldn’t be neatly categorized by only broad labels like race-ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex/gender, religion since a lot of people have unique intersects of identities/modifers thus making Intersectionality individualistic in a way since the more identities/modifers someone has the more unique and thus individualistic they are
Intersectionality shows how these unique mixes of identifies/modifers shows that there are even more diversity in the world due to these mixes of identifies/modifers which also makes it harder for haters to neatly define intersectional people to be bigoted toward since if they can’t neatly or broadly define them they can’t be bigoted toward them
This can help us transition to a post categorizing/labeling society where there will be no need for categorizing/labeling.
I support Frederick Douglas . He had good takes on black communal self-help though African Americans cannot fight for equality alone, nobody can so some balance is needed as can be seen throughout my blog
My thoughts on "taking responsibility for privilege". Ironically one of the larger issues with idpol is that it doesn’t truly go far enough; to take ‘responsibility for privilege’ and ‘lean out’ isn’t a call to action, but instead is a call to inaction. It means that men should have no role in dismantling the patriarchy, but instead should perform meaningless atonement and performatively praise women in the abstract.
Materialist feminists, (such as Shulamith Firestone and Christine Delphi) understand that patriarchy is binded to family structure, reproduction, and social institutions including marriage, and that these are concrete measures that a person can take toward changing these forms.
Measures that don’t require policing of language, or generic denunciations, but that instead require a broad movement with a social totality vision , with liberation for all
My views on the circle of grievance. Woke language is very imprecise, demanding repercussions , reparations , action and appreciation that is hollow.
The call to act replaces the act, and enables a simulated politics which are not defined by power but defined by endless verbal warfare that doesn’t have conclusion or resolution.
With the battle never won, every new crisis precipitates more and more demands on its participants, until at last we have nothing remaining but the endless war versus this modern lie kingdom, an imagined and evil place opposed to the good and the beautiful.
The congregation concedes its failures but are chastised for their wrong contrition and are called upon to do more, to have repercussions placed upon them, to see a truth that is not possible and too mutable to ever find. Ultimately as we reach one revelation, the next, higher step replaces it, demanding more. And on and on this goes around , this circle of grievance that thinks of itself as an incline
Some people feel that idpol (or the overkill parts of it) is weaponized tribal collectivism that is antithetical to individualism
The CPUSA reflects some of my thoughts on idpol
I echo this blog post and its criticism of American thought, . American thought is a bigger part of what idpol and intersectionality are part of, and we must defeat that toxic way of thinking. American Thought is also not consistent with true Marxism and should be rejected
There shouldn’t be CEOs or corporations since in a socialistic, egalitarian society there shouldn’t be rich people, capitalism, classes or hierarchies, i.e workers should own the means of production . Thus there shouldn’t be a need to have diversity at the CEO level (since CEOs and corporations should not exist)
I respect Fred Hampton’s commitment to solidarity even if he was using idpol. Currently existing, modern idpol, quite separate from the idealized version that people rave about, is inherently anti-solidaristic.
It's a way for toxic people to scold others who weren’t born using ‘correct’ pronouns. It is about siloing groups who compete in a zero-sum race for oppression cred at the same time as individuals are being subsumed into each alleged monolithic identity, irrespective of the differences between them. It is paying lip service to the struggles of other people while being monomaniacally absorbed in idpol person’ own concerns.
Adolph Reed quotes Mao's aphorism that "politics is about uniting the many to defeat the few." From one standpoint you could say that having a Black panthers contributes to balkanizing the Left, but Fred Hampton's solidarity commitment is obvious and stands in stark contrast to toxic people who's only motive seems to be to eject people out of the movement like latter day inquisitors.
Hampton organized with the young activists who prominently displayed the confederate flag as a symbol of their movement. He didn't call them neofascist bigots who should just go join the klan already.
This is reminiscent of the 19th century national liberation movements in Europe.
There was a reactionary Italian priest who was known for opposing the 1848 revolution in Italy and the risorgimento more broadly. After he became well known across Europe for being a reactionary he went to the US for some Catholic PR or something like that.
At a stop in the Eastern Midwest he was mobbed and chased out of the town he was in by the largely German migrants (48ers) of that area for his notorious politics.
A lot of these migrants were refugees of the failed revolutions in Germany. They had zero connection to Italian nationalism, but they saw their own liberation struggles reflected in the experience of the Italians and they stood in solidarity with them.
"We don't hate the mothafucking white people. We hate the oppressors, whether he be white, black, brown, or yellow." Fred Hampton
Fred Hampton was an awesome person that just knew how to fix the US, assist the people and solve injustice. He was a true once in a generation type of person.
The fact is ,Fred Hampton and MLK weren’t murdered for being black, they were murdered for being socialists and for starting to unite working class people. With Fred Hampton leading the way, I’m sure the Black panthers would have been able to curb the destruction of the black communities in the 1970s and 1980s. After all, Hampton was getting the Chicago gangs to become legit and to join the black panthers
Fred Hampton was only 21 years old when he was murdered, imagine how much good that he might have done throughout an entire lifetime. He was a true protegy for proletariat solidarity ,proven by his "class reductionist" message and the great results that came from that.
It is amazing the simplicity of what he preached, and the power of the discourse, especially in comparison to the modern langage/discourse on race-ethnicity that's so odd and that has so much racist connotations (whiteness, fragility, privilege, etc.).
Upsetting because, as is the case in most revolutionary movements (Victor Serge talks about something like that in his memoir in regards to the 1917 revolution), the best die first
MLK was a leftist that trained at CPUSA's communism schools. He advocated for left wing economics loudly and he criticized capitalism a lot.
His entire legacy has been white washed by proto Liberal 2.0ers/Liberal 2.0ers in order to deradicalize him and turn him into a harmless icon and a tool for their ends. See here for more. Also see this article which expands on this
Some ideas on how to break free from idpol can be found here.
More good articles on the issues of idpol can be found here
On whether idpol is truly good or bad for the working class:
Possibly, depending on how the Left or Liberal 2.0ers responds. The ore accuate answer, which is beyond the scope of this answer, is that there is not a lot of ground for optimism.
This is because, the link between the working class and the Left and or proto Liberal 2.0ers was destroyed under neoliberalism, and it was in fact the post-Marxist left which invented this idpol in the first place.
Idpol can be seen as alright because it makes the elite look like absolutely weak and messed up clowns in the eyes of the common man/common woman.
By some margin, the working class is either hostile or grudgingly indifferent towards idpol and everything that's associated with it.
Idpol is the ideology of wealthy white America (or to Liberal 2.0ers at least the "right type of white people"). Furthermore, it doesn't just make them look foolish - it actually leads to the moral degeneration of the ruling class because they get high on their own supply.
Good luck applying the woke theories that you learned at Bowdoin to the task of containing China or putting down a popular uprising, cretins -- you can't even handle "twitter abuse" for heaven’s sake!
The very idea of Hillary Clinton attempting to run to Bernie's left on "racial and gender justice" sounds like something out of a comedy film. This farce has since turned macabre.
At the same time, idpol is bad because it involves the ruling class conscripting minorities as a human shield.
This is how you get 45: people gravitated toward him because he "owned the Liberal 2.0ers." And to own these Liberal 2.0ers you have get more unpc or even extreme, because the Liberal 2.0ers have made ostentatious anti-bigotry their number one plank.
This is also how you get Joe Biden, with voters religiously supporting trash Democrats to "own the racists." The ruling class is fine with both scenarios - they are victorious either way.
This is the political payload of idpol: to bait the working class into supporting the class enemy while also cementing an alliance between the ruling class, the Liberal 2.0 upper middle class, and members of "diverse communities."
This situation presents an easy opportunity for the Left to gain mainstream support by combining popular economic demands with a rejection of unpopular idpol. Picture this: in a climate where politics is dominated by crazy cultural stances, a Marxist party becomes politically "moderate" by rejecting woke nonsense.
Obviously, there's no such party at this moment. The left hasn't been too keen to score this open goal. But perhaps before this window of opportunity shuts, someone could yet be able to rise up and say: "there is such a party!"
I am not a supporter of wokeness, but generally in a agree to disagree sort of way
I am against Wikipedia type of wokeness which I call toxic wokeness
Wokeness and idpol are still a lot better than right wing ‘wokeness and idpol’ (racism).
All criticism I make in this blog of wokeness and idpol, I criticize right wing ‘wokeness and idpol’ (racism) 10 times more
The overtly woke left who criticize Breadtubers are inhumane for doing so
“Wokeness is a bourgeoisie moral revolution” - Wesley Yang
You cannot be woke and anti imperialist. You can be anti racist , an advocate of social justice and equality but you can’t join the mobs like ones CNN is fermenting around liberal causes if you oppose their wars. Wokeism is pro Imperialist
I believe that BIPOC+ in the US can be prejudiced against whites (even though it is without being in the majority , societal backing etc) that doesn’t make it any less wrong) and I am against that anti white prejudiced
Wokeness is not about whites hating themselves. If that were true there wouldn’t be hundreds of white Breadtubers who not only are NON self loathing but who are in fact arrogant. This study though provides balance to this viewpoint
Wokeness does not mean African Americans are always victims no matter what. If that were true, then Liberal 2.0 SJWs wouldn’t be getting away with harassing Dr Ben Carson, Candace Owens and Kanye West like they often do. However a good possible counterpoint to this is the fact that some engage in heretical behavior that draws condemnation, does not negate the former since they are separate things
Wokeness is not about causing endless strife. Republicans generally make no solid effort to build bridges and instead just outrage monger over our first world exaggerated issues (though most of GOP cultural complaints come down to them resisting changes imposed by Democrats especially by Liberal 2.0ers and non Liberal 2.0 progressives)
But to play devil’s advocate, on wokeness causing strife and not building bridges, in 2009 some well meaning liberal Feminists did want no part of building bridges (literally) as they siphoned billions of dollars aimed at construction in former President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan
In 2009, women’s groups were appalled at the former President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan for being not being liberal feminist enough for them. To them, grids and dams stimulus funding were non feminist.
Woke op eds immediately appeared in major newspapers with woke titles like “Where are the New Jobs for Women?” and “The Macho Stimulus Plan.”
A group of notable feminist economists created a petition which quickly ballooned to more than 600 signatures, and that petition called on then president elect Barack Obama to add projects within the health, child care, education, and social services fields to “institute apprenticeships” to train women for “at least a third” of the infrastructure jobs
At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging then President Obama not to favor a “heavily male-dominated field” like construction: “We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges.” The moment these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group known as WEAVE–Women’s Equality Adds Value to the Economy.
A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services. According to Chris Whately, director of the Council of State Governments, “We all talked about ‘shovel-ready’ since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in fact, that’s not the case.” Read more here
Wokeness is a strong commitment to identity politics, which uses its own distinct jargon, and which downplays economic analysis. This includes engaging in performative in-group rituals that uses its own distinct jargon.
Though wokeness can also be seen as a aesthetically progressive (or actually Liberal 2.0) tendency among professionals of the Neoliberal era, that combines elements of Liberal and radical feminism with subaltern racialism. Though.originally wokeness was a collective black thought which literally meant not being a zombie, or asleep to the struggle. White Liberal 2.0ers, gen z and politicians have again changed the term for there own benefit.
Wokeness is largely equivalent with Liberalism 2.0. The particular boundaries of wokeness vary for individuals and groups.
Wokeness is supposed to be ambiguous and fluid, just like gender, since we are talking about social and cultural warfare, and so there are sides wokeness wants people to take and tribes to become part of.
To be honest, I do not like the term wokeness due to it being an euphemism for SJW, and using euphemisms is equivalent to cowardice, so I don't like using the term except as noted in this blog
I usually instead try to use more specific terms for what others call wokeness.
The obsession with compartmentalization is contrary to the Marxist concepts of dialectal materialism. People should stop labelling everything and instead start considering that these conflicting "woke" opinions are coming from a fellow person, with similar mental compositions.
It is amazing how few enemies people will* make when they presume them to be similar to themselves and not obfuscated by twenty layers of political and/or social presupposition
Woke opinions are born of a desire for a person to remove himself/herself of the inherently human, but uncomfortable fact that our self identity of a race-ethnicity, gender or sexuality births this idea of an anti-identity , not through intentional segregation but instead through creating a personal spectrum relating these antithetical concepts of identity.
Some people say that ignorance to a person’s own personal biases are just as bad as a person 'openly' embracing their personal biases
Because "liberalism", "conservatism", "capitalism", "socialism", "communism", "anarchism", "fascism" and "feminism" have also been used with exaggerated definitions to browbeat people, they too, of course, are meaningless nonsense words.
The video promotion by Postmates features a BDSM-clad eggplant representing the "top", and a little peach representing the "bottom" navigating through dietary choices.
The video is a colorful and over the top presentation of how the food categories curated by the food delivery app will help the "bottom" avoid poop making an unwelcome appearance during intimate relations.
Half of the LGBTQ identifying users in the replies on the Twitter post of the video are not thrilled to say the very least about Pride month being reduced to (and represented by) intercourse and poop. However, others seem very supportive.
Also, Postmates made a follow up post here: https://twitter.com/Postmates/status/1534971339953491968 and the comments are very negative. I guess they flew too close to the sun
I feel that Postmates is cool and base for doing an unpc thing like they did with their Eat with pride bottom poop campaign but I am not a fan or even a supporter really of that campaign since they still used a very woke (yes you can be unpc and woke at the same time) type of Pride campaign and thus are a perfect example of the Liberal 2.0 threat we are facing in our society by that type of Pride campaign
This article .and this article expand on this in both ways. My views on this are much much closer to the former article than the latter article.
This type of Pride campaign was meant to show Postmates love for the LGBTQ community in a passionate and warm way and I commend Postmates for that attempt (though it could also be Postmates like all companies [i.e Amazon] pretending to be woke in order to hide their greedy capitalistic, monopolistic [if they want to be monopolistic they should use a Guild Socialism model to do so] and by extension inhumane treatment of their workers).
But Postmates used a Liberal 2.0 type of Pride campaign that ended up being extremely unintentionally homophobic so that is a terrible result and does more harm than good for the LGBTQ community . Tech companies should not be stereotyping the LGBTQ community even if they are doing so in a ‘pro’ LGBTQ sort of way
Postmates should have used Left wing (non woke) types of methods for that Pride campaign instead of Liberal 2.0 methods. If they did it like that I would have been fine with that pride campaign
Oh to show Postmates checked all of their Intersectionality boxes, they made a donation to a charity that was founded by an African American women to support Trans people who are food insecure or mentally handicapped.
However I indiscriminately don’t care for companies promoting any holidays or special occasions at all because doing so alienates people in one way or another who don’t celebrate or partake in them . See this section of my blog for more
Even though I am against public kink by straights and LGBTQ people (like at Pride events), if kink at Pride being overly sexual means that LGBTQ can't be commercialized like with the Postmates campaign (which are counterproductive or backfire) then maybe there is a silver lining with kink at Pride events but only for LGBTQ people only.
A more simple example of woke food would be avocado toast
There is also woke medicine. This type of wokeness is wrong since it falsely states that what they see as ‘pervasive racism’ is some health crises which directly linked it with the pandemic and that just enflamed both the racial unrest and pandemic issues at the same time in a clusterf*ck sort of way by creating this false equivalency (which I touch on in this section of my blog a bit)
The fact that 1,000 epidemiologists, doctors, social workers, medical students, and other health experts had signed the letter shows that in some ways even our medical field is woke.
Though at least that woke medicine tactic of tying in the pandemic to the racial unrest protests and riots as mentioned above, helped shift the attention (in an organic way) away from the pandemic for awhile to other things (like the racial unrest protests and riots) which helped people who normally wouldn’t make that attention shift make that attention shift and thus preventing them from worrying about the pandemic like they were before , so maybe that brand of woke medicine has some positive ‘off label’ effects if you view it through that lens
Woke medicine also involves woke medical people like that infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, being classist and cruel by wrongly stating that teachers should not be included as essential workers to reduce health inequities because in his twisted mind , teachers have college degrees, are often white and are middle class.
I fully support including teachers as ‘essential’ workers since education and educating students is one of the most essential jobs a person can have. I support Autonomy (Marxism) and Anarcho Syndicalism so I also feel that woke Harvard professor is a counter revolutionary due to him being Anti worker as mentioned above . Autonomy (Marxism) includes a wider definition of working class (i.e by including non wage earners) than other pro worker ideologies so I am naturally against not listing teachers as essential workers
Penalizing a whole employment field because most of then have a college degree (when college degrees are shoved down our throats by Liberal 2.0ers) is mind bogglingly stupid, evil, irrational and counterproductive to the max
Other woke medicine exists like the woke so called ‘expert’ in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, who wrongly said that he thinks that in his mind it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older people in part due to essential workers being disproportionately minorities and that older populations tend to be whiter. He believes old peoples’ lives don’t matter as much as the lives of essential workers and that is not only woke but also ageist and Scrooge type of cruel.
A more concrete example of woke medicine would be elderberry tincture and testosterone
Gas prices are not woke, they are high due to corporate price gouging more than anything else.
Though sanctions against Russia, souring relations with some countries in the Middle East, along with some domestic certainly can lead to some people believing that gas is woke. Gas prices likely would have grown (though not as much) under Republicans, seeing how they'd have probably enacted many of the same policies as Democrats (especially corporate and neocon)
I recognize that, while various oppressed groups experience their dispossession in ways that are specific to their oppression and that the analysis of these specificities is necessary in order to gain a full understanding of how domination functions, nevertheless, dispossession is fundamentally the theft of the capacity of each of us as individuals to create our lives on our own terms in free association with others.
The id pol writers like Ta’Neshi Coates and Margaret Atwood are bourgeois hacks
How can woke people tell BIPOC kids that the White American man/woman will always keep them down that the odds are stacked against them and that they will always be victims while at the same time also trying to inspire them to reach for the stars, that they can be whatever they want to be and that they do not have to feel trapped in their circumstances?
I have no issues with our country breaking down all sexual and cultural differences ‘forcefully’ to make everyone feel more equal
I support solidarity (empathy properly gives people an excuse to fight for others rights) and liberation which will lead to a classless society without hierarchy, without male patriarchy/patriarchy , without Heterosexism, without white ethnocentricity ,without Cissexism etc.
This would create a truly egalitarian world and is a natural progression. If we have to use Left Wing Nationalism to get there then we would use Left Wing Nationalism to do so
Basically a reboot where everyone is equal from the get go, but without using wokeness (or at worst not Wikipedia type of wokeness), overkill idpol (or ideally any idpol), intersectionality .
All of the bigoted isms (sexism, racism, heterosexism, nativism, National Chauvinism etc) are clearly repugnant as history has taught us. We have to recognize the state’s role in creating, perpetuating and exploiting these unfair mechanisms while we need to eliminate these state props for prejudices which can make society more free and less unjust toward marginalized people. See here for more
This would be done via non-aggressive solidaristic action (while respecting just possessory claims)
Governments invariably threaten individual liberty and by extension rugged individualism self reliance
Governments ruling over people is a extension of when monarchies ruled over people. Adding ‘democratic elections’ does nothing to lessen that, its basically elective monarchies.
We have to eliminate the state and the government because the state and the government are the ultimate form of hierarchies (they have dominion over us) and I want all hierarchies to be abolished
Economic egalitarianism (as noted below) will help bring this about
Once we eliminate poverty, give support and opportunities so that all citizens will be and feel happy, safe with access to higher education and different resources will make population more tolerant and acceptable.
Because a lot of bigots like xenophobes come from fear of losing current normality and become even more vulnerable (financial vulnerability is number one) .
Countries with a high level of living are more tolerant and accepting of every member of their society. I don’t see how two of those positions can contradict.
Everyone is doing that can, we can care for class interests, sex, nature, rights and put effort from voting to overthrowing the state. As communists say” from everyone from their powers to everyone for their need”
I hope the hard right, radical right and far right (i.e the bigots and haters) embraces some political views that I support so they can be deradicalized. I pity them but if they support the political views I support, they would be liberated and emancipated from their hate, bigotry and hostilities.
In a world with economic egalitarianism, no hierarchies (and likely Horizontalism in their place), no identity categories or blurred identity categories, no male patriarchy/patriarchy, no heterosexism, no cissexism, no white ethnocentricity, no racialization, no state and no state props (like mentioned here), possible gender abolition, possible transhumanism (maybe including soma), better family planning, better education, no Liberalism 2.0 (including no neoliberalism), neofascists (and maybe also after other deradicalization methods mentioned throughout this blog to go along with this) the hard right, radical right and far right (i.e the bigots and haters) will no longer be able to be bigots or haters.
Seeing all identities as equalized and normalized will prevent bigotry since no one will be able to see differences that would lead them to be bigoted in the first place, see this meme for more
Plus, this world as mentioned above would help more people get economic opportunities and give their lives positive meaning (see Kibbutz for one example).
Thus people won’t end up like this former liberal in such a utopia. We can use either of these methods to achieve this utopia. This is because on the social level, the reappropriation of life, in addition to its full reappropriation on the individual level, people will have stopped identifying essentially in terms of our social identities.
Here and here are some paths we can take to get to this egalitarian, hierarchyless, classless, stateless society that is free of Liberalism 2.0 and that embraces the 4pt (since we need the 4pt to defeat Liberalism 2.0) .
We can also use left acceleration as I mentioned here (economic section)
If after this there is still god forbid, division , hostility and resentment after the above changes ,then I would support Pan Secessionism .
Pan Secessionism would be a unique way to unite persons if the above changes won’t work, see this for more.
There is a case to be made that targets of hostility, resentment and especially violence would way more easily be able to relocate to escape such hostility, resentment and especially violence in a more localist world (though obviously as mentioned above they ideally should not need to do that)
These include radical localized autonomous zones . As a kid and teen in the 1980s and 1990s, (and to a extremely much lesser extent in in 2007, and in the late 2010s early 2020s) I lived in a radically localized mindset and it was refreshing, liberating and individualistic. It was like I was in my own video game.
It was great as a kid or teen for me not going beyond NJ or knowing any news story save for a handful (i.e fall of the Berlin wall)
Through this Pan Secessionism , some people might build Bioregional/Libertarian Municipal communities or maybe there would be autonomous enclaves for laborers to promote workers rights (I feel every worker deserves a place that appreciates and rewards their hard work and that works for the benefit of the working class), some people might build Faith based communities. It is the freedom for people to build their own communities
I would provisionally condone or look into supporting Left Communitarian Multiculturalism (with a touch of One Nation Labour) forming in some of the areas within North America.
I would also hope that 4pt expands in this pan Secessionism world , complete with pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves with this expansion of 4pt thought
In these future worlds in these pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves, there will be new traditions (next wave), new values and new theology while countering and fighting against worldly sophistication and I would be ok with that or I would take a passive wait and see approach with all of that
Like maybe Americans would rediscover Pre postmodernity that would be understood not as the past, but as the a-temporal structure of principles and values.
This new world would be skeptical of the idea of progress (including that progress of history leads to liberty and enlightenment) which is the idea that the current order of things is the result of an ongoing improvement process that we can take further, possibly even to its apotheosis, if we put in the effort.
This world would see our current trajectory, which the rulers and their loyal reformist and “revolutionary” opposition label “progress”, as inherently harmful to individual freedom, free association, healthy relations, the totality of life and even Earth itself. Postmodernity’s biggest weakness is decadence
This world would bring this trajectory to an end so that new ways of living and relating would be developed if we are to achieve full autonomy and freedom. This would not necessarily lead to absolutely rejecting technology and civilization, nor would this rejection constitute the bottom line of a break with the Left.
However this partial rejection of some aspects of progress definitely would mean a willingness to seriously and critically analyze and question civilization and technology, and in particular industrialism.
People who are not willing to raise these types of questions most likely themselves continue to hold to the myth of progress.
This world would be neither left nor right; the modern world would be replaced with an ever improving image—with its own form (maybe individualism or Futurism or English Canada Post Nationalism?)
This a-temporal structure of principles and values would belong to the different philosophical Universe (where exist Eternity, God, angels, souls, devil, end of time and resurrection of dead).
There would be a form of cultural egalitarianism in these pre post moderntity enclaves, that would appreciate the positiveness of humanity’s cultural diversity, but would deem it impossible to make a moral judgment regarding any culture that has existed at any time in history, including the present.
There would be intellectual expansion of non Liberal 2.0ers
In these pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves the only form of exclusion in this would be voluntary exclusion .
This is because a 4pt society would naturally be anti racist, free of Liberalism 2.0 and also because the greater pan Secessionism of the US that a 4pt society would be part of would in its own way have stop the hatred that fuels involuntary exclusion
So, even if God forbid hierarchies reformed they would only be based on things people who are excluded can control i.e their actions or interests and NOT based on their identity or class (there would be no classes and lines between identities would be blurred i.e on the social level, the reappropriation of life, in addition to its full reappropriation on the individual level, people will have stopped identifying essentially in terms of our social identities.) in any way shape or form
Basically like on Survivor and Big Brother when some alliances and alliance members are marginalized by other alliances and members of those other alliances strictly due to things that have nothing to do with their identity/classes
I wouldn’t lose sleep over non identity and non class ,marginalized groups and voluntary exclusion in these pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves since it would not be based on identity or classes but 100 percent based on controllable factors that have zero to do with identity.
Because eventually we would end even that type of discrimination that is based on controllable factors (non identity and non class factor).
Since in this world we would have already abolished discrimination based on identity and class, abolishing discrimination based on controllable factors (non identity and non class factor) would create a literal heaven on Earth world where love would come first , with no divisions, hatred, discrimination since people would have no reason to be negative toward other people for any reason voluntary or involuntary
The concept of past (as as something that does not exist any more) with pejorative connotation is essentially a pre postmodern/non western political modernity concept that is based in its turn on the dimension negation of Eternity and time absolutization of the time (like becoming).
Pre postmodernity/non western political modernity is not the past. The Pre-postmodernity is society, culture, political system etc that might be constructed on the fundamental belief in the Eternity.
The postmodernity denies that , thus its chrono-centric epistemology. In the context of postmodernity we are dealing with the subject of Cartesian.
Its true normative interpretation is a liberal one --the individual. So we might deconstruct this concept of individual making appeal to the pre-postmodernity/non western political modernity understanding of human being and its essence. https://www.geopolitika.ru/en/article/fourth-political-theory-shortest-presentation
Pre postmodernity/non western political modernity would be a society based on the natural-rights philosophy that informed or was expressed in the moral codes (like the DOI)
This society would be based on eternal and permanent principle of justice rooted in the nature of things, accessible in principle by reason to humans in all places and at all times with self-evident truths that would be rooted in the laws of mother nature
There would be a common ground of nature and reason, on which all humans could debate with one another in moral terms everyone would understand. This would be based on rational persuasion
This Pre postmodernity/non western political modernity society would look back and draw on our history to move forward.
There would be another alternative to the Liberalism 2.0 in this pan secessionist society(since there will eventually be a backlash against Liberalism 2.0) .
This backlash is because a lot of institutions and ways of life that were adaptive at the peak of the current global political economy will become very very maladaptive in the subsequent decades and centuries.
The theme of these enclaves would make it clear that the fundamental premise of liberalism is not an inexorable march toward progress. These enclaves would basically be non democratic or even post democratic (since it would reject the idea that the progressing of history leads to abolishing absolutism to reign in democracy)
Thus these would be post liberal enclaves
So in this pan Secessionist society, there would also be a techno singular managed , post statist democracy (for everyone) enclaves of post liberalism, similar to the pre postmodernity/non western political modernity enclaves above (maybe even overlapping with) that will be aided by advanced technology, and also aided by local technocrat conglomerate webs being run similar to the way Steve Sisolak wants tech companies to run have a role in society (using Social Corporatism fused with LLC solidarism and co-ops, with national directors that Mark Zuckerberg would idealize representing these enclaves).
These post liberal enclaves would be more exciting than mainstream conservatism and would be reinvigorated by an embrace of localist values, conscious SBNR values, and an active role for the post state adjacent in promoting everything from coupling to environmental conservation.
Mainstream conservatism will be seen just as useless in addressing issues that lead to pan secessionism as Liberalism 2.0 is now, within these post liberal enclaves. This is because Mainstream conservatism is snared between the Scylla and Charybdis of corporate capitalism and the pie-in-the-sky promises of the contemporary religious right.
Basically technological determination where technology becomes uncontrollable and irreversible. There would be elements of friendly Auth Left ideas within these post liberal enclaves
Since by allowing a tech company like political model as mentioned above to have a vital role in local governance, economic development and advances in technology would accelerate. Plus this would allow tech companies themselves to get involved officially in the political sphere instead so they can be regulated better
Since there would be a conglomerate (using the above model) of city states (maybe similar to the modern City of London) within these post liberal enclaves there would be a one worker one share system with techno enlightened despotism, Anarcho Post Capitalist hometeading fused with post enlightenment technology , woke enlightenment fused with Sam Harris Anti Free willism enlightenment, Neoclassical post libertarianism and post Kantian Speculative realism and Tolkien political aims
The economic system in these post liberal enclaves would also include a hyper version of modern NZ economics and Syrzia alter Neoliberalism along with crypto currency
There would be crackdowns to prevent any Tech businesses from developing a monoculture of political correctness, overkill idpol , postmodernity and Leninism 4.0, since tech would have a more vital role within these post liberal enclaves than in our society. This would include going after private equity executives and others who uphold these ideologies
In these post liberal enclaves, whatever informal voluntary security squads that exist in these enclaves would prevent companies like Google from allowing non US superpower countries like China into researching things like their AI work
There would also be crackdowns on anti liberal policies at colleges and universities by the councils in these post liberal enclaves
There would be anti-interventionism and skepticism towards state control of information
In these post liberal enclaves, there would be a bit of religious egalitarianism, fringe ideas from Liberal democracy. There would be a Classical Marxist element with some ideas mentioned here
These post liberal enclaves would also be welcoming to back-to-the-landers and even the disaffected members of the US intellectual class
I would however strongly want beside that type of egalitarianism to have Marxist alter egalitarianism be adhered to and implemented in these post liberal enclaves within this Pan Secessionism world
Alter egalitarianism is about not caring about egalitarianism in the greater equality between classes sense since it is abstract and bourgeois. It would be empathy domestic
Alter egalitarianism says that classlessness (and hierarchylessness) is not the subordination of our society to universal interests like the universal notion of equality.
It is about creating conditions which enables individuals to pursue their desires and interests . Alter egalitarianism says we need more concrete principles like opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economical logistics.
These post liberal enclaves would reject Whig historiography
These post liberal enclaves would be structured around addressing criticisms of wide-eyed optimism of Rousseau and similar Enlightenment thinkers, (when for a lot of people throughout most of history, the world had been distinctly inimical to optimism) and a healthy dissensus.
Like a cyberpunk , Post Libertarian/New Age Jacobitan political society. Other aspects may include a fusion of Left Wing meritocracy, rationalism, this type of social vanguard, fitness and peak health, some wariness of economic libertarian free trade (including these post liberal enclaves implementing high tariffs against China and trying to keep businesses from expanding to China) etc
I support protecting civil liberties. The state is a foe to our civil liberties and the best way to safeguard our civil liberties is to protect each other’s control over our bodies and justly acquired possessions
I support social, peaceful, voluntary cooperation. While I feel that force might justly be used only in response to aggression, peaceful and voluntary cooperation is a moral ideal with implications that go beyond simple non-aggression.
I feel that associations of all kinds should be structured in ways that affirm the freedom, dignity, and individuality of all participants. This should and would allow participants the option not only of exit but also of voice—of influencing the associations’ trajectories and exercising as much individual discretion within them as possible.
I egalitarianally support equality of authority, since I feel there is no natural right to rule, that non-consensual authority is presumptively illegitimate and state authority is non-consensual.
I believe that the commitment to the type of moral equality which underlies belief in equality of authority should also entail the rejection of subordination and exclusion on the basis of nationality, gender, race, sexual orientation, workplace status, or other irrelevant characteristics.
While I feel that people’s decisions to avoid associating with others because of such characteristics should not be interfered with aggressively, I also feel that such decisions can often still be subjected to moral critique and should be opposed using non-aggressive means. More on non aggressive resistance here
I am glad that non marginalized activists, politicians etc use their higher up positions to lift up marginalized groups to where they are to give them equality.
It is like someone who is at the top of a ladder reaching down to pull people stuck on the ladder up. I support via government nudging, mandating a defense for marginalized individuals against a loss in social standing by the insistence on equality, essentially abolishing all hierarchy in favor of a centralized system where all but a virtually none are the same in power, wealth, and status.
That left wing anti idpol subreddit is good in that it introduces right wingers (who might be open minded to left wing socioeconomic issues but are turned away by idpol to socialism).
Even though that left wing anti idpol subreddit isn’t the most ideal subreddit since there is quite an amount of liberals, chuds and reactionaries on that left wing anti idpol subreddit, generally that left wing anti idpol subreddit is still socialist and they do bring up an important point about how socialists nowadays aren't as focused on economics (which socialists UNFORTUNATELY ARE NOT)
I agreed with a lot of economic leftist ideas through that left wing anti idpol subreddit. Moreover, that left wing anti idpol subreddit shows that there is so much more to leftism than idpol and intersectionality.
I don't agree fully with that left wing anti idpol subreddit in disregarding idpol issues like LGBT and minority rights since as can be seen throughout my blog I feel that it is important to respect and uphold those rights. Though, I do wholly agree with OP's assessment of idpol in his/her first paragraph.
I also feel that that left wing anti idpol subreddit , since they criticize idpol should start also criticizing racism too. They shouldn’t just circlejerk about some idiot wokie on Twitter. also
Maybe up until like a year ago that left wing anti idpol subreddit was okay, but currently it seems to have lost its way, there are better subreddits to see an actual, serious left wing outlook of the world today.
That left wing anti idpol subreddit is totally getting worse since they have been getting a lot more right wingers lately, but overall I feel like that the benefits of that left wing anti idpol subreddit outweigh the negatives, of course the mods aren't doing enough to prevent it from becoming a rightoid raging baiting subreddit
Though most right wingers that post very reactionary things on that left wing anti idpol subreddit get downvoted into mass oblivion with their answers hidden.(thank lord)
Those right wingers who do not flair up get noticed by mods who will then proceed to warn them. a lot of reactionary answers basically get deleted. So it's not all that doom and gloom. The issue is that all of these "populist" right wing chuds tailor their post to appeal to Left wingers (they go unnoticed) or the chuds are being too comfy and being like "yeah i don't agree with you guys but you're a ok”
Liberal 2.0ers in their own words betraying their wokeness
“A leftist government doesn't exist because being on the left has nothing to do with governments.” Gilles Deleuze
“It’s all about identity on our side now They want to show, ‘He does not support me. I support you, refugee. I support you, immigrant in my neighborhood. I want to defend you.’ Women who are rejecting Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus are saying ― they’re saying this is power for them. ‘Donald Trump doesn’t take me seriously? Well, I’m showing you my value and my power.’ And I think it’s like our own version of identity politics on the left that’s more empowering.” Jennifer Palmieri (Clinton aide)
A Reddit mod declared that it is ok to have anti white and anti male subreddits, here is my takes and reaction to that
DJT and MAGA
I agree with Joe Biden that the 2022 mid term elections might be illegitimate. I also agree with Biden on the need to make the case to the American people that some of things that the Republicans are doing might be done to try the alter the 2022 mid term elections
I do not support Donald Trump and I only said ‘give Donald Trump a chance’ (like Jimbo Wales and Hillary Clinton did in early 2017) when Trump became junta leader
I am however against people being against people who are against people who irrationally or ignorantly oppose Donald Trump . When Trump goes low why not go high?
I myself do not criticize Donald Trump nowhere near as harshly as Twitter ‘leftists’ do (so many people have trashed Trump for me to do so is extreme overkill) as I feel that Trump is part of a larger socioeconomic problem, so I criticize that larger socioeconomic problem that Trump is part of savagely (with the same fiery passion that Abraham Lincoln had in his Lost speech).
I refuse to allow Donald Trump to ruin my happiness, joy and peace of mind or to rent space in my head (and I would never want Trump to be my landlord)
I give Donald Trump credit where credit is due exactly how and when David Brooks does. But I give more credit to the process of Donald Trump than than I give credit to Trump himself for those rare broken clock moments. I like how Trump’s process was/is anti imperialist and that his process challenges the Neoliberal/Neocon agenda and is anti war (for the most part).
I like how funny, direct and honest he is (I laugh AT Donald Trump)
I like the process of Trumpism because that process is strong and united/unites the working class from MAGA to Communism and destroys the corporate class and ogliarchy. Trump is a unique treasure.
But the above pitiful views I have of the process of Trumpism, are in spite of his toxic behavior and not because of it.
I don't believe Trump should have been the one or should be the one to carry out the relatively few positive things his process did during his junta and that he would do in the future as President.
I believe that Joe Biden was and is a great President to terraform that Trumpism into a salvageable (i.e compassionate and progressive) ideology that can truly Build Back (America) Better .
Trump is not my ideal of a ‘President’. He lost control of himself and allowed himself to be petty. Trump constantly throws a lot of people he hired under the bus (they are supposed to be there to provide him with counter arguments so its expected they'll be harsh on him).
Those same people are now going after him harshly, what kind of message does that send to our country?
But if I must insult Donald Trump to provide ‘red meat’ (Orange man=BAD!):
Donald Trump is the Prince of Darkness. I am convinced that Donald Trump is a combination of Hannibal Lecter, Dr Evil, the Antichrist, Freddy Krueger and Godzilla all rolled into one! The way that Trump handled and enflamed the pandemic was as scary and tragic as the horror movies and Armageddon
Donald Trump is a scoundrel , he shaved Mr McMahon's hair at Wrestlemania 23!! That was so heelish of Trump to cause such pain and misery to such an upstanding and respectful person (McMahon) who helped build the WWE to what it is today.
I bet McMahon's grandkids were crying in horror as they saw Trump and Lashley shave and abuse McMahon.
Donald Trump also is a celebaphobe, he fired SO MANY celebrities as host of the Apprentice!! In an authoritarian way, Trump shoves celebrities he likes and doesn’t trash down our throats (see my piece on Trump’s Garden of Heroes in the misc of my blog for example)
Donald Trump is a TRAITOR!!!. He was a Mets fan his whole life (he is from Queens), yet he rooted for the Atlanta Braves in person during their World Series game vs the Astros!!! Um, hello?
The Braves won the NL East like trillions of times in the 1990s and 2000s while destroying the Mets nearly every time they played and this turncoat Trump roots for them (the Braves)? BENEDICT TRUMP!!! Trump similarly is a traitor to republicanism, federalism, Constitutionalism, non interventionalism/anti war movement and (fill in the blank)
Trump also is a crook, he robbed my family of money through his casinos (Trump Plaza, Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Castle).
His casinos like Trump himself, shove holidays holidays down our throats since Trump’s brand is all about alienating people to force conformity (like Trump forcing holidays on Americans who don’t celebrate those holidays. Trump also forces assimilation or DADT type policies on people don’t look a certain way or don’t identify a certain way)
Donald Trump's hair is a major cause of climate change due to all of the hair spray he uses on it. That hairspray caused Trump to get so high it made his ego balloon to levels that would make Egoist Max Stirner proud
The Democrats and Joe Biden did not steal the 2020 Presidential election from Donald Trump… since Russians interfered in the 2016 Presidential election helping Trump win.
Trump was not in on the 2016 election steal by the Russians to help him win since if Trump was in on that election steal, he probably would have screwed it up which would have allowed Hillary Clinton to win
As such, I don’t consider Donald Trump’s junta as valid so since in my eyes, Trump was never President, he couldn’t have had the 2020 Presidential election stolen from him(since he was never President in the first place in my eyes).
Usually it is impossible to prove that an election is stolen since political machines that go through all of the trouble to rig an election , always obsessively clean up all their tracks and make it so any dissenters who come forward with the truth will be instantly shamed and labeled as conspiracy theorists, liars, lunatics and charlatans by their corrupt political machine.
But with Trump I knew he unfairly won the 2016 election and that truth was very uncomfortable for me
However since late 2016, I force myself 24/7 to pretend that the Donald Trump and the Republicans won the 2016 Presidential Election 100 percent fair and square and that there was no election fraud in the 2016 Presidential Election. I am like that when it comes to stolen elections
This is would be similar to how I use to pretend that the 2002 NFL Interconference matchups were the NFC East vs AFC East, NFC North vs the AFC West, and the NFC West vs AFC North. Similar to how in the late 1990s to mid 2000s, I use to pretend that I was born 4 to 7 years earlier in this life.
Similar to how in the early 2000s, I use to pretend that a decade earlier (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) I was a cast member on the New Mickey Mouse Club, with some future late 1990s-early 2000s pop stars (I further use to pretend that me and those future late 1990s-early 2000s pop stars like Justin, Britney, Christina, Tate , Ryan etc hung out together off set of those shows when filming was not going on).
Similar to how I used to pretend that Britney’s song You Drive Me Crazy was written and sung by her with me in mind and thus I used to pretend that song was about me
Similar to how I use to pretend that during the 1996 NFL season, the Jets beat the Eagles, Oilers and the Colts at the Meadowlands.
However, unlike those pretending examples above, I continue to pretend that the Donald Trump and the Republicans won the 2016 Presidential Election 100 percent fair and square and that there was no election fraud in that election, until the day I die.
Donald Trump should have handled the 2020 Presidential election like former President Richard Nixon handled his 1960 election defeat to former President JFK , see here
Trump should have publically conceded the next morning. Trump shouldn't have urged Republicans to be in a civil war state or to treat Joe Biden as a junta leader. Trump should have tallied over the electoral college vote. Trump should have accepted the results like Nixon did . Trump should have supported Joe Biden.
This would show that Donald Trump really put his country first. He should have publicly distanced himself from his followers who pushed for recounts in his own unique way.
I believe like that voting to overturn the 2020 US Presidental Election (ie state certified elections) would have been contrary to states rights and would have destroy the Electoral College forever. The Electoral college gives all of the power we need in terms of elections. States rights are something we have always advocated for.
Our founding fathers never wanted our Congress to be able to overturn state certified elections so overturning the verdict of the election is against the oath of the congresspeople.
Overturning the results would overturn states rights, and federalism which our founding fathers bestowed upon us. Moreover it would create chaos
We have to become a direct and participatory democracy so the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies and which citizens participate individually and directly in political decisions and policies that affect their lives.
This will make the need or desire to protest almost non existent as people will cause most of their political needs and wants implemented through direct and participatory democracy.
It is ok for people to question elections that a Republican wins like the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections, the Georgia governor race that Brian Kemp one, but if you question an election that a Democrat wins you are a threat to democracy or ruining peoples faith in democracy? Double standard? Please convince me that there is no double standard, because frankly it seems that there is a double standard
The January 6 Stop the Steal rioters did not cause Russia to invade Ukraine and anyone who says otherwise is a fool
The January 6 2021 Stop the Steal riots were not anywhere near as bad as 9/11 or the bombing of Pearl Harbor and they were not even remotely close to being ‘the darkest day in our nation’s history’.
Actually, come to think of it, January 6 was far worse than 9/11 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The US came within one of shake of those Qanon shamans staff becoming a fascist dictatorship run by Donald DRUMPF and his mafia stooge ADOLF Giuliani /s
I am not in the business of deciding or disputing what is the worst or most uniquely evil acts in human history on Earth by propping up specific examples of supreme, maximum evil
On Earth and on alien planets in other solar systems, galaxies and universes there have been countless mass killings, genocides, oppression, terrorist attacks etc in both numbers and savagery
The evident racism outlined here that was said to be done by the January 6 2021 Stop the Steal rioters should be reason enough for the MSM and politicians to go after the January 6 2021 rioters as harsh as they have
I am against amending the Insurrection Act of 1807. It is unneeded
My views on Left wingers (for left wing reasons) storming the Capital and attempting a coup’d tat can be found here
Even if we label January 6th as an ‘insurrection’, it was a small ‘insurrection’ that failed hilariously (I mean there was bunch of freaking rednecks running around the Capitol building LOL) .
The BLM protests on the other hand, brought out tens of millions and started a nationwide movement that brought significant policy changes to thousands of law enforcement agencies throughout the US, with hundreds of in the last year alone (including with body cams). Whether these changes in law enforcement work or are they the solution? See this section of my blog for more
I am worried that the crackdowns on rioters on January 6 will lead to a slippery slope that is used to shut down legit protests and dissent (i.e left wing, economic socialistic protests and dissent) in the future
The Trump extremists from the January 6 Stop the Steal riots have been treated not good in jail to way below ideally
Just because they are Trump extremists does not give the police the right to commit human rights abuses on them.
Even Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren feel the same way. We saw with and rightfully condemned the Islamaphobic horrors of Gitmo abuses , we need to at least look into these abuses more and if they exist counter them too. We don’t get to choose who deserves basic human rights and dignity.
I will not comment further on the identity, pursuit, arrest, charging, or actions of the individuals involved in the January 6 riots
Their legal battles over January 6 is the criminal justice element of the story as opposed to the broader political context.
I can see why some Left wingers and Democrats sympathize with the Trump extremists and see them as marginalized since the Trump extremists are treated as badly as marginalized groups were and still are treated (even though they brought it on themselves) .
I am not saying that it is wrong per say , since unlike those other marginalized groups , the Trump extremists are who they are by choice not nature. They have nobody to blame for their actions but themselves for putting themselves in those positions they were in
Not all right wing extremists are beyond hope (as Jon Kasich said at least a few Trump supporters might be redeemable) . No one is irredeemable
So since I am a compassionate Left winger and contrarian who loves to be countercultural against the Liberal 2.0 mainstream (opposite of the 1960s hippies), I can see where some sects of Left wingers/Left Centrists and Democrats who sympathize with those Trump extremists are coming from
So following those Left wingers/Left Centrists and Democrats who sympathize with those Trump extremists line of thinking, why couldn’t these Trump extremists be deradicalized like this article suggests? (as long as they are not deradicalized only to then become radicalized to be Liberal 2.0ers I would rather Trump extremists stay as they are than to become Liberal 2.0ers).
It wasn't long ago that our country demonized Muslims after 9/11, now they are doing it with Trump extremists I can’t help but see the similarities
It was great we did and continue to help Muslims not be stereotyped , discriminated against or hated, but if we don’t similarly help the Trump extremists become at least Center left would we be hypocrites?
Keep in mind, many Trump extremists are apparently what some people would call brainwashed or cultists (I wouldn't use strong words like those 2 words to describe them but whatever). Trump supporters don’t know better. They live in their own little fantasy worlds. So maybe these Trump extremists are brainwashed by Donald Trump .
Though same commentators like these commentators, downplay that ‘control’ Trump has over his supporters. I echo what former President Barack Obama said about relatively non extreme conservative voters being misled by voting for Donald Trump.
Trump supporters and the extreme right are dehumanized. They are cancelled (and they cancel back), shunned, insulted (not that they don’t bring that on themselves because they certainly do but still…) How much is too much? They are still humans.
A lot of people become radical right due to their emotional response to shame, guilt, frustration and alienation so that should be taken into account with extremists on the right
People who treat the extreme right like some progressives do, even though it might be more than somewhat justified makes me think they don’t really care about truly marginalized groups as much as I thought either.
If you hate some humans like some people hate the Right wing , you probably hate more than just the right wing somewhere in your heart. This feeds their us vs them attitude and creatives more grrrrrring
The vast majority of young Republicans have no idea what authentic American republicanism rooted in constitutional principles is all about and they should embrace that authentic American conservatism and ditch their brand of 'conservatism' or leave the party.
Comparing the 'Trump extremists' (ie the fringe members of the MAGA movement or MAGA movement itself) with Al Qaeda, ISIS and similar extremist terrorist groups seems very naïvely misguided , divisive , counterproductive, extremely ignorant , defaming , wrong and delegitimizing to both sides of that comparison
It is an insult to Al Qaeda and ISIS to be compared to Trump extremists. Al Qaeda and ISIS have legit grievances over their countries literally being occupied by neocon Imperialists and globalists through wars like Soviet-Afghanistan war, Iraq War, Afghanistan War and similar western interventions along with the west pitting Israel against their home countries (when both groups should be close) .
What if the MAGA trolls and radical right freaks are really like the Wildings from Game of Thrones where we think they are evil but they like the Wildings really aren’t as bad as we feared?
Trump extremists have imagined fake grievances made up in their minds due to them having too much of an imagination
Trump extremists may technically be domestic ‘terrorists’ (over zealous, SJW provocateurs or ruffians s better fitting than domestic terrorist) but they are not anywhere near as evil, bad or violent as ISIS, Al Qaeda and similar groups (despite the grievance thing I wrote above). Instead, if the domestic terrorists of the Trump party have to be compared to some terrible group of people, then compare them to the Weather Underground, Code Pink, Earth Liberation Front, MS 13 , the Family ,Red Commando, IRA, and the hooligans who attend soccer (football) matches in Europe instead of comparing them to ISIS and Al Qaeda and similar groups.
I believe that the Hunter Biden laptop story is true and that there was a coverup with it on social media, IN THE MSM etc
Between Joe Biden openly smearing everyone who supports Donald Trump as basically evil (instead of the fringe , insufferable or violent Trump supporters and even those fringe and violent MAGA are more vulgarly and toxically right wing anti statist) along with him giving a speech that no President should have to make (which having to give that type of speech as a President by its very nature is divisive and a tad enflaming) in August 2022 about Donald Trump and Trump supporters as threats to democracy (instead of the violent ,insufferable and fringe Trump supporters) was unhelpful and something that could sink his reelection chances
Even if Trump supporters are to blame, they are only partially to blame. Biden’s speech in late August should have been more about patriotism than partisanship
When Donald Trump was junta leader for all his uber Trump ups (i.e f**k ups, and there were so many Trump ups it would take the length of the Universe just to write out the most obvious ones), he never came even close to Biden's "everyone who doesn't vote for me a threat" rhetoric
What exactly did Trump do to split USA? He was constantly saying that Americans should be the first priority for the US, which is naive and ignorant but not divisive (only divisive in Trump divided Americans from their International allies but mot dividing Americans within the US from each othrr)
I realize Biden backtracked a bit here but Trump also backtracked in August 2017 after he praised neofascist Charlottesville alt right trolls and in both cases you cannot undo what you originally said), the Democrats and the FBI dehumanizing and defaming concerned parents at school board meetings as ‘domestic terrorists’, the FBI’s civil rights abuses, trying to make it easy for kids and even little kids to be Transgender including ‘mutilating’ their bodies and blocking their puberty (even without their parents permission), the deplatforming, censorship, cancelling of anyone who doesn’t have what the Liberal 2.0s decide through their unlimited God like acknowledge is an ‘acceptable view’ (which is partly due to right wingers canceling Liberal 2.0ers but two wrongs do not make a right) makes me depressed and lose faith in our country and our world. Something has to change
Joe Biden, Democrats and Liberals 2.0ers are Authoritarians on the political compass (as are nearly every American politician on both sides, Democrat and Republican). Trump supporters are generally not a threat to democracy no more than Muslims are a threat to democracy. Trump supporters are more of a threat to our patience more than anything
The fact that Trump and his supporters are perceived by them to be extremists is not really an excuse. Just like it is no excuse for the ‘far right’ or radical right become like they are due to Liberalism 2.0 and economic troubles pushing them further right
It really seems that the Democrats and Liberal 2.0ers are pushing it or even have crossed the line. Trump and his brand bring out the worst in people including their targets like the Democrats I guess or is it the other way around, chicken or egg thing?
I feel sorry for Joe Biden for being driven (at least in his mind) to his Anti MAGA speeches and comments by some bad apple Trump supporters
The Liberal 2.0 faction of the Democrats don’t respect or trust this country to do right and they demonize and delegitimize anyone they don’t agree with and I do not see how doing so is a positive or helpful thing.
Liberal 2.0ers adopt views to paint non Liberal 2.0ers as bigots when they refuse to go along with said views through open persecution like you would see in Russia
How can any sane person see all of the above and below things they are doing and not see this? Biden is almost as bad as Trump if not as bad.
You would have to be high on Liberalism 2.0 (Democrat or Republican) not to agree with at least a little of what I am saying here. Whatever happened ‘when they go low we go high?’
I realize that Joe Biden and MAGA didn’t get off to the best start in January 2021 but that is no excuse for such populist and divisive rhetoric from Joe Biden over the radical right (even though I know Joe Biden took back some of that rhetoric later).
A lot of Trump supporters and radical Right wingers become that way due to the Liberalism 2.0 replacing Liberalism and and being the dominant ideology in theDemocrat party or due to economic struggles (like recessions etc). It is no excuse but it provides context and nuance.
I honestly believe that Right Wingers would be happier being Left Wing (the real Left Wing- to the left of the Democrat Party) than they would be as Right Wingers, Blue Dogs-New Democrats or Liberal 2.0ers/Democrats
The Right wingers have to realize if they cannot have a society right of Ronald Reagan, they might as well push for our society to be Left wing (left of the Democrat party), Far left or Post Left instead. Because that is better for Right wingers than them being dragged kicking and screaming to a through Liberalism 2.0 to a far Liberalism 2.0 society
This is because the answers to Right Wingers concerns are found in the Left Wing (to the Left of the Democrat party). American right wingers in particular only have one option besides the Right wing, and that are the Center wing (Blue Dogs-New Democrats, Liberal 2.0, what they call ‘RINOs’)
Or what right wingers think are right wing concerns are really Left wing concerns (to the Left of the Democrat party) but since that real Left wing isn’t mainstream , Right wingers wrongly assume those concerns they have are right wing concerns
Like the radical Right wing could find the true solution to their issue of key inequalities between people to be found on the Left . The Left’s sees this issue as artificial and negative, and that solution by the Left involves making sure that these key inequalities between people are either defended or left alone by the state
But the American Right wing has never given much thought let alone gave a chance to the real Left Wing (to the left of the Democrat Party).
The Left is pro gun, non interventionist (in general), anti statist , wants to get rid of the state (Right wingers are anti gov nowadays), anti corporatist, either class reductionist or better balances class and identity than the Democrats do, anti idpol/ downplays idpol (non woke or much less woke) including wanting to abolish id categories (no id cats no wokeness or idpol) , as mentioned here (economic hypothesis section) Left wing economics are much better for Right wingers than Democrat Party/Liberalism 2.0 economics . Moreover the Left wing is pro LGBTQ in a way that can cure right wing homophobia/transphobia better than Liberalism 2.0 pro LGBTQ ways can
Vaush deradicalizes Right wingers (as he did with Hunter Avellone), so he would echo what I wrote above
Ask any Left wing person who deradicalized a right winger to become Left wing and they will expand on why Right Wingers embracing Left Wing views instead of Center wing (Blue Dogs-New Democrats, Liberal 2.0, what they call ‘RINOs’) views is better for them and fixes and cures the underlying issues plaguing Right wingers . Left Wing solutions to Right Wing problems
I have some ideas how to handle Trump extremists in a few places in this blog that give a more nuanced and laid out of what I wrote above.
But I am just musing. I could care less what happens to Trump’s supporters. I am not their savior
I would accept Radical right wingers working with us to defeat Liberalism 2.0 but only after we deradicalized them like mentioned here and or after they are reprogrammed to be Antiracists .
I am accepting of former Radical right who have moved left to be as liberal/progressive as Destiny , Vaush, Joe Rogan ,Haz, Jackson Hinkle, Bari Weiss, Tim Dillion, Michael Malice, Hunter Avellone ,Enough Commie Spam redditors, Adam Something, Greyzone’s conception of Alexander Reid Ross.
They also are our allies in defeating Liberalism 2.0 if they moved that leftward. See here for more
I am tolerant of former Radical right wingers who have moved as left and became as liberal as, Tim Pool, Pewpewpie and they can be our allies in defeating Liberalism 2.0.
However despite moving left they would have to fight against Liberalism 2.0 separate from us like how Leon Trotsky said that Social Democrats could be allies of Trotskyists in defeating Fascism but they would have to fight against Fascism separate from Trotskyists
I even can put up with (only when they are on their best behavior) former Right wing extremists who move as left as Sargon of Akkad, JD Vance, Steven Crowder, Tomi Lahren, Ben Shapiro , Mark Dice, Jordan Peterson and Clint Eastwood.
If they want to defeat Liberalism 2.0 like we do, after moving that leftward, I give them my blessing to do so but they can do so without our help or assistance .
Though maybe via autonomous ANTIFA like black box Anti Liberal 2.0 coalitions only if they move as left as above, they can fight with us against Liberalism 2.0 but not officially. This is to avoid being tied to their extremism even though they moved that ‘leftward’
If a reformed Pim Fortuyn list, or a Libertarian faction of the Alt Lite had ambiguous ties to leftist groups in Europe and either Russia or a similar anti West country invaded that European country that contained those leftist groups with ambiguous ties to PFL or a Libertarian faction of the Alt Lite and I deemed the invasion of said country wrong, I would support the leftist groups in those invaded countries with ambiguous ties to a reformed PFL or a Libertarian faction of the Alt Lite (but not the PFL or the Libertarian faction of the Alt Lite themselves) the same way that Democrats and Progressives in the West support Azoz Battallion in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
So Liberal 2.0ers say that Donald Trump and his supporters are fascists and authoritarians.
But some Liberal 2.0ers say that Trump and his supporters are extremely anti statist. So how can Donald Trump and his supporters be both fascist authoritarians AND radical anti statists at the same time? Isn’t that a really big contradiction? Answer: the more fringe Trump suppoters and their enablers are really crypto Anarcho semi fascists
But Trump supporters are technically ‘Fascists’, as are all Republicans and the majority of Democrats along with everyone else on Earth who is against Socialism
The only technical definition of Fascism is Militant Anti Socialism. Anyone on Earth who is opposed to Socialism even though they live in a capitalist society ,is technically a fascist.
The entire political purpose of Fascism is to suppress Socialism. All Fascist movements were founded on Anti Socialism. All Fascist movements in history actively fought Socialism.
Socialism is the progressive response to the natural and inevitable collapse of capitalism. On the other hand, Fascism is the reactionary response to that collapse.Anyone who opposes socialism in the 21st century is technically a Fascist.
Anti fascism has the advantage that it is not defined positively, which means that you don't have to do the work of articulating a political program, or what that might appear like in the current period.
Anti fascism is defined negatively and it's defined against things that are self-evidently bad. And at the same time, those things which are bad are also understood in Liberal 2.0 terms; the fascists are hostile to diversity, they are repressive of minorities, they are racist and exclusionary -- all of which are obviously true, but which also misconstrue the historical purpose of fascism in the 20th century, which was an overriding hostility to the worker's movement. I am against any forces which are hostile to the worker's movement
This Liberal 2.0 framing of fascism helps to explain its appeal: its absence of content, or of content that is given by a type of easy Liberalism 2.0 which can be taken in from the contemporary status quo and without requiring any person to make any real effort to put forward a political vision of the future.
Though we cannot understate that Fascism is still an extreme right wing form of Capitalist rule. Fascist ideologies are still present in various forms in most capitalist in the majority of Capitalist countries and in the former colonies that are ruled by puppet regimes.
In the US, Fascism is closely linked to white supremacy and it shows itself in a lot of institutions and cultural tendencies. Fascism is the ruling class’s last resort, which it uses to try to smash all working-class organizations. (workers.org/fascism/)
Communists have fought and continue to fight against Fascism
There are obviously problematic elements on the radical Right. This includes the Alt Right (like the Unite extreme Right right wing trolls including Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler). They are so extreme they give Republicans and even some non Liberal 2.0ers a bad name.
They also use Liberal 2.0 tactics (like digital ‘activism’, cancel culture’ etc) to spread their hate
The radical right’s antidemocratic stances are chilling and horrible. They are against democracy for the wrong reasons (fascist, right wing reasons) instead of for defensible reasons (Left wing or post left reasons) .
I am Anti Alt Right. I want to destroy the Alt Right and prevent them from doing anymore damage
These Alt Right trolls like all Right wing neofascists/Right wing Fascists are a threat to abolishing hierarchies , patriarchies and creating a truly egalitarian world . So they must be taken out
These Alt Right trolls also make our country a worse off, depressing, offensive and an unlivable place and so they must be dealt with countered and fired (Apprentice reference). I am a resistant to the Alt Right
The Alt right should clean their rooms and mouths out with soap and get wasted instead of being trolls.
Their views are disturbing to even the word disturbing. They spend too much time online. The alt right needs to open themselves up to opportunities that they wouldn't materially be aware of (like taking a long walk off of a short cliff)
The Right wing Neofascists/Right Wing Fascists in general are also a threat also due to the Neoliberal Autocracy/Revolutionary Regressive elements of Right Wing Neofascism/Right Wing Fascism so those Right Wing Neofascists/Right wing fascists must be confronted , bashed and abolished
I try to fix the bigger picture (as seen in this blog post, and throughout my blog) rather than fix or go after naughty Right wingers directly (since they are a symptom of bigger issues) to help fix them
However, I am a Partisan type of Antifascist and I will fight and destroy all Right wing Neofascists and Right wing Fascists in the near future if and when a Civil War breaks out between the Democrat base and Republican base (or something just short of a Civil War breaks out) just like the Partisan Antifascists did in WWII to the German and Italian fascists .
I swear on my mother’s life on this pledge
This link provides the most effective way to defeat Right winger extremists and Trump supporters and I might consider that as a last ditch effort against them.
Though I much prefer forcing Trump supporters to self deport as an alternative effective way .
Right wing extremists have no right to live in the US .
How can a right wing extremist be given the right to live in the US, and with the people, while acting normal but at the same time walking in the street and trying to do hate crimes or political violence against people? If right wing extremists are that angry about the US, they could theoretically get the heck out of the US
However if we can create a better world without hierarchies, patriarchies, classes and with economic equality (as seen in this post and throughout this blog), maybe that will liberate those right wing extremists and fascists of their hate too.
Right Wing extremism and Fascism is not an inextricable part of human biology, it is a reaction to material conditions that ideally would not exist in an anarchist society.
The same is also true for most forms of right wing extremism. They are very often born from communities that are poverty stricken and bad education, and grow within a cultural echo chamber of people similarly suffering the same ailments. So if we reduce poverty, improve education, and thus we reduce extremism. Stuff like the Norway 2011 mass killing never happens
The Global times has some interesting things to say about the ‘far right’ .
Similarly, according to an FBI source, Russian agents foment racial divisions within the US . See here and here
Just to be clear, I completely disavow the Alt Right, what the MSM calls ‘far right’/Radical Right/Right wing extremists, and Fascists/Neofascists and anyone else on their end of the political spectrum
party positions and roles
The views on our political system, political parties and ideologies ,bi/partisanship and similar polemic things are written in the book Mediations of a Militant Moderate https://books.google.com/books?id=VMZHuyK5NTsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false are an outline for at least some of my polemic views
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/jvu8to/i_used_to_be_a_liberal_4_years_ago_but_im/ and
The vast majority of politicians in the US, Europe etc are whites and that is an injustice
So with so many white politicians , it is a hard truth that naturally whites to have control of the political system. Whites have been major players behind relevant decisions .
Even in countries made up of mostly BIPOC politicians, whites are then promoted into power positions as advisers and ministers by these officials.
This injustice is why I support more political diversity as seen throughout this blog
I am against politicians being corrupt.
Liberal 2.0ers and their political views are on a higher hierarchy than non Liberal 2.0ers on the left and right and their political views and I am against hierarchies.
I am against both partisan extremes along with Liberalism 2.0.
If I sound partisan/too partisan on issues ,blame the polarizing politicians ,MSM, and political system itself for me having to be non partisan/too partisan on said issues. I , along with most Americans are victims of this polarizing/partisan political tug of war between the left and right for too long where me being a ‘militant moderate’ is getting harder by the day
Democrats exist to be a foil to the Republicans. The two parties were similar for so long but the Democrats chose to be the more ‘liberal party’ to differentiate itself from the Republicans. The Democrats embrace Liberal, Liberal 2.0 and progressive (and extremely rare leftist) views more to differentiate themselves from the Republicans than to naturally or truly have said views
Not left (or at least not American ‘Left’), not right but Forward. Beyond/transcend the left and right but against the center. Reject the left (basically the American ‘Left’) and right.
We can’t go back to the middle ages or even back a few decades like right wingers and reactionaries want (due to the system being stacked against them) and we do not want to go in the Liberal 2.0 misdirection so we might as well go way way Left .
Maybe by going that far left we can discover a new political spectrum wing that can please all Left Wingers, Libleft and AuthLeft alike, non extremist right wingers and reactionaries and maybe even Liberal 2.0ers at the same time (possibly a new political spectrum wing that is the closest approximation of what Fourth political positionism, Fifth political positionism, Sixth political positionism, Seventh political positionism would look like in our universe with our laws of nature)
I could be described as a double fishhook theory triangulation Centrist (extreme upper center)
We need healthy ideas from the left and right to unite us. People should build strategic alliances with political, cultural and ideological opponents
I support developing and improving directly with autonomous citizen councils and municipal spaces
Our political parties should attend to the conciliation needs of each person who participates in our political parties that is based on the commitment of the political parties’ regulations and protocols to attend to those needs and also when appropriate in the exercise of his public function.
We should ensure free, voluntary and open participation in our political parties to all people of all backgrounds, share the defense of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the democratic method of citizen participation and direct. We should also honestly discuss and respect all opinions, an objective for which we’ll always attempt to promote dialogue and the search for consensus
Our political ideologies should be rooted in protocols of loyalty, respect, and understanding. This should management should have a necessary and fundamental that had a clear feminist focus
Political parties should be structured like Podemos. Our current political parties are part of a political caste and we must end this political caste system
Politicians should not be into careerism and ambition
Ordinary people should have control of our political organizations
Politicians need to have a presence in social organizations and be among the people
I am fine with political parties not having trade union power within them
I am part Austromarxist because Austromarxism is relevant today due to the growing complexity of the new contexts of global society and the multiplication of migrations and refugees. Austromarxism is also relevant today due to the need to respond to minorities through accommodation via mechanisms of territorial and non territorial autonomy.
I support the creation of a caucus thats values include providing Tripartisan, Triangulation and paricpatory ideas on illegal immigration , ending wars or finding better alternatives to wars and and warmongering by the US, and promoting fair trade that benefit American workers
Congress should adopt a series of measurements and goals that can be modified and reexamined over time.
Representatives should select from these measures based on what they believe their constituents would care about then suggest how the laws they are passing will improve them.
I feel these measurements such as, but not limited to should be used to measure our GDP: Poverty rates, Life expectancy, Rates of Business formation, Clean Water, Crime Rates, Overdose deaths, Government Efficiency, Mental Health, Income Growth & Average Incomes, Affordability, Environmental Sustainability, Recidivism, Labor-force participation Rate, Military Readiness, Marriage Rates, Quality of Infrastructure, Rehabilitation Rates, Civic Engagement, Education Rates
I support Defensive Democracy in some cases when I deem it justified (and I would never support Defensive Democracy in situations where it excessively repressed of civil rights).
Defensive democracy is a collections of laws, legislation that is delegates and court rulings which limit specific rights and freedoms in a Constitutional Republic Democracy in order to protect the existence of the state and its character, human rights and institutions.
Defensive Democracy refers to major conflict that could come about in a Democratic Constitutional Republic country between adherence with such country’s values, (like freedom of association, the right to be elected, and between preventing parties, groups and peoples who are anti democratic from abusing these principles.
I repudiate the modern Republican GOP. I reject modern conservativsm as corrupt and decrepit
People on both sides have a common tendency to exaggerate the viewpoints of their ideological opponents They usually see on average, twice as much difference as actually exists. See this meme and post for a little more on this
According to Glenn Grunwald : “I would be on [Fox News] every day if I didn’t say no sometimes. Why is that happening? It’s bizarre. You look at any article on my work and it’s “far leftist Glenn Greenwald” and now I’m the most frequent guest on Tucker Carlson’s show. How did that happen? I think the reason is so many people on the left and on the right . . . have so much more in common in terms of their political views and their common enemies than either want to recognize. . . . Those old labels [left and right] don’t really tell us much anymore.”
There are also imagined extremism. This comes in a via conflicts over abortion rights, the interpretation of a racial-ethnic incident, the attitudes of certain social viewpoints etc
Like saying someone who is against someone saying that Transgender women shouldn’t compete in Women’s sports ‘doesn't want Transgender people to exist’. or saying that someone who is against the 1619 project being taught in schools is ‘against students in schools learning about slavery’. or saying that supporting states requiring id to vote is trying to prevent minorities from voting or that those laws are ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
In disputes on politics, everyone seriously overestimates the polarization between both sides. This is due to demonization by each side toward the other
To quote William Mckinley “our differences are policies our agreements are principals”
Democrats-Liberals don't embrace Republican-Conservative views because they feel Republican-Conservatives aren't on the same team so their views are bad due to them being associated with Republicans-Conservatives. Republicans-Conservatives don't embrace Democrats-Liberals views because they feel Democrats-Liberals aren't on the same team so their views are bad due to them being associated with Democrats-Liberals (which is why Republicans and Conservatives rejected former President Barack Obama’s policies they should have embraced since Obama was almost like a Democrat version of GWB).
Anarcho Libertarianism is good because it (along with Anarchism as a whole) has a unique focus on community and collaboration that goes deeper than hollow tone deaf ,inclusive Capitalism
We should advance detailed arguments for workplace democracy rooted in such natural law principles as subsidiarity, which we defend as morally desirable and as a probable outcome of the elimination of injustice rather than as something that is mandated by the state.
Natural law approaches to land reform and factory occupation by workers. Rejecting natural law that grounds to intellectual property protections, while building on property rights more general and developing a general natural law account of boycotts.
Rudolf Rocker echoes my views on the relation between Anarchism and Liberal Socialism : “Modern anarchism is the confluence of the two great currents which during and since the French revolution have found such characteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe: Socialism and Liberalism. The classical liberal ideals were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economic forms.
Anarchism is necessarily anti-p capitalist in that it opposes the exploitation of man by man. But anarchism also opposes the dominion of man over man. It insists that socialism will be free or it will not be at all. In its recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of anarchism. From this point of view, anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism.
It is in this spirit that Daniel Guérin has approached the study of anarchism in Anarchism and other works.” This is also touched upon by Noam Chomsky here
The Republicans and some progressive or liberal conservative populists were the inclusive political party to at least the late 1960s (non racist, non antisemetic) . Those ideals were what the Republican party was founded on in the 1850s. The Republicans need to get back to being like that
I know that the party switch really happened, since why would political historians and scholars ever lie about something as important as that fact when doing so would hurt the Democrats and prop up the Republicans?
But if this ‘no party switch’ myth by extreme Republicans at Conservapedia about how the party switch never happened was actually true instead of being alternative facts (blatant lies) and Republican propaganda , I would in that warped world, be much less hard on Republicans than I try to be now and I would in that strange world actively support the Freedom Caucus . But as it is in our world, nope.
What really happened between both political parties can be found here
The Republicans of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s were a GREAT political party and I am fine with that incarnation of them. In particular the Rockefeller Republicans and Richard Nixon, who actually had some Progressive traits. https://www.wsj.com/articles/richard-nixon-progressive-president-epa-title-ix-detente-cancer-desegregation-11636671414
The Democrat Conservatives of the 1960s were a lot better than the Republican Conservatives from the 1970s onward. This is why I am a supporter of 1960s Democrat Conservatism
The Republicans in the 1980s were a fairly good political party. Back then Republicans were seen as go getter yuppies and business people.
On Family Ties for example, Alex, who was a Republican was a small-government, pro-capitalist libertarian at heart was a great person unlike some of the Republicans of today. Alex was hip and cool. This article puts it better than I can http://web.archive.org/web/20191011195307/https://www.cracked.com/article_26594_the-classic-sitcom-that-looks-completely-insane-in-2019.html
The Republicans in the early to mid 1990s were also a good party. Uncle Phil from the Fresh Prince of Bel Air was a great Republican. He rightfully belived in Affirmative action and fair housing for his community and he was moderately conservative on other issues while rightfully having faith in institutions like the courts.
In another world, in the 2010s, 2020s etc, I would support this Fantasy world Republican Party (ONLY when they are in a coalition with a reinstated National Union Party ,newly formed American version of the Labour Party UK or a national version of the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party since in that world those political parties would be major political parties in the US)
In some ways I feel (from a far left Tankie perspective) that anti authoritarianism is fascist (or at least the type directed at the USSR, China in the last half century, and similar Tankie countries)
I wouldn’t mind seeing political machines make a comeback, but only if they were organized like Podemos
Liberal 2.0ers , Radical Right Wingers, and far rightists today are an angry opposition that are no longer capable of participating constructively in political debate with relatively level headed opposition
Why can’t they debate using politeness, reason, and conviction (and maybe humor and charm)?
In terms of views, Liberal 2.0ers , Radical Right Wingers, and far rightists today are so unmoored from the reality of other views that they take on the paranoid style. I am sure most of them are capable of being reasonable .
Republicans and Conservatives need to drop the us vs them populism and find reasons to unite with the other side instead of fight with them.
Similarly the Liberal 2.0ers and some non Liberal 2.0 Democrats take a page straight out of the revisionist /International Communism (anti Individualist and anti Liberal revisionist International Communism only) playbook and the Fascist playbook which is to label anyone that doesn't think like them as the enemy
I think free as I wish... so I must be a total pos to them huh? I just don’t want people to hurt other people in their choices.
Both types of us vs them thinking by the Republicans and Democrats are disabling , everywhere you go you feel like people are judging you simply due to you believe in liberty/equality for everyone.
Politicians should not make decisions based on emotions but based on rational thinking. Being compassionate is good but there needs to be a balance with decision making
Democrats, Progressives and Liberal 2.0ers should drop the purity tests. People should support views based on research and independent thought not party lines)
I support political leaders who don't force their will upon people
Since an America socialistic Revolution is very likely not happening within the near future, I tepidly give extremely cautious and unenthused support to some Squad members who are populists (like AOC unironically)
AOC and her Squad populists literally can’t enact our Left wing policies /non Liberal 2.0 policies herself themselves since AOC and her populist Squadron are working in a system stacked against NON Liberal 2.0ers (AOC teeters on Liberal 2.0 and non Liberal 2.0 left).
I realize that Republicans and corporate Democrats are far worse on imperialism than progressives like AOC and the Squad populists.
AOC and the Squad populists are not perfect, but they’re the best types of non Liberal 2.0 politicians to the left of Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema and most practical politicians between both parties that we can use to defeat Liberalism 2.0 now and usher in a socialistic revolution.
AOC wants to reform the Democrats to make them go left of Liberalism 2.0 which is great with the added bonus of the Democrats shedding themselves of Liberalism 2.0 , Capitalism and corporatist fascism
For example while working as a bartender, she auditioned with Justice Democrats (.com) when she heard that a new PAC, started after his failed 2016 Presidential run by disgruntled Bernie Sanders campaign staffers and leaders, who were looking for people to “audition” as candidates to run against incumbents for Congressional seats, with the goal of the take over of Congress by Progressives committed to the JD/BNC platform.
The Justice Democrats’ (JD) purpose is the takeover of the Democratic Party, because in order to save the soul of the Democratic Party the Justice Democrats will board the Democratic Party ship and take it over. (This is the proper definition of “mutiny”)
Cenk Uygur also said that the Justice Democrats will run strong progressives (hopefully non Liberal 2.0 ones only) from now on and they will be the new wing of the Democratic Party. Maybe this can include getting an intellectual fringe to seize key positions of authority and power within the Democrat Party and eventually bring large numbers of people around (similar to what the Koch brothers did with their pro-business libertarianism)
This political ideology was greatly influenced by Subhas Chandra Bose who in the 1930s advocated a aggressive revolution against the British Empire to gain total independence for India.
However, sadly DSA are “woke-cialist,” so they are a bit Liberal 2.0 too (if the DSA wrongfully moves right, I would rather the DSA become Blue Dog or New Democrat or maybe even center right instead of becoming Liberal 2.0) . But the only place I want the DSA to be is Left wing (and thus non Liberal 2.0 which means NON wokecalist)
DSA just keeps woke young people in particular voting Democrat. The DSA are sadly and essentially a recruiting wing of the DNC for young people at this point.
It is not common for so called ‘Socialist’ organizations to be primarily focused on wokeness but unfortunately, the DSA seems that they focus on that more than economics instead of balancing the two properly like I outline in this blog
The DSA seems to function as a way to capture economic Leftist sentiment and redirect it to idpol and therefore the Democrats.
Why lesser of two evils (Democrats) has drawbacks, like here, here and here. Also see my post here
To people who claim that Joe Biden is a ‘lesser of two evils’, which Joe Biden is your favorite? Alleged rapist Joe Biden?, war criminal Joe Biden?, or segregationist Joe Biden?"
If not voting for Joe Biden is a vote for Donald Trump, then not voting for Donald Trump is a vote for Joe Biden.
If Bernie Sanders tells me to vote for a rapist who touted his work with segregationists and who said that he would veto Medicare for All, then I'm going to tell Bernie to fuck off
Did Joe Biden release kids from cages since 2021? Nope. Read State and Revolution
If we decide to reject the lesser of two evils method, then we can use the Anti partyarchy method. Anti Partyarchy, is against pursuing libertarian ends through statist means, especially political parties (since Libertarians aren’t likely to win elections).
Libertarianism is not an eternal or timeless thing. If you have an very well functioning government and politics, libertarian principles seem less relevant.
This Anti Lesser of Two evils method is to not support political engagement (i.e political party promotion) which can be a way to transition to a left wing society without having to settle for the lesser of two evil Democrats.
If we choose to oppose electoral voting and political reform we can instead use alternative strategies outside of the political systems in order to achieve a free society.
I feel that such a society could be freed more readily if we employ methods like education, direct action, alternative currencies, self sufficiency, civil disobedience ,entrepreneurship and counter economics.
I also support Deep Organizing, see here, here, here, here, here and here for background and how to do that
I like using this strategy to put unelectable MAGA candidates on the main election tickets so they can be easier to beat for the Democrats
Some leftists (not me) feel that Republicans in power is actually preferable to Democrats in power even if we discount the Liberalism 2.0 element of the Democrats.
To them, with Democrats in power it softens the blows of big capital while promoting illusions among the working class.
These leftists say that with a Republicans in power, they takes off the gloves, increasing exploitation and thus driving the mass movement towards anti capitalist conclusions. Basically left acceleration. Eventually we may have to do something drastic as this to create a truly Left Wing society .
Like get the root canal now (Republicans) instead of downing pain killers (Democrats) for years or decades. Democrats make us complacent but they are not left wing and we cannot keep settling for trash. We will never have a socialistic ,left wing egalitarian society if we do that, ever . Look at the USSR and the October Revolution for inspiration.
Maybe Retiring All Government Employees (RAGE) and draining the deep state would be a good place to start (Chile’s Left says politicians shouldn’t be politicians for more than a few years as to keep things fresh). No one would direct this system, and barely anyone who participates in it says that it’s a system at all.
I am open minded to supporting, in a Joseph of Arithmea type way politicians who are part of Peter Thiel’s New Right . My reason would be they are as Anti Liberal 2.0 as I am and they have neat ideas
I would not believe that those type of Republicans who I vote for would be able to pass any of their right wing legislation that goes against my values since most Republicans who are socially like those Republicans are all talk and no action on getting their policies passed. If I had doubts about this for a second however, I would instead abstain from voting in said election
The Liberalism 2.0 of the US will stop eventually, but it won’t “level out” so to speak. The pendulum will swing in the opposite direction (to the radical right). When that happens it is gonna look a lot worse than what we have now with Liberal 2.0ers
I apolitically symbolically and morally (as in moral victory) see the ‘US Color Revolution’ from 2020 as badass and a bold way to create something new . It was an effective revolution for the Democrats
https://www.conservapedia.com/2020_Leftwing_insurrection. I like reading Conservapedia because I consider Conservapedia to be alternate history/fan fiction
Bias
There are two sides to every story and most political issues , read this
Liberal 2.0ers are as big or bigger hypocrites than non Liberal 2.0ers
I want Amazon and Big Tech to be broken up. We have to stop their monopolies. Big Tech has too much power and control and that needs to end
There is no reason so many people should wear the same brand of clothes, or be a member of the same social media site. Movie character Arthur Jensen's speech in his movie about how corporations are the real nations of the world today seems frighteningly prophetic after decades of increasing globalism and corporate 'synergy'. I am against this and all forms of monopoly Capitalism
Big tech also adds and removes features without giving one damn how it effects users and that is wrong.
There is an obvious Capital Corporatist , Liberal 2.0 bias media bias in the media and that is a fact. The MSM are predators . All media has a spin. There is no such thing as objective media, no matter how hard they try.
For example, western MSM outlets and reporters wrongly had the Ukraine flag in their social media profile pics or on their newspaper and website logos.
That alone is proof that the MSM was bias against Russia and pro Ukraine. How can we trust them to cover the Russia-Ukraine conflict fair and without bias when they have the Ukraine flag in their logo or profile. It is like the West as a whole has State run media
There's been so many times I see a controversy in the MSM play out in real time where the reporting does not match reality. James Damore for example , with all of these it reaches a point where everyone accepts that skewed reporting as the historically accurate MSM depiction. Bring up James Damore with nearly anyone today and you're told he was worse than he really is, see here for example
Most reporters and editors are Capital Corporatist or Liberal 2.0
See this link.for some of the many things that the Liberal 2.0 political news machine got wrong and things the right wing Conservapedia site thought Right wingers got right but didn’t
Only Capital Corporatist , Liberal 2.0 fanboys would deny that fact (I would deny it too if I was in their shoes).
From Mark Twain who had a prophetic vision about today's MSM 'If you don't read the newspaper (or news sites), you're uninformed. If you read the (Capital Corporatist ,Liberal 2.0) newspaper (or news sites), you're mis-informed'
Liberal 2.0 bias (not a Liberal bias as user claims) : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1058700530
Bari Weiss points out this Liberal 2.0 bias https://www.commentary.org/articles/bari-weiss/resist-woke-revolution/?s=04
Replace Liberal bias with Liberal 2.0 bias and this article is correct. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/565489-chuck-todd-liberal-bias-doesnt-exist-in-media-it-absolutely-does
Wikipedia has at absolute minimum a slightly more than somewhat Liberal 2.0 bias . Even Wikipediocracy , Larry Sanger and admits this. Jimbo Wales even sort of said there is a ‘slight’ Liberal 2.0 bias . See this subsection for more
Corporations are starting to run our country, they are now influencing state laws, donating heavily to politics etc. They don’t care about sides, they want to use both sides to hamper the other while these corporations rise to create their Social Corporate fascist utopia. This type of Corporatism is a threat to Democrats and Republicans alike
Robert Reich is correct about the threat of Corporatism. Corporations are starting to run our society and many of them are a threat to our democracy. It's bad enough they feed off of monopolies and buying other corporations but now they are crossing the line. Reich's book provides great insight into this. We need to fight against Corporatism before it engulfs our country.
Corporations have their own agenda that transcends Right-Left split. We must stop that, bipartisanly. Both parties have sold our to corporatism. Corporations are not people. They should stay out of politics. Big corp can easily swing the other way and if that happens, we are screwed. Break up big corp
Many of our socioeconomic problems are caused by Multinational/Transnational corporations. Multinational/Transnational corporations run our world, and are a growing threat to our democracy due to the power and influence they have in politics and consumer culture . See elsewhere in this blog for more
We need to end Corporate personhood. Corporations are not people. We should not be giving tax cuts to corporations
Corporations are WRONGLY exploiting the 14th amendment. We have to change the 14th amendment to stop corporations from doing this . A.L never intended for the 14th amendment to apply to corporations
I support these Anti-corporatocracy proposals : limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions, registration of lobbyists, recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings.
You know there was a Time corporate media was not allowed. Do you know who signed into law that corporations could own media companies? In the sixties almost 400 people collectively was responsible for all of the news you read heard on the radio or watch them TV.
Today it's four or five corporations control the news and social media is controlled I believe 3 people. Who made this possible? Liberal 2.0ers .Hats off to them for pulling it off
We need to politely fight against these Corporate Capitalists-Liberal 2.0ers from taking over our country and world with their monopolies and influence. Robert Reich has some good ideas to fight this type of Social Corporatism.
The truth is, nearly every NASDAQ corporation, every Big Tech company, every major Hollywood celebrity on social media, nearly all MSM, the majority of colleges, etc all have a Liberalism 2.0 bias and is destroying politics as a whole.
Corporations, Big Tech, Hollywood, MSM etc in particular always have the same exact position and responses/virtue signaling to every issue, and news story (demonizing the same people and knighting the same people) whether it is:
Lining up with the Liberal 2.0 agenda on green new deal type policies, ESG, health issues, sexual orientation and gender issues, gun rights, voter ID laws, restrictions on speech, abortion and policing. See this for me expanding on this
“Historically this role was fulfilled by religious institutions hence the usage of the term "cathedral", this is intentionally contrasted with the institutions that fulfill the role of the cathedral in the modern age that being Schools, Universities, the Media and the Entertainment industry who largely market themselves as "Secular".
It is worth to note that the Cathedral (in it's modern incarnation) is not a formal institution that people just belong to but rather an informal network of leaders of the before-aforementioned institutions that happen to agree on most important matters (Harvard, The New York Times, Disney and The Guardian rarely disagree for example)” This and this can give you an idea of this Liberal 2.0 cathedral (even though that is a bad website, it gives you an idea of this Liberal 2.0 cathedral, just replace Liberal with Liberal 2.0).
Corporate Liberal 2.0 tyranny is a HUGE slippery slope and major issue we need to fix now (for example see this) . Also see this for more
We need to stop Corporate Tyranny of the Liberal 2.0ers huge takeover of corporate America, and thus Liberal 2.0ers’ woke and censoring mob in the corporate lane. This article reflects more of my thoughts on this and how to fix this issue with corporations
I reject Liberal 2.0ers weaponization of corporate America against non Liberal 2.0ers views and values.
We have to convince corporations from engaging in activities which undermine free enterprise, individualism, liberty, small government, freedom of speech and of course the rule of law.
Companies need instead go back to their main role—as fiduciaries for their investors.
We must restore a healthy respect for and understanding of free enterprise, liberty, and our lived in experiences , all of which are being corrupted by corporate oligarchs.
The US’s major corporations increasingly are choosing political sides in the battle between liberty and woke tyranny.
The largest threat to liberty isn’t big government anymore, it is big business.
Corporate America has begun to mirror our country’s higher education—a space dominated by Liberal 2.0ers and for Liberal 2.0ers, but with more power to stifle any opposition to the Liberal 2.0ers cultural orthodoxy and dominance.
Corporate tyrants are dictating to us what ideas and beliefs are ‘acceptable’.
For people to dissent from this corporate elite makes you become targeted against the increasingly-expanding corporate promotion of the Liberal 2.0’s extreme radical agenda in the US and around the planet.
These Liberal 2.0 Corporations are acting more and more like the 1920s and 1930s literal Corporate fascists in Europe, see here, here and here for more
Corporate Fascists are defunding, censoring, deplatforming, and silencing non-Liberal 2.0s voices in the public sphere, eliminating pluralism, freedom of speech and civil debate.
As mobs get the upper hand, intimidation spreads.
Non Liberal 2.0 Americans views are being marginalized and increasingly are being cancelled.
Tactically, the Liberal 2.0ers are working using a top-down, bottom-up model along with an outside-in to craft culture to their approval at breakneck speeds.
From the top, Liberal 2.0 CEOs and their board members use shareholder’s money in order to advance Liberal 2.0 policy. From the bottom, woke employees dictate the plan of attack for the corporation while non-partisan or non Liberal 2.0 employees remain silent, out of fear of them being cancelled.
Also, from outside, legions of sufficently-funded outside investors, Liberal 2.0 activists, NGOs, and MSM members apply pressure to companies to get them to work in lockstep with the power-hungry, political Liberal 2.0.
Whether this is under the guise of “ESG” (environmental, social and governance), “wokeness,” or “stakeholder” Capitalism, make no mistake, these terms are only really cover for Liberal 2.0ers weaponizing big business in order to achieve their radical, political goals
However I am cool with Big Corp officially being merged into the Democrat party and if they did that I would be fine with them being as Liberal 2.0 as they are
Issues like voting rights, migration and transgender-inclusive restrooms have economic impact
The millions of alienated people from those culture war fights aren’t just only these Corporations future customers, a lot of them expect to support brands that they believe in, but they’re also the companies’ employees.
Non Liberal 2.0ers might have a 1920s view of who Big Business’ workforce is. However that workforce is, at a minimum, very diverse and they get along. Trying to stir that up is misguided
It is almost like they are in sync with each other (which is cool they are insync with each other if they are because cohesion is a biblical value but still…). The odds they are on the correct side of all of those issues is slim at best and slim left town.
No variance, nothing. They now are being openly anti life, anti gun, etc. From Media bias fact check, here. That is MSM outlets who have a Center Left or Left Center bias. You know, Liberalism 2.0 territory. Also see here. Again Liberalism 2.0 territory
It is better to steadily increment towards a more prosperous society through the market like using more and more co-ops
Until we abolish the state, the government would end corporate monopolies other market market failures to rebalance the competition. That government would be elected through a liberal democracy since that is is supposed to be representative of the people
Conservatives waste their time and political energy on cultural social battles over issues like wokeness, because Liberal 2.0 ideology holds sway in the above important institutions of prestige media and academia—an intertwined nexus he calls “the Cathedral.” The US has lost its state capacity, so it is not really capable of governing anymore
The power of the executive branch has slowly dwindled into an oligarchy of the educated who care more about competing for status within our system than they do about US’s national interest.
If I didn’t know any better I would think the US and Canada have a state run media like China and Russia (but I won’t because I know better)
It is Corporate Capitalist-Liberalism 2.0 groupthink
Though the fact a few corporations own so many corporations and so on makes that somewhat understandable, look at how many corporations and entities CBSViacom, Disney, Time Warner, NBCUniversal own for example).
Some of them are heavily influenced by Liberal 2.0 lobby and advocacy groups who organize and coordinate attacks on those corporations through ‘SJWism’ and other tactics until those corporations give in. It's like a real life Stepford Wives (I love that movie).
Just look at how they one by one they pretended to become woke in 2020 (mary sue), how all of these corporations punished innocent Russians for a war they had nothing to do with, look at how all of these corporations fire or go after people who are far left (i.e tankies), Authoritarian Conservative ,Blue Dog Democrat (Krysten Sinema bathroom incident at ASU in 2021) or Left Wing (like their attacks on Hassanbi, Breadtube, Destiny, Jimmy Dore, Krystal Ball, Tim Dillion, Kyle Kulinski etc).
Look at how these corporations use diversity to cover for their corrupt labor practices and attack everything that us reasonable private citizens stand for in their tone deaf, tone deaf virtue signaling fests.
Liberal 2.0ers own most of the western media and make up the majority of Liberalism 2.0 . So Liberal 2.0ers then promote other Liberal 2.0ers into power positions. Liberal 2.0s then feed constant Liberalism 2.0 through that mechanism
But I at the end if the day, I could care less. Let the Cathedral go after non normies. It is no skin off my back. As long as they aren’t going after me, it’s all good. If conservatives and other non normies don’t put as much effort as Liberal 2.0ers in creating their own bias in the media ,they only have themselves to blame
How can Leftists, Democrats, Republicans and Fascists see everything each other sees yet have the exact opposite views of those things?
No matter how much truth and facts each side points out, they will call each other names, use dishonest tactics ,emotionally charged attacks while spewing misleading info like robots . One side has MSM and Big Tech and mainstream, the other side has Alt media, Alt tech and underground. They always have counters to everything.
Liberals 2.0ers and Right Wing fascists truly exist to torment us (to appease our torment fetishes) and the Liberal 2.0ers in particular cannot even do it in a way that is fun and uplifting which would make it more bearable. At least we are genuine in our causes even if we are an unsavory bunch at times
The SPLC has done great work for decades and is generally a good tool for info on hate groups but in the past decade (especially since they wrongly fired Morris Dees) they have a smidge of a Liberal 2.0 bias, at least outside of their info on hate groups.
They are almost scam and should be taken with a grain of salt after the acts they pulled over the years
The SPLC listing pro life groups and Traditionalist Catholic groups as hate groups is proof they are nothing but a smear campaign designed to destroy non Liberal 2.0ers, especially Republicans and the Conservative movement with lies,(they should know better) , dis honest reporting and nonsense.
They even tried to slander and smear Max Blumenthal with a now retracted article on Multipolar red green brown alliance article
The SPLC wrote a relatively fair article about the Proud Boys in 2017 titled 'Do you want bigots Gavin?' article. I actually was surprised how decent and relatively fair that article was. But even that SPLC is long gone (though this recent article by them was decent compared to their hit pieces in the last few years)
The SPLC are now are a defamation, smearing hit squad designed to smear anything and all things that don’t align with their political views, left, right and middle.
The SPLC and the ADL are aligned with Big Tech ,other major corporations and the media . Wikipedia uses them as a trusted source.
They are seen as experts on ‘hate’. With their exaggerations of the far left or right wing’s ‘sins’ or them liberally throwing around stigmatizing labels can lead to demonizing people, character assassination , canceling people or groups etc.
The SPLC tried to smear the Proud Boys in 2018 by cherry picking, using one members' life to 'prove' that the Proud Boys were a 'gateway drug' to the alt right.
They may have been correct about the Proud Boys , but back then and based on the methods (ie fishing expeditions which on Wikipedia, checkusers are not allowed to do to catch sockpuppets) they used, the SPLC was pushing it too far possibly over the line.
The SPLC uses filler in their hit pieces and brutally manipulate an associations to prove the logical fallacies of 'guilt by association'
Non right wingers can agree or associate with right wingers on a few issues without becoming one. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. According to the Christian bible, Jesus ate with sinners in and the pharisees called him all sorts of evil names.
Are right wingers so evil, and far off we can’t even talk to them? Are they freaking lepers? So much for liberal 2.0 ‘tolerance’
The work of the MSM is in some ways outsourced to the SPLC, as contemporary "journalism" and this consists of finding people with opinions they find problematic and going on and on about it until they lose their job.
One of the ways they do this is journalists reprinting the pr releases from the SPLC and calling them articles.
The issue here is, that when you begin confirming the SPLC's work with other sources, things get tangled including the narrative
The SPLC has a habit of counting single individuals as groups or chapters, which may give a skewed impression of hate groups in any given state. The SPLC’s list of hate groups is very inflated and overstated according to a employee at a different progressive NGO .
Like the SPLC will list skinhead groups in areas where there are only s few individuals instead of organized groups
Even the Washington Post and USA Today admit the SPLC has major issues
I do feel the ADL is no longer the respected civil rights organization dedicated to fighting extremism and hate against Jews that I supported in the early to mid 2000s decade.
The ADL is still correct probably most of the time and I still see some solid articles where I feel they reasonably critiqued the Right wing in a positive way,
I am glad that the ADL still fights for Israel, when so many left of center right people and groups are turning on Israel and hitting to close to home (i.e day of rage aggression).
But the ADL have jumped the shark in my eyes. The ADL seems to smear anyone (or at least their against political opponents) on the Left and ESPECIALLY the Right which rarely causes consistent character assassination
The ADL seems brazenly partisan (revolutionary progressive). It is headed by Jonathan Greenblatt who worked for former President Barack Obama. Obama is center right but Obama put a lot of people with Liberal 2.0 views around him and those Liberal 2.0ers around Obama might have rubbed off on Greenblatt pushing him left
The ADL are somewhat slightly above below average not because they are Jewish or because they are a Jewish organization (I am part Jewish) but because of what I wrote above and below
This includes the ADL’s online censorship pledges which can stifle non ‘violent’ free speech
The ADL also partners with the corporate cheap labor lobby funded by billionaire Republican Charles Koch to stifle critics of what Koch supports. The Koch brothers heavily fund Liberalism 2.0 causes to spread Liberalism 2.0
The ADL's speech police exploits Left wing counter violence (like by ANTIFA) and the BDS’s overkill pro Palestinian activism to demonize the whole non Democrat approved Left.
The ADL should criticize the Anti Israel smears that are done by people and groups that the ADL currently gives a pass to (like Amnesty International) while the ADL should no longer support anti Jewish state violence like they have in the past on occasion. In addition the ADL should return to the way they were at least in the 2000s decade if not earlier. Also this
The ADL should also be more pro Palestine /pro Palestinian (but in a non woke way and without trying to own the conservatives like without the ADLA demonizing or smearing good nature anti Palestinian criticism even if said criticism is ignorant or blurs the line of being bigoted, otherwise forget it) and be less partisan
The ADL maybe rightfully exploits Trump supporters and Alt right craziness to demonize and go on witch hunts after all right of center right and right center views and people (but if right wingers are dumb enough to put themselves in that exploitable position then maybe [big maybe] they deserve to be taken down by the ADL and their allies but the ADL should do so with grace just for optics)
Don't let the ADL fool you: Among the ADL’s four categories of violence—Islamist, left-wing, right-wing, and white supremacist extremism—researchers found that the first two were more or less accurate; 85 of the 88 Islamist incidents checked out as properly labeled, as did 24 of the 26 leftist ones. Where the ADL was inflating things was almost entirely in the “white, right-wing” areas.
As the researchers noted, among the 300 incidents of right-wing extremism during this period, when reviewed, only 131 were found to truly fit the bill. White supremacist extremism was even more inflated: just 57 incidents of the 199 claimed by the ADL credibly had such a motivation.
That the ADL’s “hate inflation” fell only on whites and right-wingers; that the spirit of scrutiny apparently grips the SPLC when reviewing some racial agendas but not others; and that people like Neiwert pass over basic facts to pursue anti-white narratives can be summed up in one word: bigotry. It should be called out as such by conservatives and independents whenever they see it.
The SPLC and ADL get it right a lot but they get it wrong or go too far sometimes . Since they are partnered with so many Big Tech companies, corporations etc if they smear rare innocent people they can cause innocent people to be cancelled, deplatformed, swatted etc. Those two NGOs have too much reach with these partnerships and with what I wrote above, contributes to this toxic Liberal 2.0 culture we find ourselves in now
The ADL also pushes its anti-Palestinian agenda through a bunch of corporate partnerships. The ADL works as a “content vetting” partner with companies such as Google and Microsoft to remove “antisemitic” , which often means “pro-Palestinian” content from these companies’ platforms, and pressures these companies to continue to suppress Palestinian voices.
The ADL has a record of supporting anti-Jewish state violence which is wrong , hypocritical and treasonous, as mentioned here .
Similarly the ADL also downplays or even gives a pass to some Left wing anti Israel rhetoric and attacks (like the ADL did with Amnesty International) which is also wrong and hypocritical
The ADL’s allegiance to US empire can lead it to sanitize threats of racist violence, even from Nazis (or at best Anti Zionist ultranationalists) like the ADL did with the Azov battalion . The current situation in Ukraine demonstrates this point.
By the ADL doing this type of shady things, it spoils all of the good work they do and further shoes their partisan nature while normalizing Nazis (or at best Anti Zionist ultranationalists) like the Azov battalion which makes more work for the ADL to combat anti semetism since normalizing such groups causes them to be harder to counter for obvious reasons
Prior to the recent war in Ukraine, in 2019, the ADL reported that the Azov battalion – a Nazi-filled group that is now part of the Ukrainian national guard – “has ties to neo-Nazis and white supremacists.”
But when the war that the US government and arms companies who are deeply invested in this war broke out, the ADL began downplaying Ukrainian Nazis by promoting materials that downplay Ukrainian Nazism.
Imagine what the ADL’s response would have been if a country that wasn’t allied with the US had a Nazi army unit like the Azov battalion, one in which the soldiers have anti semetic tattoos and whose commander once said anti Jewish comments?
For balance, I have to mention that some have been pointing out that the Azov battalion might not be as bad as people make them out to be
Like some zionist organizations and newspapers, like the The Times of Israel, reported that the Azov battalion isn’t as bad as they might seem. The Times of Israel’s March 2022 interview with Jewish Ukrainian nationalist Konstantyn Batoszky attempted to show how:
“I was shocked when I saw guys with swastika tattoos,” he [Batozsky] said about the Azov members he got to know. “But I talked with them all the time about being Jewish and they had nothing negative to say. They had no anti-Jewish ideology.” He insists that the viewpoint of Ukraine as a hotbed of antisemitism is in his mind ‘absurd’.
“I don’t practice, but still everyone knows I am Jewish – I have such a Jewish face! And I never experienced antisemitism from Ukrainians,” he insisted. “The military guys I am working with now really don’t care that I am a Jew.”
In March 2022, the ADL interviewed Jewish Theological Seminary professor, David Fishman, a conducted by ADL Director of European Affairs Andrew Srulevitch, titled “Why is Putin Calling the Ukrainian Government a Bunch of Nazis?”
In the interview, David Fishman was asked aspects of the contemporary Ukrainian nationalist movement that venerate Stepan Bandera and the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army), who are known to have collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. Keep in mind that members of the Azov battalion, revere Bandera and the UPA.
Fishman said: “For Ukrainian nationalists, UPA and Bandera are symbols of the Ukrainian fight for Ukrainian independence. The UPA allied with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union for tactical – not ideological – reasons.”
See here for more
I do stick up for the ADL when I can. The ADL never denied the Armenian genocide , that Armenian denial genocide charge against the ADL was an antisemetic smear meant to delegitimize the ADL and thus was wrong
I like how the ADL defends Israel , since as I show here, I similarly have pro Israel views.
At the very least I like the ADL being as pro Israel as they are because by the ADL being like that, it shows that the ADL isn’t pigeon holed into having Liberal 2.0 or Left wing views by the ADL having Right wing (i.e Zionist) views on Israel
However because of how the ADL becoming Liberal 2.0 the last decade as mentioned a little ways up, I do not feel sorry for them in the slightest when they similarly get smeared and demonized by the Left , as they were smeared in this hit piece.
Maybe those type of pieces on the ADL will make the ADL feel what it is like for pro Palestinian activists , Anti Zionists and non antisemetic people around the center right who similarly get smeared and demonized by the ADL, to be smeared and demonized by Left wingers/Liberal 2.0ers
That article has a lot of truth to it which I echo in other places in this blog
Anti-semitism is obviously horrible, but the Jewish exceptionalism and some issues with the ADL and Israel I outline in this blog are two or the more larger modern drivers of that.
“When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing—the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance”. —Brian Klug
My various reactions to ADL redefining ‘racism’ https://www.adl.org/racism can be found here
We now have experts, academics, corporations, celebrities, psychologists, scientists who have dominion and power over us and our views because of their degrees, or credentials.
They use that power and influence to control our politicians at the behest of lobby groups, NGOs, rich activists etc to fit whatever political agenda they align with or play to
These silent ruling elite-aristocrats are the reason our country has moved so far authoritarian ‘left’ and neocon right. If we made our country officially be run as Scientism , Corporatism, etc I would be able to live with this since that would make this official and then I couldn’t complain about this.
I generally cautiously lean support for Elon Musk’s free speech Twitter plans (I support free speech , my idea of free speech is very much much less strict than techcrunch's views of free speech) . I acknowledge that Musk is naïve , but the blowback that Musk has gotten is appalling
“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to say things others don’t want to hear” and to quote Betrand Russell on freedom of speech “ The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living” and "'Free thought' means thinking freely ... to be worthy of the name freethinker he must be free of two things: the force of tradition and the tyranny of his own passions.”
While I believe in free speech, speech that would clearly cause hate crimes (where even mainstream conservatives would say so), should possibly not be protected as free speech.
Freedom of Expression has limits, the extreme right wing and extreme tankies reasonably have a right to speak but they don’t have a right per say (correct me if I am wrong) to megaphone ‘hateful’ views, especially ones that even Parler would consider ‘hate speech’
It is wrong and evil that ANTI FREE SPEECH Liberal 2.0ers are twisting the 14th amendment in order to stifle/limit free speech
The 14th amendment does not and should not be used to stifle/limit free speech (or at least not by my standards). as Abraham Lincoln NEVER intended for the 14th amendment to be used stifle/limit free speech.
If the 14th amendment is going to be used to stifle/limit free speech, then maybe we need to change the 14th amendment so it doesn’t stifle/limit free speech (or at least not by my standards)..
But to provide balance, though, the 14th amendment may in fact do the opposite and expand free speech protection as mentioned here
I see Progressive originalism as Ketanji Brown Jackson mentioned according to this article , as positive in some ways. Progressive originalism means that the Fourth Political theory and Common good constitutionalism can adopt certain progressive ideas due to Progressive originalism giving them an. excuse to do so. This means that progressivism has a timeless value to it, which a positive attribute to have
The a-temporal structure of principles and values is one of the core tenants of the Fourth Political theory and Common good constitutionalism similarly upholds timeless values written ‘on the hearts of men/women’.
Moreover, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Progressive originalism may further be good by putting us on a collision course with the correct knowledge that many of the US’s founding fathers themselves were favorable to abolitionism, with some of our founding fathers being actual abolitionists themselves.
That would prove to them the US’s Founders were not racists.
Liberal 2.0ers use to believe in free speech but now they have gone mad and are against it.
The best solution is to make Twitter more free speech (not like Gab or even Parler but more free than it is now) where reasonable people like me don't get angry about their clear censorship (ie by NOT censoring the things like that tweet by the CDC, by not censoring things like Jordan Peterson’s tweet about E Page, by NOT censoring things like this letter https://medium.com/@soumynona_/anonymous-letter-from-uc-berkeley-professor-in-response-to-black-lives-matter-protests-24a66a6f1ca7 letter etc.
Those examples are the type of censoring that Twitter SHOULD NOT BE DOING EVER AGAIN
As Twitter workers have said, Musk believes in free speech and Twitter does not. They believe in 'healthy discussion'. If the latter is their goal, then maybe they have sold it to someone who fits that bill instead of Elon Musk. Common sense free speech should be allowed on Twitter.
Paul Sperry should not have been suspended from Twitter for his Tweets in August 2022. Suspending Sperry for those tweets is political suppression, censorship, authoritarian, and goes against his freedom of speech. Sperry did not tweet anything wrong or ban able. Twitter now bans anyone who speaks out against its DNC narrative. We have to stop these social media fascists. #freedomofspeech
I agree that some other Twitter accounts were unfairly banned too (Elizabeth Johnson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Destiny, the person rightfully criticized the killallmen hashtag and Caleb Mauphin)
Even cases where suspensions are seemingly justified on the surface (like Talib Kweli’s suspension for harassing Twitter uses for criticizing him). A temporary cool off suspension would have been better. Why can’t Twitter use at the very least duration suspensions that incremently get longer for each strike for cases like Kweli’s case?
If Twitter can't handle 2 political parties, then say so publicly, don't insult our intelligence. Twitter should then be open and say that no chuds or chud sympathizers allowed like some reddit subreddits say in their terms and services. I would be fine with that like I am fine with subreddits having those rules
If there is not free speech in political debate, the downtrodden may be worse off. Who can expose the oppressors? I support #freespeech and fully disagree with anti free speech crypto fascist Lara Kiswani https://t.co/eeD7bdV7EI
I fully support full anonymity on Twitter. Forcing Twitter users to prove their real identity or similar things like Elon Musk wants is in bad taste (at best) and will rightfully cause many Twitter users to flee. There is a proper way to go after fake accounts, but the way he wants to is off base.
This is a great solution to the Twitter privacy problem: https://bford.info/2015/10/07/names.html
Generally the Corporate Capitalists, Liberal 2.0ers and the Alt lite are dark people .
Here is my blog post where I positively react to and cheer on a small mobile park’s fight against a dark ruthless Capitalist Corporation who are committing unfair economic practices toward said mobile park residents leading to them losing their homes
This article provides some good takes on Sheldon Whitehouse’s dark money conspiracy theory
The Corporate Capitalists, Liberal 2.0ers and the Alt lite are in it to divide us all,by every characteristic people are a part of. Identity, religion, political persuasion,etc.
This is a goal for only one reason-to weaken us as a Nation. It's up to the people to put a stop to this.
Because as it becomes more and more clearer by the day. and as much as I dislike saying this, this IS a battle, and this is a battle which is being waged on the spiritual level, affecting all other levels. People who deny this truth in the spirit, are not equipped to help fight in this battle.
That is, to help themselves or the joint well being of we the People. More of us need to stay awake and be aware of these things which are happening in our country as opposed to being merely PO'd at "the fringes of the other side",which is what we are being manipulated to do .This attack has been on for decades
Capitalist Corporatists and Liberal 2.0ers are way off base, rude and appallingly reactionary for calling nearly every person who don't agree with them far right, racists or bigots. There is nothing far right, wrong or racist or bigoted about disagreeing with Democrats on at least SOME issues
Yes I know the radical right are so toxic that agreeing with any right wing view even for left wing reasons legitimizes the radical right wing to some Liberal 2.0ers but that is logical fallacy or at best exaggeration
I am a fan of George Soros. He has done good especially with him exposing the dangers of the W.E.F, China’s social credit system, dangers of drugs etc. But some of his donations go to Liberal 2.0 causes so that is a minor negative
Some people on the Left feel that George Soros funds seditious terrorism in nations the US doesn’t like
The word 'racism' as noted below has morphed into being an overused word that hyperboles (like Conservapedia type right wingers and Liberal 2.0ers) use to smear people they don't agree with and to dehumanize them which causes a real disservice to people who are real victims of real racism. God knows what people are in their hearts, mere human Conservapedia type right wingers and Liberal 2.0ers DO NOT.
I am talking about the cases when they label someone a racist who isn’t a racist. Many times the Liberal 2.0ers are correct with calling people that word. But if even one person is smeared by that word , that is one too many
Whenever a few but significant amount of Liberal 2.0ers or Conservapedia type right wingers can’t win a debate they throw around the tired and lame ‘racist’ smear (hint a significant minority of people they call ‘racists’ are not racists, they don’t even know the true meaning of the word). Words have power
There comes a time when the term 'racist' or 'white supremacist loses all of its meaning (like when non racists like Ben Carson, Neil deagrasse Tyson , Majid Nawaz, Max Blumenthal, Tulsi Gabbard, Krysten Sinema, Bari Weiss, Winsome E Sears, Dianne Feinstein, the Freedom Riders, Condi Rice, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Steele, Morris Dees ,Joy Reid, Toure, Kyle Kulinski, Katie Herzog, Jimmy Dore, and Robert Mugabe are labeled as racist or white supremacist)
It is becoming easier and easier to dismiss those terms. Since every so often, it's regurgitated nonsense. This is a major disservice to those who are genuinely suffering from the consequences of racism.
I am against Microsoft , Facebook and other Big tech using ‘fact checkers’ like they do.
People are smart enough themselves to decide if something is true or ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’. It is an insult to our intelligence to decide ‘for us’ what is or isn’t ‘true’. Such intrusiveness by Big Tech can have unintended consequences. We cannot allow elitists and bourgeois ‘experts’ run our lives, tell us what to think, do, feel etc. It is 2022, not 1984
I was a fan of Everyday Feminism and Medusa Magazine until they went out of business because they spoofed the Regressive Left.
I felt the best way to expose how counterproductive, dangerous and ridiculous the Regressive Left was, was to spoof them and those 2 magazines provided that for me. I am glad that Everyday Feminism and Medusa Magazine existed.
I've enjoyed spoof magazines since I was a kid and I read GamePro's yearly April Fool's Day section called 'LamePro' each April and get a kick out of the cool, weird and fake video games I unfortunately would never be able to play (thank you GamePro!)
Bad apps
Most people have the good sense to understand that acting like a jerk should not be a lifestyle choice, and that if you make acting like s jerk a lifestyle choice, people will respond to you based on your choices.
The extremes of both sides (Liberal 2.0 and Right Wing only) are disgusting. The far left and Radical Center/extreme upper center are the only extremes which are good and not disgusting
So if the Democrats are the anti bigot and pro inclusive party and the Republicans are the bigot and anti inclusive party why isn’t the Republican party banned or at the very least a major political party?
The Wikileaks in the late 2010s exposed the blatant bias, cheating and collusion that the DNC displayed. Both parties are bad. Julian Asange should be commended for those Wikileaks. No side should be immune from having their bad deeds exposed
Even though I sm not Anti Biden and he is somewhere above below average as President, I have to point out that Joe Biden can still be impeached. All it would take is for the House to impeach. The Senate would do their thing after the House impeaches.
Might want to add convicted because if Republicans retake the House and a large amount are from the Freedom Caucus, then Biden will be impeached. Most likely not convicted but he will be impeached
At the end of the day, I can live with right wingers, moderates and even to a lesser extent left wingers being persecuted and trolled by Liberal 2.0ers. I don’t really want to come to their aide if I don’t have to and I really don’t because I don’t want to be a goody two shoes SJW virtue signaler to right wingers, moderates and some Left wingers like Liberal 2.0ers claim to be for marginalized groups
Every policy and major government initiative in the US were NOT and are NOT for the purposes of maintaining White supremacy (at least since the early 1970s). Anyone who says otherwise is a deluded anti white conspiracy theorist nut who hates the US
Some Left Wingers, moderates, and Right wingers claim to be more open than Liberal 2.0ers but they refuse to even listen to ideas like Socialism, Medicare for All etc out of small mindedness, bitterness and ignorance
Some Liberal 2.0ers claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
It's funny, Liberal 2.0ers always claim to stick up for the 'marginalized' and 'oppressed' while claiming to be against bullying ,yet they engage in the same tactics ,especially on social media over people and views they find offensive or don't agree with. Joe Biden is one recent example of this with him smearing Trump supporters
It’s funny , Radical Right Wingers, Alt Right and far rightists who claim to be Christians but spew pure hatred that goes against the teachings of the Gospels
A lot of Liberal 2.0ers like the Twitter trolls who WRONGLY attacked and tried to cancel Chris Pratt over him not going to a Joe Biden fundraiser and for Pratt’s INNOCENT Instagram post about his wife or who WRONGLY attacked Scott Baio about his date with his wife, or the evil redditors in a local subreddit who WRONGLY insulted and bullied another redditor asking for friend advice all because he belonged to a left wing anti idpol subreddit, the braindead students at the University of New Hampshire who WRONGLY tried to prevent Dave Rubin’s speech a few years ago (including that idiot professor who inspired them) ,the pieces of sh*t who WRONGLY swatted Tim Pool and MTG are all horrible people in every sense of the word and a mark against our country, world and society. They are pious, mean, bullying and live in an echo chamber. Social media brings out the worst in people.
Their parents were horrible parents for raising them to be such evil demonic trolls. Their grandparents were horrible parents to their parents.
This is because of proto Liberal 2.0 new age methods used to raise and teach children like those particular Liberal 2.0 trolls in the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s was senseless, stupid, and flat out wrong
Those particular Liberal 2.0 are literally the vocal MINORITY.The vast vast majority of Americans and Canadians are against their trolling and evil acts
Over 90 percent of Americans and Canadians would criticize those particular Liberal 2.0 freaks for being so evil and wrong.
Those particular Liberal 2.0 reddit, twitter and University of New Hampshire trolls mentioned several paragraphs above disgrace our country ,world , humanity and EVERY American , European , Oceanic, Asia and Canadian great who died before the 20th century (including Mark Twain, Rosa Luxemberg, JFK, RFK, John Lennon, Andy Warhol, Samantha Smith, Rock Hudson, Frank Sinatra, MLK JR, Web Dubois, Malcolm X, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Abraham Lincoln, would strongly condemn everyone of those particular Liberal 2.0 trolls for their wrong and evil actions)
It is insane that Liberal 2.0ers falsely insist that anyone on their side who has opinions that diverge from their groupthink views must be a grifter, DINO, tankie alt right or far right.
Liberal 2.0ers through purity tests, create a system where all views are absolutely labeled as right wing, or liberal/progressive /left wing. So if you for example show sympathy for the pro life movement they say ‘so and so sounds like a right wing Trump supporter’. They push these so called ‘grifters’ further and further right with their purity tests and witch hunts all because these so called ‘grifters’ had the audacity to agree with Right wingers on a few hot button issues.
This way Liberal 2.0ers can justify shunning, canceling , censoring, excluding people they don’t agree with since they put everyone in the ‘right wing’ camp that don’t agree with them, even on only a few issues that to them are ‘right wing’. They use this to shut down opposition since they can falsely say through these dumb purity tests ‘see only right wingers would have such views, walk like a duck talk like a duck must be a duck’
From Fox mid 2022 article “While Glenn Greenwald has built quite the fan base with his Substack, he also has many foes, particularly liberals on Twitter who constantly accuse him of being "right-wing" for his criticisms of the legacy media.
Grunwald calls that description of him "bizarre," particularly since he was previously the target of the right-wing Brazilian government, telling Fox Digital he can't think of any political stance of his that has changed since he was previously perceived by those same people as a leftist.
Ultimately, he thinks such labels have become "meaningless" since Trump scrambled the "ideological landscape in a very fundamental way."
Basically that is what a cult is like.
The Liberal 2.0 factions of the Democratic Party are hanging on by a thread. We need to remove the Liberal 2.0 factions of the Democratic Party’s thread .
The men and women forgotten by the DNC due to the Liberal 2.0 takeover are finally casting aside the chains of their new oppressors, like an abuse victim standing up for themselves. It takes boldness and courage to be against the highly questionable and trollish Liberal 2.0 factions that have overtaken the Democrat party. The victims need power, encouragement and to be out of hiding.
The Liberal 2.0ers smear them with these fake labels to delegitimize them since the Liberal 2.0ers are afraid at least in their mind of being exposed for the bad faith, authoritarian and occasionally wrong reactionaries that they are. Maybe Liberal 2.0ers all force themselves to have the same views so they can label any views they don’t have as these labels ‘Far right’.
This causes them to be able to stifle debate or cancel or censor, especially by simply writing that said views are Right Wing or even ‘Far right’ which delegitimizes the opposition. Labels mean nothing.
This is called Partisan tolerance.
Partisan tolerance was created by author Herbert Marcuse. Partisan tolerance demands that the enemies of the proto Liberal 2.0/Liberal 2.0 revolution must be forced into tolerance, but proto Liberal 2.0ers/Liberal 2.0ers are allowed to be intolerant against them. The reason is that there are "correct" opinions that are preferred, and "incorrect" opinions that must be challenged and defeated
Partisan tolerance is basically the same as political correctness, censorship, and cutbacks of First Amendment Free Speech rights.
Marcuse wrote that liberating tolerance would include tolerating the excesses of proto Liberal 2.0ers (and eventual Liberal 2.0) but not those of the Right and those outside the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group. Marcuse contended that the Right and those outside the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group. are deserving of intolerance.
In Marcuse’s mind, a non partisan tolerance leaves the established values intact, which leads to repressive tolerance.
So basically, Marcuse only accepted a partisan tolerance which is intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo or that promotes intolerance against movements from the Right and outside the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group , and toleration of movements from the proto Liberal 2.0 (and eventual Liberal 2.0) group
If Liberal 2.0ers are ‘correct’ on so many issues, why do they censor, deplatform, shame, smear, cancel, silence etc people on either side who question or opposed their narrative on hot button issues?
That behavior by the Liberal 2.0ers makes them look guilty (like they are wrong not that I necessarily believe that) since if they were correct, they wouldn’t care if people on the other side questioned or opposed their views on hot button issues
A lot of Centrists (including Liberal 2.0ers) and Hard right wingers and progressives (along with Independents) are being manipulated in ways they do not realize
I am against groupthink. Groupthink is one of the worst parts of the human psyche and we should guard against it , whether it is in politics and business, consumerism, holidays etc. Who's with me?
From David French "With a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. In plain English, this means that when like-minded people gather, their views get more extreme. Our arguments reinforce one another to such an extent that the entire group will sometimes become more extreme than the most extreme person at the start of the deliberation"
More and more Liberal 2.0 minds have been associated with an ever growing higher risk of having many types of burnout. Their brains (ie amygdala) are wired in such a way that they are more risk taking and childlike blind optimism (which leads to recklessness) toward new things than non Liberal 2.0 minds (especially Far left, Left Wing, Moderate , Conservative, and Republican brains) who are wired to be more anxious and fearful of new things.
What this means is that this mind wiring causes those Liberal 2.0ers to be more 'open' to or embracing things like mass illegal migration, Social fascism, BDS/Anti Zionism , defunding the police, no voter id laws, drag queens reading to kids ,and similar things that non Liberal 2.0ers wouldn't be open to or embrace.
This 'openness' to embrace such risky political views without fear of consequences is consistent with burnout because such behavior by liberals, while noble, burns them out quick (ie see John Edwards after his 2004 run for President or Richard Spencer for example).
Newspeak by Liberal 2.0 MSM media: calling the 2020 BLM riots which were not by my definition mostly peaceful or peaceful at all (not that labeling protests matters one way or another), ‘mostly peaceful’ while demonizing the Freedom trucker protestors and Tea Party people, calling any Right wing or Left wing view they don’t agree with ‘Misinformation’ or ‘Disinformation’, using the words ‘solidarity’, or ‘stand with (fill in blank)’ to goad people into supporting their Liberal 2.0 agenda without trying to tell people to use empathy with that solidarity or stand , casually applying the far right label to anyone to the right of homophobe neocon bigot Mitt Romney)
Other Liberal 2.0 brainwash words “sex work is real work” (no sex work is exploitative, wrong, degrading and cheapens love), “my body my choice” for anti vaxxer nuts, “has a right to exist” (a phrase which wrongly and falsely implies not legalizing sex work is stopping someone from existing etc), “traditional marriage” (which is a homophobic hierarchal phrase meant to oppress same sex couples) etc
It is the same thing with the Radical Right. Any Republican who dares says a negative word about 45 , MAGA or MAGA views is labeled a RINO, Socialist, or Assistant Democrat. Any Republican who doesn’t kiss Trump’s rings is Terruqueo targeted MAGA. It is a whole nother type of twisted cultism on the Right
It is insane that Radical Right, far right and alt right falsely insist that anyone on their side who has opinions that diverge from their hive mind views must be a Communist, Marxist , RINO, Assistant Democrat or CCPer
The Radical Right, far right and alt right smear them with these fake labels to delegitimize them since the Radical Right, far right and alt right are afraid of change and being seen as the stubborn, ultra hard line provocateurs they are
If Liberal 2.0ers keep smearing people on their side who disagree with them as grifters ,DINOs, tankies or far right, it’s a given that the Democrat Party and its members will be very negatively effected from from within, since no one wants to be part of a Liberal 2.0 echo chamber.
Basically a Liberal 2.0 echo chamber where Liberal 2.0ers have to parrot every Liberal 2.0 talking point or be smeared as a grifter ,DINO, tankie or far right, by Ultra leftists who live in a bubble and are too chicken shit to defend their enlightened talking points. I can’t stand to see the Democrats sink to those depths
If Radical Right, far right and alt right keep smearing people on their side who disagree with them as Communist, Marxist , RINO, Assistant Democrat or CCPer, it’s a given that the Republican Party and its ilk will be very negatively effected from from within, since no one wants to be part of a Radical Right, far right and alt right cult
Basically a Radical Right, far right and alt right cult where Radical Right wingers, far righters and alt right people have to parrot every Radical Right, far right and alt right talking point or be smeared as a Communist, Marxist , RINO, Assistant Democrat or CCPer, by Radical Right wingers, far righters and alt right people who live in a bubble and are too chicken shit to defend their enlightened talking points. I could care less if the Republicans sink to those depths but just pointing this out
I echo this article https://reason.com/2022/02/08/joe-rogan-and-the-weird-new-definition-of-right-winger/https://nypost.com/2022/05/22/the-left-targets-people-like-elon-musk-for-not-conforming/ https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-on-the-left-dislike-Sam-Harris
Sam Harris, Russell Brand ,Tulsi Gabbard, Sam Seder, Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan, Bill Maher, BGJ, Krystal Ball, Kyle Kulinski, Vaush, Bret Weinstein are NOT socially right wing (they aren’t even socially center right, at best they are socially between Center and Center right) and they are NOT grifters and only bitter, zealous people who take politics way too seriously and live in their partisan closed worlds would disagree with me.
Over 80 percent of Americans are further to the right of Krystal Ball, Sam Seder, Kyle Kusinski, Jimmy Dore, Vaush, BGJ, Russell Brand, Bill Maher on social and economic issues
Over 90 percent of Americans and Canadians would say that Krystal Ball, Kyle Kulinski, Jimmy Dore, BGJ, Vaush, Russell Brand are NOT socially right wing or even socially center right. If they’re grifters, we are all grifters
Maybe instead of Liberal 2.0ers demonizing their fellow Democrats, liberals and progressives who don’t pass their petty purity tests, they should instead go after the people in their own party or movement for making those ‘grifters’ go ‘right’ on those issues they are ‘right wing’ on. I echo what Tim Dillion said on this matter. No more splitting the Center left/Left Center.
The Left/Center Left and the Right sharing opinions and agreeing with each other on some things isn’t some magical new phenomenon. People are allowed to have different opinions on political issues.
Whig Historically is not a set in stone political rule and it is an unsustainable and impractical ideology
Moral absolutism doesn’t exist and moral relativism is overused.
Liberal 2.0ers can’t deal with the fact that people/people on their side think differently. Liberal 2.0 and some non Liberal 2.0 leftists always try to change the meaning of what being Left Wing or Right wing is
Conservapedia got special and general relativity confused with moral relativism. If Conservapedia used the same arguments they did on their special and general relativity articles for moral relativism, and then rewrote their special and general relativity articles to be like Wikipedia, Conservapedia would be on to something. moral relativism is a “liberal claptrap”, special and general relativity are NOT “liberal claptraps”
Politics is downstream from culture, and the Left (and or Liberal 2.0ers) is very good at "winning the culture."
But I don't believe that this is actually how these things work. My viewpoint is that economics are at the core and that politics, culture, etc. are all downstream from that.
The not so long history is that capital demolished the socialist movement and the trade unions in the 1970s and in the 1980s. If there isn’t anymore reason to divide the working class like pitting various groups within the working class against each other -- since the working class has lost, then the ruling class can and will grant the political demands of those who are oppressed (becoming previously-oppressed) social formations: BIPOC, women, LGBTQs, etc.
Because why would they not? There is no objective reason, in so much as the market economy is concerned, why should it not do this. Now, I want to make it clear that these political demands were/are legit in their own ways. However that is the causal, materialist explanation for the question for why economic liberalization creates social liberalization. But I believe also that this creates "right-wing populism" and what I am describing here as a kind of psychosis:
I second the analysis that the conservative psychosis is born of the fact that, in spite of their electoral wins, the broader culture never leans in their direction.
So, they are stuck in ideology, really. Think back before that, the economic liberalization of the last half of the 20th century, capitalist regimes divided the working class along a lot of different lines, granting political and social benefits to specific groups within that class: white men of a normal Christian background basically.
Industrial shop floors were segregated with African American employees that were given lower paying jobs. LGBTQ people couldn’t be out at work, and if they were out they could not climb the corporate ladder. Women were also segregated into jobs that didn’t pay as much as unionized factory jobs for men, even though obviously women worked in these places too.
The previously-dominant groups currently declining, at least in relatively, as capitalism restructures itself.
This creates an opening for right-wing populists to divert anger from this and place it on the signifers of these changes: the many social groups that provoke the right-wing populists‘ resentment.
However this does not actually do anything whatsoever to reverse the changes since it is just focused on attacking the signifiers, as the right wingers have no class or material analysis.
Well if anything, the reaction further binds these groups who are targeted to the ruling hegemony due to the fact that the hegemony offers to protect them from the right-wing nationalist and/or populist backlash.
On conceding to the right
It's mind blowing how Liberal 2.0ers and even some fellow Leftists don't realize that by them being so fearful of even talking about or being associated with some, basically neutral issue, like a meme, subculture, scene or social space online that the right wing has even so much as slightly tried to associate itself with, that they are literally ceding ground and surrendering said issue to the right.
The right wing hardly has to do any effort to take over something that it seems, just make the vaguest gesture that said issue is their turf and culture war obsessed Liberal 2.0ers immediately hand it over to them because they are obsessed with appearing ‘pure’ and free of anything even vaguely "problematic".
I fully echo this letter .Here is a snip:
“I dread the prospect of a world where context, nuance, critical thinking, meritocracy, mathematics, science, and rationality are considered tools of 'white supremacy', and the rule is that you're not allowed to question or argue this senseless statement - especially if you're white. (none of those things are racist or white supremacy in any way shape or form)
A world that is conditioning you and I to believe that we will always be trapped in some weird hierarchy because of our race, our genitals, our physical abilities, our neurodiversity, our sexuality, and our politics.
And that if we do not agree on every single thing, it's a sign that we are interacting with an enemy - or at the very least, someone to be wildly suspicious and judgmental of...instead of another complex human being worthy of being seen and heard.
I wish this world I’m speaking of was just a figment of my imagination, but we are already inside it. Our suitcases have been unpacked here for quite some time.”
I do not want to exist in a world where being against kids going to drag queen shows, being against kids being allowed to mutilate their bodies because they think they are another gender but are too young go even know about sex, being against intersectionality, being Anti Globalization, being class reductionist, being Anti consumerist, being pro free speech/free inquiry ,being against Prostitution being legalized, thinking humans are superior to animals, being against late term abortion, being against overkill idpol are falsely seen as ‘Right wing’ instead of left wing or center left which anyone with a half of brain in their head realizes. That type of world is literally hell on Earth and a place of pure evil
To think the Liberal 2.0s have a monopoly on what is correct , right and moral is naive, ignorant and very wrong. This article ,provides good insights of our current political divide
Putting everyone who doesn’t agree with Liberal 2.0 political views into the same cookie cutter category is naive and ignorant due to the complexity of politics . Putting everyone who doesn’t agree with MAGA approved political views into the same category is naive and ignorant due to the complexity of politics .
Just because a Left Winger doesn’t agree with a Liberal 2.0 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
To play devil’s advocate, I do believe that Conservatives grossly underestimate the amount of in-fighting and disagreement there is within Democrat, progressive and even Liberalism 2.0 politics.
There are times where there are disagreement within Democrat, progressive and even Liberalism 2.0 politics where it’s NOT a bad thing for them.
The whole concept of labeling views left right and labeling people based on their combo of views is naive and ignores the deep complexity of politics and sociology
If we value diversity, we should value diversity of viewpoints (assuming those viewpoints are not bigoted). If we only hear viewpoints of the people who think like us or who we agree with, that is not a healthy thing and is a close minded, ignorant thing to do. People have a right to be wrong
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
Liberal 2.0s sound as pious , dogmatic and moral about their beliefs as Christians and Catholics do about their beliefs.
We are told by our corporate, MSM, Hollywood overlords what we should like, who we should like, what we should hate, who we should hate. We have to break free of this by destroying Big Corp, Consumerism, Capitalism, Globalization, the state etc. We have to take control over our own lives and decide for ourself what is what
For example, the fact people cannot even openly debate LGBTQ issues without them being defamed as bigots and their debate being shut down as if every progressive view is set in stone is problematic
In Europe they even ban free speech that is critical of LGBTQ issues , which is wrong, fascist and against freedom of speech
Like, subjecting people who believe that the family, in order to be one, requires a father and a mother – and not the duplication of the same figure – would mean introducing a crime of opinion to criminal proceedings. Such a crime of opinion would limit “personal freedom, educational choices, the way of thinking and being, the exercise of criticism and dissent.”
The horseshoe theory is fake. But according to Liberal 2.0 logic, it is ok for them to work with NeverTrumpers but it is not the other way around?
The Democrats, and liberals and progressives instead of debating them , smear them, trash them and that is wrong, problematic and against the values that our country was founded on.
However maybe if the extreme Right wing weren’t obvious extremists and weren’t a magnet for bad press there would be no purity tests, grifter smearing or working with the other side complaints by the Liberal 2.0ers of their side occasionally agreeing with and working with the Right wing
Radical Righters, far righters and alt righters are wrong for smearing any Republican or Conservative with even a hint of pro military views or interventionist views as a Neocon, warhawk or warmonger.
This is treason for those Radical Righters, far righters and alt righters to use those labels so casually on patriotic Republicans and Conservatives. I echo what Adam Kinzinger said about how most of these Radical Righters, far righters and alt righters right wing hippies (what Ayn Rand also called them) who smear Republicans and Conservatives as Neocons wouldn’t last one day in a war
I am angry that Radical Righters, far righters and alt righters smear obvious Republicans/Right Wingers and conservatives like Sarah Palin, Madison Cawthorn, Karl Rove, Murray Rothbard, Dave Rubin, former President Richard Nixon, former President Theodore Roosevelt, John Boehner, David Cameron, Frederick Hayek, Boris Johnson, Marine Le Pen, Andrew Sullivan, Chris Christie, Sargan of Akkad, Mike Pence, Ann Coulter, Mehmet Oz, Gregg Abbott, William Buckley, Marco Rubio, etc. as RINOs/RWINOs (Right Wing in Name Only), assistant Democrats/assistant leftists, Leftists ..and even ‘Socialists’ (well only deranged stubborn Right Wingers think any of the above greedy rich Capitalist pigs are Socialists but still)
There is no pleasing the Radical Righters, far righters and alt righters and their small minded views, they will rip into and
Just because the liberals in the US became more and more liberal, and that pushes people further and further right that is still no excuse for the right wing getting more extreme
So called Liberal 2.0ers, are twisted trolls for swatting conservative commentators and politicians. If this was the other way around there would be public outcry over it . We need to take these attempted murderers and throw them in prison by their busker browns for a long time . https://www.drewberquist.com/2022/04/stew-peters-home-gets-swatted-as-part-of-a-dangerous-hostage-prank/
I've always been bothered with how Liberal 2.0ers gang up on non Liberal 2.0ers they don't agree with or companies and other entities they don't agree with on social media whenever those people say something offensive or does something that triggers them. It feels a bit like bullying
I've seen this with Elon Musk. Look at who is ganging up on him: NY Times, open society foundation, AOC (she should know better), Elizabeth Warren, Joy Reid, Robert Reich, TechCrunch, Howard Dean, Shaun King, George Takei , pretty much anyone who served in any capacity under Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama, etc How would these Liberal 2.0ers njoy having the tide turned on them? They wouldn't like it so much, just ask Debra Messing how it feels.
Sorry, Elon Musk (who is from South Africa) supporting a BIPOC Republican (Mayra Florez) absolutely is NOT a ‘white supremacy’, see this for more. However, Elon Musk not allowing his workers to unionize shows Musk is a petty bourgeois ,greedy Capitalist classist, just like all major corporate-Big Tech leaders and companies (i.e Walmart, Google, Jeff Bezos and Amazon, etc)
Doesn't it seem 'weird' that its always the same Liberal 2.0 entities and people who protest against things they don't like? Same corporations, same celebrities, same news orgs, same political people, same organizations etc.
Nancy Pelosi's fears that Donald Trump would use nukes in 2021 was stupid, irrational ,ignorant and wrong. She is unhinged for saying that Trump would use nukes.
I am against the media using the word misinformation or disinformation liberally to describe select non pandemic/non medical related conservative, left wing and far left political viewpoints and narratives (within reason).
Labeling those non pandemic/non medical related conservative, left wing and far left political viewpoints and narratives as 'misinformation' or ‘disinformation’ is misleading at best and NEWSPEAK (as George Orwell talked about in 1984) at worst.
Liberal 2.0ers use the word "misinformation" (and disinformation) to dismiss contrary opinion as bogus while they simultaneously attempting to elevate their own opinion as ‘fact’
We should not apply the word misinformation or disinformation to Haz and the Grayzone type views of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, on children becoming Transgender being bad for their health, on transgender women competing in womens sports, on gun rights etc
Both sides use those words to smear and delegit opposing views and we must fight against that. If anyone uses ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ it is people who use those nasty loaded words. See this for more
From Fox article from mid 2022: “The reality is that the people who most aggressively and destructively peddle and disseminate fake news and disinformation are the people who most vocally claim to be so concerned about it," Greenwald said. "This is such a perfect example of how disinformation has basically come to mean anything that is undermining of or subversive to the interests of the Democratic Party (Liberal 2.0 cliques only)."
Joe Biden’s Disinformation Board gives me Ministry of Truth vibes. At best it is slippery sloping. It was a bad idea but I am guilty they shelved that plan to implement it
"Misinformation can be true, but is selective in what is communicated such that the other person will come to desired conclusions".
Qanon is a myth and nonsensical garbage
I am not down with Paleoconservative as they are edgy and right wing statist but I do like the pro west views of Liberal Paleoconservatism
Some Right Wing Populists are the real ‘RINOs’ but some of their views overlap with my views
The Alt Lite needs to become less edgy
I am against the Democrats censuring Krysten Sinema
From the time of the Japanese samurai and European republicanist revolutionaries, the hero, the revolutionary, is not afraid to die for an idea, while as a philistine, the "little person" is more than anything else afraid of death. That slogan emphasizes the serious tragedy of the struggle of the movement in the conditions of a police state.
So it is ok for Liz Cheney and the Lincoln project to attack defective Republican losers but when 45 does so to Republicans like congressman Joe O’Dea who has seemingly rightfully attacked Trump for some time now, it is not ok? Hypocritical much? . This article makes a good counterpoint though.
Here is a post I made on a interesting political exchange on a hearing
Ideology details
Why do I embrace the 4pt? Because being a 4pt 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 in a Liberal 2.0 society.
Like in the 1960s kids shocked their parents with long hair, promiscuity, edgy music, I embrace the 4pt as a way to shock our Liberal 2.0 overlords
It is way more fun to be a contrarianist 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 believe in a fair society, but we can't get it through Liberal 2.0 democracy or stubborn hardlined Right Wing republic is built against us
I am Anti Liberal 2.0 (Anti Liberal Aktion) which includes Anti Neoliberal. I reject the Neoliberal school of thought. Liberalism 2.0 is agony
I am not hardcore, fanatically Anti Liberal 2.0. As long as Democrats and Liberal 2.0s don’t do things that consistently make Progressives look bad (using the most Anti MAGA and Pro Joe Biden subredditors criteria), then I say “give Democrats a chance, if Democrats as a whole represent your interests the best even if they have Liberal 2.0 factions and ideologies, then vote Democrat”
In actuality, the biggest barrier to change is not the people who are actively and openly in opposition but those people who are in the middle who just sandbag it by them never really ever attempting to change anything. It's always a bad time, it's always being done the wrong way, it's always wait until later, it's always "let the people enjoy this moment", it's always "it's too close to midterm elections" or "we must be pragmatic for the election".
The truth is that the Liberal 2.0s/Progressives don't really want change. They want to keep the status quo going and they prevent anything that may disrupt that. And they do it while at the same time pretending to be a friend
Not everything should be blamed on Liberal 2.0ers. Absolutism doesn't exist and nuance is always needed. Absolutism doesn't exist and nuance is always needed.
I can and do have a consolation document on my computer which lists all of the consolation prizes for most Liberalism 2.0 views and actions that I do not agree with. I also write the positives of every Liberalism 2.0 view and action that I do not agree with
Some reasons I am anti Neoliberal can be found here. Neoliberalism is a failed ideology and unnatural ideology which is one reason I am against it. Here is more about Neoliberalism , in particular Neoliberal fronts
The problem with modern Democrats, Progressives and Republicans is they cannot be relied on to defeat Neoliberalism and Capitalism due to their interests more aligning with those systems than with other systems
The problem with Liberal 2.0ers is they cannot be relied on to defeat Neoliberalism , Fascism and Capitalism due to their interests more aligning with those systems than with other systems
Neoliberalism is wrong because it breeds deep-rooted social inequalities. Democratic Socialism and Post Neoliberalism is a good front to defeat Neoliberalism. We cannot allow neoliberalism degenerates to control overton window
For example, Neoliberalism made Chile one of the most unequal countries in Latin America.
In Chile, one percent of the country’s population owns about a quarter of its wealth. Neoliberalism forces poor people to pay the price of inequality. This is why I support Post Neoliberalism and Patsoc to defeat Neoliberalism, See the economic section for more, and anti neoliberal views can be found throughout this blog
I am against Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism, (the intellectual basis for most modern "conservative" movements and political parties), is a uniquely evil type of ideology that exists only to feed globalism, imperialism, corporate profits, state power, Capitalism, consumerism, the 0.1%, and and Zionism, while sucking up patriotic/left wing nationalist/anti-Left Wing votes to prevent any true progress from happening.
Liberalism (Classical Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Ordoliberalism, proto postmodernism Chuds i,e Neoconservativism-Chuds) and Communism defeated Fascism.
Then Liberalism defeated Communism , and now Liberalism 2.0:
Liberalism 2.0 is:
The Cathedral, Successor Ideology, Leninism 4.0 (French post-structuralism, radlib-unorthodox Marxism with woke idpol-intersectionality/related to the Frankfort school), postmodernism/western political modernity (which combined is basically American Thought)
Neoliberalism now including reddit and Washington consensus Neoliberalism, state liberalism, RadLib (Radical Liberalism), revolutionary progressiveness, transnational progressiveness, cultural radicalism/Sociological Left,
Synth Left/Cringe Left variant of the Left, including Orange LibLeft (i.e wokecalists, but the solid majority of the Left [Auth Left and non orange Libleft] are NOT Liberal 2.0)
Liberal 2.0 Conservatism, Wet Toryism, Neoconservatism, Imperialism-Western imperialism, and the Alt Right (The Alt Right are more like assistants, aloof allies, and fifth columns of Liberalism 2.0 than being a part of Liberalism 2.0)
Liberalism 2.0 is found mostly in the Center Left (Ultra Center Left part of the Center Left ,but not all moderates/Centrists who lean Left), Left Center (Hard Left Center part of the Left Center, but a significant amount of or even most Leftists who lean moderate/centrist [i.e moderate Leftists] are not Liberal 2.0) and Alt Right
Most of the Liberal 2.0ers (well at least the more leftists Liberal 2.0ers like Successor Ideologues, Revolutionary-Transnational Progressives, Radlibs , Synth left/orange Libleft) espouse the cultural values of green (i.e non Liberal 2.0) LibLeft but are tricked into WRONGLY thinking the state is the best avenue for enforcing those cultural values.(when the state should NOT be used to enforce those cultural values)
The people driving the Liberal 2.0 movement are either pure AuthLeft or AuthCenter, depending on the person. They want to expand societal influence (AuthLeft, like academics and activists) or consolidate it (AuthCenter, like politicians and corporations), originally by using their deformed brand of class warfare, but now they abandoned that approach after the Occupy Wall St which they were a part of, went nowhere.
They then embraced critical theory and pushed identity and cultural warfare, by which they have been more successful. They don't really believe any of it, they do however see it as a means to an end (wealth and control) by pushing green (i.e non Liberal 2.0) LibLeft values as a Trojan horse for AuthLeft/AuthCenter political systems.
Other things represented by Liberalism 2.0 is icon culture , a purely materialistic approach to humanism is destroying politics as a whole , anti religious (i.e anti christian)/anti-spiritual, anti-timeless values, anti ubiquitous values, anti-sacred turn in Western history that (not by chance) coincided with colonialism, the start of the Enlightenment, etc. This modern scientific, materialist, colonialist era of Western history is negative, this is the problem.
Liberalism 2.0 also includes open society, Russia funded groups in the US to sow division, etc.
Liberal 2.0ers are trying to use religious and ethnical groups for their gain. For example, when fighting Islam as a sacred religious tradition, the globalist wing of Liberalism 2.0 allow a worst of both worlds type of migration system for Muslims in Europe which has negative drawbacks in Europe
When fighting against all kinds of national identity, the globalist wing of Liberalism 2.0 use Uyghur, and Ukrainian ethnical identities in order to destabilize the alternative poles in China and Russia respectively that do not belong to their unipolar global Liberal 2.0 world vision
Liberal 2.0ers are cynical in that sense in that they are hypocrites. Liberal 2.0ers can use something that they criticize if they need to, to own the non Liberal 2.0ers. Liberal 2.0ers have double morality.
So I combat Liberalism 2.0 with a 4pt (Fourth Political Theory). Fourth Political Theory is a similar concept to Third camp/stance in being politically syncretic. Though I would also support ideas from A Darwinian Left to provide a good framework around the 4pt ideas to combat Liberalism 2.0
But I support a Fourth Political Theory that is filtered through Max Blumenthal, Sameera Khan and Caleb Mauphin to make it Center left or Left Wing
Caleb Mauphin says that the west use Ukraine as a cover for world colonial powers. If Russia is opposed to these world colonial powers they are in the right. Mauphin says that Alexsandr Dugin has a unique perspective while acknowledging that Dugin is conservative
This article clears up some things about the 4pt
As a 4pter I take fringe ideas from Communism (i.e Luxemburgian Democratic Marxism Leninism) and Capitalism in decay/Ultrapatriotic Conservative Socialism (including Ultra-Patriotic affiliatism) but I reject the orthodoxy of both of them
As a 4pter, I do not believe that the main topic of politics is individualism, class or nation but Dasein (a philosophy that roughly refers to the experience of being unique to humans)
I uphold all identity groups and their cultures equally who are in danger if being destroyed by globalization, cultural imperialism etc in addition to native religions
I am against this Western imperialism and I support those groups who are struggling against it. I am against overkill identity politics
I support diversity as I feel our world’s true wealth is the diversity of cultures and peoples. Even if bicultural diversity has negatives, diversity should be welcomed , maintained and cultivated
I love seeing LGBTQ+, BIPOC+, women etc get as much visibility as heteros, whites and men. That shakes things up, adds new elements (like a salad bowl), and makes things less boring and predictable.
It is wrong due to being indifferent to history, abstract individualism , lack of culture and detachment from reality and leads to corruption and globalization.
They use power to distance themselves from the average citizen so they don’t need to justify their actions. They breed impersonal labor leading to less quality (which is why cars made eons ago were better than modern cars). With less private public meshing, the less individual is rewarded and recognized which forces people to fill a role .New class depersonalizes western leadership and lowers their responsibility.
Liberal 2.0 ers aren’t as tolerant as they think.
The 4pt looks very convincing
What I write below is from the 4pt. I view the 4pt things below like Max Blumenthal, Sameera Khan and Caleb Mauphin views these things from the 4pt.
But like Max Blumenthal, Sameera Khan and Caleb Mauphin, the 4pt things below factor into my political views but in ways that they factor 4pt things into their political views (especially in me opposing Liberalism 2.0)
There is a paradigmatic shift with Liberalism. Liberalism 2.0 is replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and racial harmony with ideas that are so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, which ends up moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. This meme shows this in visual form sort of
This new strain of Liberalism also includes vulgar individualist liberal ideology, increasingly bureaucratic governments, and big tech all morphing into a world that is at once tyrannical, full of chaos, and without value and morality systems that give human life richness and meaning. If we don’t stop Liberalism 2.0 we will end up in a top-down controlled state.
Everyone knows the absolute threat of the Right wing but much less knows the threat of the Liberal 2.0 which is its own brand of badness
I also oppose the cringe left. The cringe left is Leftists who act like Liberal 2.0ers. This cringe left includes the Authoritarian leftism of Murray Bookchin and his ‘LibLeft’ adherents (Bob Black’s critique of Muuray Bookchin and Bookchin’s Authoritarian leftism)
The cringe left includes orange libleft and wokeialists (like the woke faction of the DSA which I mention elsewhere in this blog), some Leftist factions that Haz labeled as cringe left, etc. The cringe left includes elements if the Auth Left and LibLeft. See my examples section for more
Glenn Grunwald’s similarly says (and I touch on this in my polemic section of this blog) : “The CIA and the Deep State operatives became heroes of the liberal left (i.e Liberal 2.0ers), the people who support the Democratic Party.
They are now in a full union with the neocons and the Bush-Cheney operatives, the CIA, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street.
That is the union of power, along with mainstream media outlets, that are fully behind the Democratic Party, which is likely to at least take over one branch of government, if not all of them, in the coming election and that’s a very alarming proposition, because they are authoritarian, they believe in censorship and suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of a critical light.”
and also by Glenn Grunwald:
"If you are opposed to Big Tech censorship of the Internet, is that a left- or right-wing idea? If you're opposed to NATO and U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine, is that a left- or right-wing idea? If you think that, you know, corporate giants are too close with the government and get too many favors from it, is that a left- or right-wing idea? Sounds a lot like the swamp that Trump was vowing to drain. It also sounds like what former President Barack Obama in 2008 was swearing to combat… And so I think it's more about what's happened to the labels around me rather than any changes within me,"
“the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit." Vladimir Lenin
"The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.”- The Communist Manifesto
This Liberal 2.0 paradigmatic shift was crystalized as a rite of passage with Donald Trump being ousted for Joe Biden post-humanism and extreme technocracy. This Liberalism 2.0 (which includes Successor Ideology Liberalism). Successor ideology is wrong because it is toxic and because it shames , bullies and threatens instead of fostering debate
Democracy is supposed to be about the rule of the majority, full freedom of speech and thought, the open possibility to express any healthy position within reason that you choose, any religious choice, the right to or not to have a family etc.
But this paradigm shift moved Liberals from this Liberalism 1.0 to their new Liberalism 2.0 when that became unacceptable .The Successor ideology Liberalism in Liberalism 2.0 involves political correctness, cancel culture (including Right wing cancel culture), shaming all those who don’t accept this new Liberalism 2.0 etc .
Liberalism 2.0 stems from selfishness, it places personal interests ahead of the interests of the revolution second, and thus gives rise to ideological, political and organizational Liberalism 2.0.
“To anger a conservative non Liberal 2.0er , lie to them. To anger a Liberal Liberal 2.0er, tell them the truth” Gnostic/revisionist Theodore Roosevelt quote
People are now ostracized, excluded and shamed for not having the type of views that Liberal 2.0ers decide is ‘acceptable’ See this for more
Wes Yang's take on the successor ideology is a useful tool to decipher these things.
The agony of Liberalism 2.0 includes the approaching end of our Western political modernity, since neither Woke Communism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism nor Fascism can be regarded as real alternatives to Liberalism 2.0
Both Woke Communism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism and Fascism have Materialism ,Atheism, transnational Progressivism, Cultural Radicalism and a purely materialistic approach to the human being in common with Liberalism 2.0
We cannot choose to oppose Liberalism 2.0 using Woke Communism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism and Fascism, because they are alternatives of the past.
Fascism and Woke Communism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism belong to the same family of Western modern ideologies as Liberalism 2.0
"....the left (proto Liberal 2.0/Liberal 2.0 especially the Synth left/Cringe Left like Orange LibLeft, Radlibs, Revolutionary Progressives) is more like a police force for, than an alternative to, the right. Walter Benn Michaels (2006)
From Wes Yang. “Liberalism is always in a sense succeeding itself, it's true, but when it crosses over into annulling its own foundational commitments an important threshold has been crossed"
Some blatant examples include a prominent lawyer for the ACLU now advocating for effectively banning Abigail Shrier’s book; "Antiracist" training materials declaring that being on time is contrary to blackness; etc
We have hard problems with defining what is happening within our American institutions. Everyone who participates in those settings knows first hand that we are in the midst some type of bourgeois revolution/bourgeois ‘moral’ revolution, where specific foundational Liberal (i.e Liberal 1.0/Classical Liberal) values concerning free speech due process, the presumption of innocence etc have come to be viewed more and more as ‘obstacles’ to the path of the attainment of a particular vision of ‘justice’ that is being articulated and pursued by the activist classes.
These activist classes’ ideas, were once confined to obscure pockets of academia, but have increasingly become sort of mainstream through the MSM/media and through social media as a part of the parlance of life that affects those who are operating within those settings.
There's a number of different ways to refer these sort of changes for Liberals. Commonly, it's heavily positively or negatively valanced. Basically a term like social justice is sort of an attempt to identify and link the cause with justice as we all perceive justice as such.
A term like idpol (identity politics) is a little more neutrally valanced, but it doesn't really encompass everything that compass under the rubric of what is happening right now.
Other terms for describing this from the right wing’s perspective, such the terms Cultural Marxism or postmodern Neo Marxism, along with having some descriptive problems that have spoiled provenance that people will end up pointing out in either sort of moralistic or pedantic terms often in ways that are both moralistic and pedantic that serve the function of preventing people from being able to talk about what is happening.
There is some implicit bias training that the NYC Board of Education or the Department of Education has sort of mandated that all of their employees to take.
There was a screenshot that listed some of the premises underlying this bias training, like its description of the white supremacy culture and the various facets of it like that bias training characterizing the white supremacy culture as consisting of ‘perfectionism’, a sense of urgency, worship of the written word.
The more you go into this bias training tools and you started to break down both the internal inconsistencies of a few or more of these ideas, but while also recognizing the provenance of them, you can see that these ideas were taken from anti-colonial studies, post-colonial writings, and a black nationalist inflected approach which views whiteness as itself like a form of ‘oppression’ of nonwhite people.
So what's being encoded within wokeness, idpol and Successor Ideology is so diverse, and in a lot of instances, so internally incoherent, and yet all of these various activist movements are moving together under a single umbrella and so there is a need a word to describe it.
So the word thus would be a vague word that was as vague as the movement itself, sort of the successor ideology. This is because we are in the midst of a type of an ideological succession and this succession is one that makes reference to an often sort of masquerades as being consistent with the Liberal 1.0 principles of fairness and tolerance out from which it grows.
However that in fact takes this in a place where we end up seeing it necessarily to annul or at any rate at minimum, draw a boundary around the exercise of those principles.
Neoliberalism/Liberalism won big in the 20th century over other ideologies through tact, strategy and dominance (especially in the 21st century for the latter) and became the unipolar ideology at which time it has morphed into post modernity which is inherent in Liberalism 2.0
Chinese ‘Communism’ is not a full scale alternative to Liberalism 2.0 because it operates on the global market which forces China to accep liberal rules and free markets
Post-Modernism is sort of a common ground for former Communists to become more liberal (individualist, hedonists etc) and for Left Wing liberals to adopt the avant guard epistemology of radical thinkers. They do this by promoting radical theories and practices that involve liberation (i.e rules, norms, stable identities, hierarchies, borders etc).
Liberal 2.0ers promote perversions and degeneracies like Pornography, Zoophilia, orgies and that is wrong
This Liberalism 2.0 sees the fifth column as its inner enemy. To them, without Liberalism’s traditional enemies of Communism and Fascism, proto Liberal 2.0ers got bored and so turned inward to map their worldwide dominance
The Donald Trump phenomenon was the last and most decisive period that prompted the whole structure of Liberalism 2.0 to appear as it is.
While Nazbol vortex ideologies like with Russia under Vladimir Putin (which mixes USSR like anti Westernism with traditional Russian Nationalism), China under Xi Jinping (which mixes special Chinese ‘Communism’ with Chinese Nationalism), the Five Star movements coalition with Lega di Nord, and the Yellow Vests in France (in which the followers of Marine Le Pen were fighting the liberal center alongside the followers of Jean-Luc Mélenchon against Emmanuel Macron in France) were a threat to proto Liberalism 2.0
So proto Liberalism 2.0 started to pay attention to this threat by undermining its structures etc wherever they could do so.
The alternative to proto Liberalism 2.0 is Russia under Putin, China under Xi Jinping, European coalitions (like above), Anti Western Imperialism movements in the Middle East ,Anti Capitalism in Latin America and Africa
To not aid promoting their self imposed alternative to Liberal globalism , and to suppress their above threat to Liberalism 2.0, proto Liberal 2.0ers and their global elites have been digging below the surface , a la the fifth and sixth columns with Liberal 2.0ers solidly embedded in governmental structures and formally loyal to sovereign leaders in respective regimes
Liberalism was fed by its enemy/friend struggles but if that faded it could no longer be effective or even exist . Which they take to mean that no political enemy would mean ideological suicide for what would become Liberalism 2.0
Proto Liberal 2.0ers unconvincingly contained this potential undefined illiberal threat from the Nazbol vortex because that threat operated outside of the Liberals sphere on influence.
So proto Liberal 2.0ers moved on and to create a defined enemy from within the Liberal sphere of influence. Thus Liberals they created an inner enemy
That inner enemy was Donald Trump who was such an enemy to proto Liberal 2.0ers from the day he announced his run for President. Trump teetered on the boundary between pre paradigm shift Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) and paradigm shift Liberalism 2.0, as noted above reigning in that new Liberalism
According to Glenn Greenwald, the struggle against Trump was used by the Liberal 2.0ers to distract from what he called their ‘social fascism’
Donald Trump was the inner enemy that proto Liberal 2.0ers created from their sphere of influence to create a easy to beat enemy , Trump was not the enemy from the Nazbol vortex that was outside the Liberals sphere of influence and whom they buried as a threat.
That they were weak links tying Trump’s pure ideological opportunism to the latter anti Liberal threat and its pure ideological opportunism. Putin (who unlike Trump is from the Nazbol vortex), is more of a more of a pragmatic realist despite the few similarities between him and Trump .
So proto Liberal 2.0ers couldn’t define Trump as the Nazbol vortex threat to them as noted above, so the alternative for them would have been to paint Trump as a fascist.
Despite the overuse of calling Trump a fascist, the label in the eyes of the 4pt was inconsistent. Trump and his staff were not fascists or even fringe rightists, if we go by their view that the consensus definitions of fascism which itself was long ago marginalized in the US existing only as a kind of libertarian fringe of kitsch culture.
Thus the proto Liberal 2.0ers found a way to define Trump ideologically outside of the Nazbol vortex and fascism
They defined Trump as their inner (fifth column) enemy which they used to break free of their old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0)into their new Liberalism 2.0 via this paradigm shift. Thus they go on to say, Trump was the enemy of this new Liberalism 2.0 that they created by their paradigm shift away from Trump and their old Classical Liberalism 1.0
So Liberalism has and always be its biggest threat (other than the Nazbol vortex ideologies which Liberals see more of a thorn in their sides who they choose to ignore due to the Nazbol vortex being outside of the Liberal sphere of influence). Thus for Liberalism to move forward, it needed an inner purge
Up until the 1990s there wasn’t a huge line between Liberals and Conservatives (Neoliberalism was used to describe fiscally Conservative Capitalism , and Center left social policies in the 1990s and 2000s US for example).
Not until Newt made the distinction in the 1990s were the split between Liberalism and Conservatism made most apparent and crystal clear. Thus the roots for this Liberalism 2.0 paradigm shift above
This new Liberalism 2.0 continues with Post modernism, no longer recognizes the old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0). So thus Liberal 2.0ers define their enemies as the ‘other’. The ‘other’ Liberal 2.0ers use to define their enemies can be seen in Joe Biden’s campaign
Donald Trump was the embodiment of that old Liberalism 1.0 that Liberals broke from “return to normality” (new normality) and “build back better” etc
New normality for Liberal 2.0ers means that the old Liberalism (Socially Liberal Capitalist, pragmatic, individualist, somewhat libertarian) was judged by Liberal 2.0ers in their new Liberal 2.0 state to be abnormal.
This Liberalism 2.0 is a bit totalitarian.
When old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) was fighting overt totalitarian ideologies like Fascism and Communism, it wasn’t so, or at least explicitly so. But once Liberalism won those battles and was left on its own, it became totalitarian all by itself. Now Liberalism 2.0 won’t allow people to be non Liberal.
The old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) would be against such totalitarianism as old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) is not compatible with that since old Liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) is based on freedom of choice. Liberty is no longer free it is now a duty. This new liberty is defined as such by Liberalism 2.0.
The old classical liberalism (Liberalism 1.0) put the individual in the center of society. The individual in the social physics of liberalism plays the same role as the atom in physical science.
Society consists of atoms and individuals who represent the only real and empirical foundation of social, political and economic constructions. Everything can be reduced to the individual. That is the law.
As such, if the individual is the main subject of political theory, he or she needs to be liberated from all ties with the collective entities that limit his or her freedom and depriving him or her of his natural rights.
Historically, all of the possible institutions and rules were created by individuals (like Thomas Hobbs) which acquired some undue power over them, with the State being a clear example of this (like the Leviathan) .
But all of the social structures (communities, sects, Churches, estates, professions, recently time class, nationality and gender), have the same function and that function is to usurp the liberty of the individual, imposing on him or her of the false myths of some “collective identity”.
So, this struggle against all kinds of collective identity are the liberals’ ‘moral duty’ and progress is measured by whether this struggle is succeeding or not.
But I reject or a part of me rejects, or I am wary of the political perception of social struggle and I recognize that revolutionary struggle is not a program but instead a struggle for the individual and social reappropriation of the totality of life. (thus making it inherently Anti Political)
So I am at times/part of me is against , or I am wary of any form of social organization and any method of struggle in which the decisions about how to live and to struggle are separated from the execution of those decisions regardless of how democratic and participatory this separated decision making process might be.
Here the victorious history of Liberalism 1.0 went full,stop. The individual is liberated. The end of history is drawing near
There are no more official liberal enemies outside of liberalism.
The ideology of human rights, affirming almost equal rights for any person beyond national jurisdictions (as is the main ideological core of mass migration), is certified.
After this liberals realized that, besides all their victories, there was still something collective, a forgotten collective identity that should also be destroyed. This delved into gender politics.
People of all genders sharing a definite collective identity prescribing solid social and cultural practices.
This is a new obstacle for liberalism. To them, the individual should be liberated from sex, as the latter is still regarded as something objective. To them, gender should be optional and the consequence of purely individual choice.
Gender identity politics thus begins here and subtly changes the very fundamental concept of the individual.
The Postmodernists were the first to point out that the liberal individual is a masculine, rationalist construction. In order to ‘humanize’ that, they needed new emancipatory practices that should not only overcome the equality of genders, but totally exchange the good old individual for a new, awkward and strange (as it may seem), construction.
The simple equalizing of social possibilities and functions for males and females, including the right to change sexes freely and at will, doesn’t solve the problem. Still the traditional patriarchy will prevail in defining rationality, norms, and so on.
So, the Postmodernists came to the conclusion that liberating the individual is not sufficent. The next step is to liberate the person, or better yet, the ‘living entity’ from the individual.
Now comes the final moment of the replacement of the individual with the gender-optional rhizomatic entity, like a network identity. The final step will be to replace humanity with post-human weird beings like machines, chimeras, robots, AI, and other species of genetic engineering.
In Joe Biden’s campaign, this was already a fully formed ideology that was on the offensive. No longer glorifying the individual (as in the old/classical liberalism 1.0) but the new, incoming post human entity (i.e the techno centric, gender optional, post individual dividual).
Left wing authors like Antonio Negri and and Michael Hardt (sponsored and promoted by the liberal donors) prepared the intellectual terrain for these concepts. But now they are accepted by Big Capital itself despite having originally been directed against it.
The line between the individual and the dividual, or between the still human and existent post-human, is the main issue of this liberal paradigmatic shift from Liberalism 1.0 toward Liberalism 2.0.
Trump was a human individualist who defended individualism in the still classical human context. Maybe he was the last. Joe Biden is an advocate of the arrival of post-humanity and dividualism.
4pt is normatively oriented against all forms of postmodernism and transnational progressiveness.
However, if we consider the realities of the First political theory’s win over its rivals, and thereby its securing the status of unique heir apparent to the main spirit of postmodernism, 4pt is overtly and radically Anti Liberal 2.0
If the Nazbol vortex is the first stage of the ideological political philosophical reflection on the fact of the final win of Liberalism 1.0 over Communism in 1991 in all its metaphysical depth, then 4pt is obviously the second stage of the same vector.
The key difference lies in 4pt’s rejection of Bolshevism, Nationalism, or any of mixture of the two as a positive alternative to globally victorious Liberalism 2.0.
That is a consequence of the radically anti postmodern ground of 4pt which should be evident in its formulation of its basic values, nonetheless in engaging in various compromises with existing political structures, whether they are left or right.
Neither Left nor Right illiberal 2.0 populism can achieve sincere victory over Liberalism 2.0 today. In order to achieve victory we would need to integrate the illiberal Left and the illiberal 2.0 Right. But the ruling Liberal 2.0ers are very vigilant of this, and they always try to prevent any move like this in advance.
The short-sightedness of Far left/Radical Left and Far right/Radical Right politicians and groups only carries out Liberal 2.0’s tasks.
After thirty years of ideological struggle, we bypass the Nazbol vortex stage, and pass directly to the 4pt stage itself, rejecting any kind of the type of what Republicans falsely call ‘Socialism’ (i.e Liberal Mixed economy, Materialism and Left Statism economics), Capitalism, Social Fascism and Nationalism, instead affirming a anti postmodern political organization vision
It’s hard enough to unite weak and decadent leftist and rightists, that it could be easier to start from the ground up and create 4pt as a fully independent and openly anti postmodern ideology.
But, also, we shouldn’t be ignorant of the present and growing abyss between Liberalism 1.0 and Liberalism 2.0 .
The inner purge from the Postmodernism and Transnational Progressiveness inside of Liberalism 2.0 is now leading to the harsh punishment and full excommunication of a new type of political entities, the victims will be Liberal 2.0ers themselves, those who don’t recognize themselves in the J Biden-Great Reset strategy, those who refuse to revel in the final disappearance of humanity, individuals, freedom or the market economy.
There will be no place for those things in Liberalism 2.0. It is going post human, and any person who questions this will be welcomed into the enemy stable of these Liberal 2.0s. We have been around for decades and we feel more or less comfortable here.
So, welcome to heck, newcomers. Any non extreme Trump supporter or regular Republican is now considered a potentially dangerous personality, exactly as they have been for a long time.
When we insist on overcoming the Nazbol vortex stand, we don’t mean to be more acceptable for Liberal 2.0ers. No, we just clarify our position to make it more consistent with deep anti postmodern concepts. But, in the present transition from Liberalism 1.0 to Liberalism 2.0, this might incidentally have at least a few practical connotations.
Liberals 1.0 should realize that 4pt identifies as its main ideological opponent that reality which now manifests itself of what they hate and are suffering through. Trumpism and in general, human individualistic Liberalism (Classical Liberalism) are now under attack.
In the eyes of Liberalism 2.0s and Bidenites, they above are almost identical to the Nazbol vortexers etc.
They make no real distinction between them. To be an enemy of the Open Society is the final sentence. You can’t change this. So, it is long past due, to take note of the fact that Liberals 1.0 are no longer seen as respectable citizens of the Capitalist status quo. Liberals 1.0 are now being sent into exile, into the political wastelands – to us.
Because 4pt calls for revising the whole course of political Postmodernity that is part of Liberalism 2.0, it is not needed to become friendly to Communism or Nationalism in this wasteland.
This is not about the Nazbol vortex. 4pt is about humanity’s last battle versus Liberalism 2.0 - just what you think of. From the very start it was a sort of compromise to include Nationalism in this anti postmodern revolt
Some classical philosophers explained the reasons and limits of that type of compromise.
It was no lesser and possibly more greater of a compromise to include the Anti Liberal 2.0 left (what Republicans falsely call Socialists, Socialists without adjectives and Social Fascists) and Communists, if they were truly counter-hegemonically oriented.
We can now take one more step: let Liberals 1.0 join our ranks. To do this it is not necessary in order to become illiberal 2.0, philo Communist, or very Nationalist. Nothing of the sort. Everyone can keep their good old imperfections and hang ups as long as they desire. 4pt is a unique position where true liberty is welcome.
The Fourth political Theory is an invitation to use this window of historical opportunity that is represented by Liberal 2.0 agony as the 1st political theory to overcome all that is common to all types of political modernity (the philosophical, metaphysical, political and ideological)
The 4th Political Theory is an invitation to search for the alternative to Liberalism 2.0 since liberalism continues to fall into decay. Liberalism was intended to be the main and unique, one and only political ideology from the Fukuyama's moment of ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ (1992) until right now
The way that we can get out of this epistemological field of Western political modernity is , for us to focus on the name Western political modernity, we have already found a solution. As to get out of these boundaries, we need to go beyond the West.
So, we can find solutions in and help from the East, non-Western civilizations, Islam, India, Africa, great ancient Chinese civilization, off the grid/Technoprimitive and less modern persons. All of these civilization forms could be our example to follow.
We should consider the Western history as just one branch of the history of humanity.
If we reject the pretensions of Westerners' universalism, we might rediscover the values of political ideas/thought from China and Islam , Christian Eastern Orthodox (Eastern, not Western, since Christian Western Orthodox is a completely different form of political thought).
We might rediscover Indian tradition, or off the grid/Technoprimitive and less modern principles.... not judging them from the point of view of progress or technological development.
All forms of people , living in all society types, are all human — maybe they are more human than our technological civilization.
We should rediscover the multiplicity of all types of cultures and societies, and we should accept them.
Accept off the grid /Technoprimitivism and less modern people, societies and tribes that are living beyond the so-called "civilization" as an example to follow, and possibly, to discover and study. This could be something that we have to first understand, not to judge or bring to the criteria of Western political modernity.
We are rediscovering every type of civilization outside of the West. There is an immense amount of political, cultural thought, philosophy, religion outside of the West. So we can take them as a model on how to create something new. We can propose some non-Western thing and take that as a guiding star for the 4th Political Theory
It is obvious that we can’t reach some new type of universalism; we shouldn't, and don't need that. We must open the perspectives for each civilization and culture to create their own political future, separate from something inevitably imposed as a destiny by the colonial Western modernity.
This invitation is geographical. We must recognize the value of political thought outside of the West.
For instance, Russian Eurasianists claim that Austrian philosopher Kelsen's universal history of law study is wholly dedicated to Roman law. Only a few pages of it are dedicated to all of the other non-Western legal systems.
That isn’t to say that Roman law is evil. There are non-Roman law systems that exist outside of Western civilization, and that is fine. We have Islamic law, Indian law , Chinese law, the Confucianist tradition,, besides some less modern legality and legitimacy systems of. We would better served to consider them all.
Every civilization could be inspired by their own political thought. That is the concept of the 4th Political Theory. After the end of Liberalism 2.0 which we are heading toward, we have to rehabilitate non-Western political systems.
These political systems might seem terrible, uncivil and awful to Westerners . However that is not an argument. Westerners need to worry about their own civilization, which is only one kind of civilization among a lot of other civilizations.
Moreover nobody can judge the others. Nobody, whether it is George Soros, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Hillary Clinton, Washington DC, Brussels, Moscow Russia, Riyadh, New Delhi, Beijing etc. Nobody can judge the other. There is no universal criterion in political thought, and that is the main principle of the 4th Political Theory.
The 4pt is the liberty to fight for social justice, the liberty to be patriotic, and the liberty to defend the State, Church, people and family, along with the liberty to remain human or to become something else.
Liberty is not on their side any longer. Liberalism 2.0 is the enemy of all liberty. So, let’s not lose sight of this value. It’s a most very good value, since it is the essence of the soul of humanity and the human heart. Liberty opens us up to God’s way, to sacrality, and to love.
So for starters, we need to overcome and beat Liberalism 2.0.
We must bring this lasting decay to the end, and to finish with Liberalism 2.0 (with open society, with all the products of our Liberal 2.0 NGO and donor style liberal system based on individualism, materialism, revolutionary progressivism, transnational progressivism, cultural radicalism/Sociological Left on the full alienation of the people and extinction of social links and using a human rights system consistent with my human rights views in this blog as human rights models
The main idea of fighting Liberalism 2.0 is to fight all Western political modernity. That is our opponent. The 4th Political Theory invites everyone to fight. However, we are not fighting against the West. The West is not an enemy.
We are not fighting against modernity or say the contemporary state of affairs in some societies.
This is because we have different societies, different civilizations that each exist in our modern world and don't belong to the Western modernity. We can actually live in the modern world outside of Western political modernity.
We should not use past alternatives like Communism or Fascism to defeat Liberalism 2.0. We should not fall into those traps
We need to imagine something radically different than those ideologies to defeat Liberalism 2.0, not only from Liberalism, but from the Western political modernity taken altogether. This is what the 4th Political Theory is all about.
Individualism is the last step of liberalism, thus we should finish with the concept of individualism.
The New class is ineffective , counter productive and a waste. It closes in on itself causing public hostility at the elite.
Liberalism 2.0 is wrong also because it downplays or doesn’t employ changing things from within (other than with the CRT antiracism federal board which I support and liquid democracy) Anarchism , changing things from within, saviorism and Paternalism/Libertarian Paternalism are four great methods for positive radical change.
I can even stomach Liberal 2.0 activist judges using their Liberal 2.0 bias to implement Liberal 2.0 laws due to that Liberal 2.0 bias. If you want Liberal 2.0 policies literally enact them yourself , true change from within. I do give Liberal 2.0ers credit for their drive in being much more willing than non Liberal 2.0ers to constantly fight to impose their values onto society.
For major social issues, there is a gap between these rulers and their governed via technocratic means (see anti statist and anti state prop parts below). The media also plays a part in this and deepens it. We see this with the bourgeois and rulers via double talk, virtue signaling, capital indulgence, bottom of the social ladder, struggles of daily life, nihilism , and the wants for common values.
Historically this role was fulfilled by religious institutions hence the usage of the term "cathedral", this is intentionally contrasted with the institutions that fulfill the role of the cathedral in the modern age that being Schools, Universities, the Media and the Entertainment industry who largely market themselves as "Secular".
It is worth to note that the Cathedral (in it's modern incarnation) is not a formal institution that people just belong to but rather an informal network of leaders of the before-aforementioned institutions that happen to agree on most important matters (Harvard, The New York Times, Disney and The Guardian rarely disagree for example)
This leads to anti elitism by the public leading to cynicism. We need more structural autonomy to help the true desires of people on the lower part of that social ladder. This would give them the ability to make or remake specific nomoi. We must create a user friendly society where we avoid anonymity, value commodification and social reification. We would need direct democracy or Democratic Con federalism to do this
Homogenization causes the evils of national chauvinism, tribal behavior, irredentism, etc. This is due to globalization, which is responsible for this junk. Western bred self affirming behavior is the result of taking away the rights of individuals to find their identity within a collective and historic framework, uniformity representing people through imposition etc. Now it is sameness that replaces fear of the other.
After the fall of Communism and Fascism in the 20th century, proto Liberalism 2.0/Liberalism 2.0 became the only political ideology, and it intended to be a sort of universal language (something very imposed, with a free market, Liberal democracy, parliamentarianism, individualism, tech, icon culture and wokeness). All that was seen as universal. But now this universality is coming to an end.
Modernity has taken away social systems that helped people get a realistic assessments of themselves. Modernity leads to people needing their identity affirmed in society and the public square . Modernity has not met these needs identity needs as international tourism don’t fix these problems but instead buries them (see lifestyle blog for more)
I affirm differences which are not transitory that lead to some higher echelon of unity nor are accidental parts of personal lives
These differences are the fabric of the social sphere. It can be political or non political but closer to the individual.
Being a citizen means a sense of belonging and commitment to different levels of public life.
Whether it is at the local level, city level, state level , geographic region level , national level, or more. This is in accordance to devolved power at each of these sovereign levels.
We are not global citizens, since that is abstract and abstract is of the bourgeois liberal class All people should have their causes upheld. This is due to the right of difference and its generalness which emboldens it.
It is justified only in defending a persons difference from other people if the person is in turn able to defend the difference in others. This means people cannot use the right of difference to exclude people who are different.
See this for more. I believe in the integration between social groups where differences are valued in an environment of solidarity, respect, protection (possibly paternalism) and collaboration as a means to create a happy and democratic society.
In this way, social relations are ordered through organization and collaboration over the logic of competition. In addition where at the individuals level their integrality is valued this is the affective, social and political dimension as opposed to merely an economic one.
Liberalism 2.0 is the representation and symbol of absolute cringe because it is still here, and Liberal 2.0ers still want to organize the world under the rule of the Liberal 2.0 transnational elite. For those reasons alone Liberalism 2.0 are worse than Woke Communism/Dogmatic-Anti Individualist-Anti Liberal Communism and Traditional Conservatism as the latter are chimeras, rests, residues of political history and belong to the past
In order to create a positive meaning for 4pt/postliberal world order we must recognize that all civilizations can establish their own political systems that are outside of any universal paradigm and above all, outside of the modern Western political paradigm (accepted or imposed as something universal).
Liberal Democracy/Democracy, Liberalism 2.0, the system of human rights that don’t mesh with my human rights views in this blog, progress ,LGBTQ+, robotization, digitalization and cyberspace are optional. They’re not universal values since there are no universal values, except for the value upon which all kinds of civilizations could agree upon.
We lack a real international order due to the fact that we lack the full-scale subjects that would establish such law. Now, we are still in colonization.
There is only one subject which is the modern Western liberal subject, whom tries to impose its own values as a universal formal order over all others.
So this is radically wrong. We are fighting exactly against this pretention. The West is the West but the West is not all. The West is a part of the whole.
Westerners are a part of humanity, the West can either be accepted or rejected and that depends on other civilizations’ free decision. The West is one civilization among many others.
This is why a non-Western political thought is so vital. The true universal history of law should include all usable/salvageable legal systems of all existing civilizations, including from the serious part of Confucianism, Indian political thought, the great part of Islamic law, Roman law, Byzantine law, and the part of the various less modern systems of law....
Each less modern society can create their own system, and we must be attentive to that.
Yet, we also could include modern Western political thought, but that should only be a small part of the whole political thought of humanity
We should insist upon this redistribution of the system of values. This is a way forward to get out of the Western political modernity.
We should see the full-scale dignity of non-Western political thought. This is solidly concrete: in each civilization we can find some amount of political treaties, ideas, schools...etc
But we are ignoring them entirely, dealing with open society and its enemies (like Karl Popper, Frederick Hayek, or Karl Marx) as universal thinkers or systems.
It is true that they are more interesting than non interesting. Yet, compared with Confucianism, Indian or Islamic political thought, Liberalism 2.0, Marxism and Western nationalism are less good. They are only possible forms of political thought , basically a small proportion of a very colorful proportion of humanity. They are only a small part, but not the whole. So this is very important.
The West is only a part of the Rest
We have to restore the dignity of all non-Western political philosophies, including Africa, India and North, Central and South Americas. This includes great and developed civilizations along with the small less modern societies of Oceania.
We need to accept humanity as humanity and not the West and the Rest. We must reverse the position: the Rest is the name of humanity, and the West is the part of the locust of Liberalism 2.0 in the garden of humanity. The Rest is the center, not the West. (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order book by Samuel Huntington, 1996)
We are leaving in place a system where the modern West is the unique pole (unipolar) and intends to establish its rule for the Rest.
We should organize the global geopolitical human revolution against such rule. The status between the subject and the Rest should evenly be distributed
The West is part of the Rest , albeit a small part of the Rest.
The West should not be punished. The West should be put within its normal historical organic borders — nowhere else.
If you are Western, good, but you are not universal. You strongly believe in human rights like Transgender rights, non binary rights and animal rights? It's up to you as that is your decision, not another persons decision. It is not necessary.
We could redefine marriage again or expand straight pride, that is absolutely the right of persons, and that is the highest decision that we can take. Or we could not redefine marriage again and not let straight pride happen.
Nothing healthy and within reason should be universally condemned or justified. Everything should depend on the balance of the decision made by each civilization.
In order to establish the world order on this principle, we need to reject the claim of Western political modernity to establish universal rule. Non-Western societies should be put first. We should extinguish Western consensus; there's no such thing as Western consensus. There is regime, there is colonization, there is occupation — this is the Western imperial liberalism we should fight against.
The West itself should be liberated from the modernity
This is important; we should not blame the West, we should blame the modern West which is totally different. This is because, not only many of the world’s peoples are colonized and exploited by the Western modernity: the Western cultural identity (of the Western civilization, of the Western society) is hijacked by the modernity.
Moreover now, with the flourishing of the cancel culture, we see how this works. Liberal 2.0ers are wrongly trying to cancel the very principles of the Western identity.
They wrongly want to Cancel Aristotle, cancel Plato, cancel Hegel, cancel Frederick Nietzsche, basically demonizing everything in the great Western thought and culture. Everything that is that does not fit into the narrowing limits of this radically intolerant Liberal 2.0 ideology. Everything is judged as ‘Fascism’, as something ‘unacceptable’.
The modern West is destroying more and more of the pre modern West principles
This means that we should liberate the West. This means not only liberating the Rest from the West; but, at the same time, liberating the West from the modernity.
The reason is because the modernity tries to cancel its origins (the sources of the Western identity).
Now, it is quite open. Everybody is colonized by the Western political modernity, not only non-Western cultures and civilizations , the whole West itself is colonized by the modernity.
The west needs to be liberated . We need to liberate Plato, Aristotle, Greek-Roman antiquity. We need to restore the dignity of the pre modern Judeo Christian societies, political thoughts, cultural values, philosophies, metaphysics
We have to restore the pre-modern West heritage ,which is on its way to be totally cancelled by a new purge of the Liberalism 2.0
We should be united on the global revolution against Western political modernity while understanding that we are not fighting against the West. We are fighting against the regime of the modernity.
The modernity is anti-West. It's not the West. It is a deviation of the Western history that is based on the total misunderstanding of its own self.
Western modernity is the negative energy. It's a Western negative energy — but, first of all, it kills the West itself. This means that we must help the West to be freed from the modernity.
There is a need to liberate Europe and the US from Liberalism 2.0.
If that is what should be strived for, then we should support various types of popular movements and tendencies that attempt to restore social justice and liberate the people from the Liberal 2.0 political elites that promote more and more of this type of modernization, Liberalism 2.0, and self inflicted wound.
Because right now postmodern Western education is focused on departing from all types of Western values. That is a new barbarianism. Liberal 2.0ers don't bring culture, they bring barbarity.
This cancel culture (which includes LGBTQ+, the 2020-21 racial unrest, and liberal feminist tendencies) is like a call to cancel all other types of culture. It is the genocide of the Western culture similar to what ISIS did to historical places and artifacts in the 2010s. Right wingers cancel too and they are just as bad with it
Modernity is not Western. It is a negative energy, a modern negative energy that destroys Western identity. And it’s not a human enemy that causes this negative energy — it is caused by a change in the register of existence.
We need to end Capitalism, Western modernity, materialism, science that is weaponized to back Liberal 2.0 social views , all sorts of political, cultural, philosophical fruits of this type of modernity.
And that is not nihilism, not at all. Because by extinguishing modernity, we will be able to perceive the huge heritage of Greek-Roman culture (which is now or will be soon cancelled or radically cancelled).
We will discover the roots of Western identity which include the spiritual, religious, philosophical, political roots — not this type of deviation and perversion that we’re dealing with through the political modernity.
Not only should the world be decolonized, but the West itself should be decolonized and then restored to its real dignity — as one great civilization among other great civilizations.
So, the 4pt is not against the West. It is against Liberalism 2.0 and globalism, Western political modernity.
Post-Modernity view from the Right
The Fourth Political Theory is an invitation to go forward and to go ahead. We can take inspiration from the past, but we are living in the present. We shouldn't return to the past exactly as it was, we need to make a step ahead, forward, and not many steps backward.
The past should be considered as an eternal example, of Platonic ideas, and of the being that inspires us. But we are dealing with time, and modern time is the catastrophe.
It's the time of the decay, collapse, and final catastrophe. So, we need to go further.
We could use some postmodernity methods in order to deconstruct the Western political modernity.
There are two parts within postmodernism. The first part within postmodernism is that there is very legitimate criticism of the violent and perverted part of Western political modernity as totalitarianism.
We can agree with this postmodern criticism, but there is the second part of postmodernism too, which is that the moral continuation of modernity , an agreement with its call for further liberation, equity and other subjects of the Liberal 2.0 moral.
In that moral regard, postmodernity is very much worse than modernity. But we have to separate these two parts within postmodernity . We might be able to accept and use the criticism and deconstruction process of the modernity, and then reject moral solidarity ways that are proper for the postmodernism.
We need to have a kind of "right" postmodernism, which is postmodernity viewed from the right. Not political or economic right; this word is only used to differentiate the Liberal 2.0 use of postmodernity to continue destroying more and more of the Western and global human identity.
In light of that, we should focus on the deconstruction process of the Western political modernity without sharing the moral presumptions of postmodernity
The Fourth Political theory is a Leftist movement with big tent (diverse) political ideologues including ideologies like anti racism (including universalist anti racism), traditionalism, anti postmodernism, anti globalism etc.
I like how the Fourth Political theory fights against racism in Eastern Europe and Western Asia and also creating socioeconomic class warfare in the US at the same time
I like how the 4pt supports anti racism methods to help shield Chechyens and Balkans from racism.
So the 4pt offers unique strategies for mass migration and touches on immigration of the unskilled underclass, snd includes concepts such as anti-liberalism, non-interventionism, anti-globalism etc.
The 4pt is similar to the Five Star Movement in Italy and such types of movements are good because they simply listen to what people actually want. The average person is open to left wing economic policies, but is also apprehensive about the necessity of aimless, in their minds subversion of Tradition and uni-polar globalism.
The 4pt also is good for promoting new class warfare in the US to lead to a more socialistic and post capitalist society in the US
The Fourth Political Theory like Liberalism will eventually morph into a bad version of itself within a century or so, so before that happens we need to create a Fifth Political theory to defeat it
I am against the new class. Western society through globalization promotes a global ruling class through logico symbolic manipulations of the existing systems that are in place. They do this via global laissez faire Capitalism, globalism , and institutionalized imperialism.
This new class gentrifies the world creating superficial detaches cyborgs so to speak . I am Anti hierarchies, Anti power-subordination and Anti patriarchies. I also disavow classism and the existence of classes .
I look forward to seeing the “cool kids” leave the Liberal 2.0 regime along with its values and worldview. This luckily might be happening now though not all of them in this vibe shift are on the vanguard side in a global rebellion against world order
I would even settle for former Liberal 2.0ers getting out of politics even though it would be great seeing of them fight against Liberalism 2.0. Some of them just want to convert to Catholicism and or raise a family and those admirable goals
Comments
Post a Comment