Why the Right begins with the fallen nature of man and loyalty to particularistic bonds, while the Left tends toward universalism and abstract moral claims—and why that creates a fundamental conflict
I mean every saint is right winged by default, but almost every single human being born before the 19th century would be considered extremely right winged so.
Yes I mentioned how the relaxing of Malthusian and eugenic pressures created a class of dysgenic individuals and how they have a tendency to affirm ideas that are contrary the civilization and order necessary for human flourishing and development
Oh I comprehend the left, i understand how they see themselves and what justifications they affirm and grievances they state, i am also aware of the fact that the right and left have completely different views on what’s good and what’s bad and we may as well be speaking different languages, our very views of a healthy society are completely different you see?
So its not like I don’t understand the left or haven’t read their literature and their works and so on, I am just saying that at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what the left things since their ideas erode society and destroy civilization and a policy is what it DOES not what it says it does, hence it naturally follows that debate between the sides is pointless since they’re enemies on a existential level and all dialogue will naturally end on the fundamental distinction between “friend and enemy”, the right is the enemy of the left and the left is the enemy of the right, there’s no real then point in having any sort of argument or discussion or relationship or whatever else: it’s a war of beliefs you see?
Your entire comment was a projection. Those people are THAT and I am THIS!
It’s comical to me that you claim that what the left thinks doesn’t matter because they are wrong and at the same time claim they are the ones eroding societies. How can a society function when people like you think you’re better than others? You believe you contain good and evil is them. We all contain both. Hopefully you’ll see that one day.
“The Leftist worldview is acquired through mediocre intellectualism and the rejection of objective reality.”
That might be true of the current SJW, identitarian leftist. But this is a post 1960s, a Foucault influenced philosophy that was fairly obscure until social media. But the most massively destructive leftists weren’t “post modern,” they were Marxist-Leninist, which is a distinctly modernist based ideal. Meaning, they believe strictly in an objective , external reality to personal perception . Marx loved modernity, industry, and urbanism. What he loathed was the “pre modern” provincial , rural , religious worldview. ML was all about “scientific managerialism” of a centrally planned economy ruled by all powerful technocrats. This was probably the logical end game of modernity, and why the post modernists (ie, Foucault) hated Marxism, communism etc. they explicitly said so themselves . One could argue there are “post modern NEO marxists” who reject objectivity but retain and redefine Marxist class analysis as race/gender etc. but that’s not really the same as Marx’s original idea.
i would argue that Marxism itself is a rejection of reality due to it´s focus on dialectic materialism as a mover of history, but i will adress more traditional left winged beliefs in a future post.
thank you for your comment and sharing your opinion and valid criticism.
That’s an interesting argument I’d be happy to read. My suspicion is that while what you said may be arguable, dialectical materialism is at worst a failure of modernist application, rather than a rejection of of modernism itself.
In my more cynical moments, which is most of the time now, I say that when there is a crime committed, the Right demands justice, and the Left simply wants their share of the loot.
Wow. The Right are really saints here on earth. Had no idea!
I mean every saint is right winged by default, but almost every single human being born before the 19th century would be considered extremely right winged so.
So?? Before the Industrial Revolution? You’re on to something.
Yes I mentioned how the relaxing of Malthusian and eugenic pressures created a class of dysgenic individuals and how they have a tendency to affirm ideas that are contrary the civilization and order necessary for human flourishing and development
You can’t comprehend the Left because you made them up. They are a fictitious character in your head created by projection.
Oh I comprehend the left, i understand how they see themselves and what justifications they affirm and grievances they state, i am also aware of the fact that the right and left have completely different views on what’s good and what’s bad and we may as well be speaking different languages, our very views of a healthy society are completely different you see?
So its not like I don’t understand the left or haven’t read their literature and their works and so on, I am just saying that at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what the left things since their ideas erode society and destroy civilization and a policy is what it DOES not what it says it does, hence it naturally follows that debate between the sides is pointless since they’re enemies on a existential level and all dialogue will naturally end on the fundamental distinction between “friend and enemy”, the right is the enemy of the left and the left is the enemy of the right, there’s no real then point in having any sort of argument or discussion or relationship or whatever else: it’s a war of beliefs you see?
Your entire comment was a projection. Those people are THAT and I am THIS!
It’s comical to me that you claim that what the left thinks doesn’t matter because they are wrong and at the same time claim they are the ones eroding societies. How can a society function when people like you think you’re better than others? You believe you contain good and evil is them. We all contain both. Hopefully you’ll see that one day.
Great post.
I disagree with this, though:
“The Leftist worldview is acquired through mediocre intellectualism and the rejection of objective reality.”
That might be true of the current SJW, identitarian leftist. But this is a post 1960s, a Foucault influenced philosophy that was fairly obscure until social media. But the most massively destructive leftists weren’t “post modern,” they were Marxist-Leninist, which is a distinctly modernist based ideal. Meaning, they believe strictly in an objective , external reality to personal perception . Marx loved modernity, industry, and urbanism. What he loathed was the “pre modern” provincial , rural , religious worldview. ML was all about “scientific managerialism” of a centrally planned economy ruled by all powerful technocrats. This was probably the logical end game of modernity, and why the post modernists (ie, Foucault) hated Marxism, communism etc. they explicitly said so themselves . One could argue there are “post modern NEO marxists” who reject objectivity but retain and redefine Marxist class analysis as race/gender etc. but that’s not really the same as Marx’s original idea.
i would argue that Marxism itself is a rejection of reality due to it´s focus on dialectic materialism as a mover of history, but i will adress more traditional left winged beliefs in a future post.
thank you for your comment and sharing your opinion and valid criticism.
That’s an interesting argument I’d be happy to read. My suspicion is that while what you said may be arguable, dialectical materialism is at worst a failure of modernist application, rather than a rejection of of modernism itself.
In my more cynical moments, which is most of the time now, I say that when there is a crime committed, the Right demands justice, and the Left simply wants their share of the loot.
the key issue in my view is that both sides have radically different understandings of what "justice" means.