Does “leftism” exist?

The first cracks appeared when I noticed both the New Black Panthers and La Raza types voting democrat, and the greenie one-world harmony yuppie types also voting democrat.

When Hitler came to power, it was propelled by many real and contrived grievances. The Germans were the weaker party, the underdog, the little guy, and he was their champion who would give them strength again.

And moreover, when I read posts by “leftists”, they focus overwhelmingly on how wrong the “rightists” are. But given the death of the anti-war movement once Obama became president, and the nonchalant response to Obama’s drones and pushes for civilian disarmament when far less prompted fury under George Bush, I question to what extent it even is about ideology.

And then come the social justice people. The social justice people talk about many “oppressed” groups - basically anyone but a straight white male.

So I’ve come to a hypothesis that “leftism” doesn’t actually exist. What exists are positions on issues, and how those positions effect certain groups. Drones under Obama aren’t as bad because “their guy” is in power, and he’ll be focusing on the radical “right”, whereas Bush targeted the “radical left”.

Is environmentalism a “left-wing” or “right-wing” position? Today it is. But under the monarchy in Britain, land was kept in nature and out of production, even though the peasants could really use that land, because the king enjoyed the nature. We certainly wouldn’t call that environmentalism “left-wing”, but then, what even is “left wing”?

Is high taxes left wing? Well Bismarck instituted high taxes, public schools, and a pension system, and instilled a German nationalism, a powerful military and an aggressive foreign policy. So in that context, high taxes, public schools and pension systems certainly wouldn’t be called “left wing”. Or would it? I don’t know.

In Britain in the late 1800s, the socialist parties didn’t want the women to have the vote because the women were more conservative than men. Does this mean that opposing the female vote is a “left-wing” thing?

What I see is nothing but nations. Nations nations everywhere. Some overt, some hidden. But all policy is a form of nationalism. Supporting higher or lower taxes isn’t any more “left wing” or “right wing”, it just is. And if your moral tribe says high taxes are good, then you’ll want to impose high taxes and see it as a victory over the hated “rightists”.

The ideologies are just piggie-backed. And of course the blacks and mestizos play this game very simply.

So when someone says “I’m a leftist”, I’m a bit skeptical of that, because I don’t think such a thing exists. Everyone’s a nationalist, it’s just a question of what your nation is.

Racist vs. Also Racist

Hitler is a mass murderer. However, for the sake of intellectual consistency, you have to point out that Stalin is “also” a mass murderer, and that Mao is “also” a mass murderer. But they’re not mass murderers, they’re merely “also” mass murderers.

White nationalists are “racists”. But, black nationalists and La Raza types are “also racist”. They’re not as bad as white nationalists, because “also racist” isn’t as bad as “racist”.

Also some shit about them being powerless, which is definitely news to me.

djinaunchained

morrakiu:

The standard definition of ‘racism’ in sociology (social justice) is ‘prejudice + power’.

I would be a very rich transperson if I had a nickel for every time a white person told me they can’t be racist because they have no power.

As if power is just money, fame, the use of violence, or control…

Morrakiu teaches us about white privilege.

The truth will out when the lie has outlived it’s usefulness.

Now to see through bullshit in history, while the bullshit is still in power, is HARD.

It’s easy to be an atheist, it’s easy to accept evolution, or to call out the military-industrial-complex. None of that is hard at all.

What’s hard is defending racial identification and defending the explicit advocacy of european nationalism, or crudely blandished as “racism”. Of course black racial identity or mestizo racial identity, is merely grudgingly accepted as “also racist”.

It’s similar to how, when Hitler is talked about, Stalin and Mao are recognized as “also mass murderers”. Something to be recognized for the sake of intellectual consistency, but the real bad guys are the white “racists”.

Who are the main major enemies the US fought in various wars?

The United Kingdom, then the CSA, then Imperial Germany (and secondarily Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire), then Nazi Germany.

There was the cold war with the USSR, and some minor flare ups in Korea and Vietnam against the communists. And of course to be a communist in the United States is also to get precisely nowhere.

But knowing all this, do you think that anyone who has accepted what I call “the americanist view of history” can, in any way, think rationally about race? The most evil man in the americanist mythos is Hitler, a white “racist”, and the most evil political movement in US history is the CSA and slavery of blacks.

If we look at the United States as a mythology, complete with it’s sacred texts (the Constitution), it’s age the miracles (the revolutionary period, the civil war and the new deal), it’s messiahs (the “fathers”, Lincoln and both Roosevelts), it’s rituals (the group chant of “the ‘national’ anthem”, the children’s loyalty oath aka “the pledge of allegiance”), and it’s sacred monuments, temples and grounds.

Looking at it this way is very hard, and very few manage to see the Americult.

We can divide the Americult into three testaments: old, middle, and new. The Old testament is the “founding fathers” period from around 1770 up to 1861. This was the period covering the revolutionary war and the rise of the Federal Government’s supremacy over the state government, and the doing away with the Articles of Confederation.

Of course the victors’ history is that the Articles of Confederation were horrible, and that’s what the Federalist Papers were about. Of course today they are seen as ultra-libertarian and used to argue AGAINST Federal excesses, at the time they were actually arguing against the confederalists.

So that’s the old testament. The Middle Testament runs roughly from 1861 to 1965. When the CSA seceded, and the Union invaded, this was a clear sign that the Union was not voluntary, and the old testament idea of a consensual contract entered into by the states had been completely dashed.

Of course, slavery fucks it all up. What should be an obvious situation of an aggressive, monstrous Union attacking a group of states that just want out, is rendered crap because the CSA held slaves. And because of slavery, the basically totalitarian nature of the Union’s actions are excused. A similar thing happens in WW2 with the Nazis and their atrocities.

Following the Civil War, Federal supremacy amplifies, the confederalists are done for the time being. The rise in the power and authority of the federal state leads to public schools, which as it did in Britain, France and Germany, led to Nationalism, Imperialism, and military conscription, climaxing in World War 1.

Following WW1 was the progressive era, exemplified by Roosevelt I and his “trust busting” and other bogus stories, and then the Roosevelt II’s New Deal.

However all during this middle period, most of the United States had anti-race mixing laws, and US immigration policy was effectively white-only. This isn’t much talked about, because it never really was an issue. But as recently as 1958, 94% of americans supported anti-race mixing laws, and since only 85% of the US was white at the time, this means that even if 100% of whites supported them, the majority of non-whites still had to also support them.

But in 1965, three things happened that definitively mark the transition to the New Testament: The Civil Rights Act, the Medicare Act, and most importantly, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

This act opened up the US to non-European immigration. While at the time all the fuss was about Civil Rights, the more important thing for the long run was the opening of the US to non-European immigration.

And so if you think “race doesn’t matter / doesn’t exist, ‘racism’ is bad, we’re all one people blah blah blah”, well of course you do. That’s the New Testament.

I find it weird when people think that I just haven’t head any arguments for universalism, that I’m just ignorant. Bitch, I live in your world. I know more about what you believe than you do, and I can tell you the historical progression of about 90% of the crap you think you thought up yourself.

Challenging the status quo is HARD. Today, the first and foremost issue to challenge is fashionable views on race and intelligence and innate behavioral tendencies, and the bogus moral arguments against racial nationalism and sectarianism.

Now before you back your butterbutt up into stupid-town, understand prescriptive and descriptive. You don’t have to be a white nationalist to recognize the bogosity of racial equality, or race denial, or anti-racist morality.

But you probably will end up being one since once those intellectual barricades are broken down, most people do end up becoming white nationalists, since most people are naturally “racist” or whatever.

That is, once you no longer feel any moral obligation to care about humanity in general, you tend to have circles of empathy most concentrated in the family, and extending out with decreasing strength, and stopping at the race. This is just what usually happens.

And if you want to write me off as a kook, well you would also have to write off 94% of the US population in 1958 as kooks too.

Gun Control = Civilian Disarmament

When people bring up “gun control”, what are they really talking about?

Is it to limit the weapons the police have?

Is it to limit the weapons the gov’t department SWAT Teams have?

Is it to limit the weapons the military has?

No, it is to limit the weaponry the citizens have. It is not police, military, or department SWAT team disarmament, it is CIVILIAN disarmament.

There is of course no way the general public could resist the US military. But they could easily resist the police and gov’t SWAT teams, forcing the US state or federal government to deploy the military, which has the prerogative to say “NO.”

And in that situation, the state and/or federal government would be effectively couped. And guess what: forces in power don’t like being couped.

Almost all of the major mass killings occur in government areas, schools, malls, and other “gun-free” zones. If you were going to go on a rampage, would you do it in a place full of guns, or a “gun-free” zone, where guns are against the law, and so law-obeyers don’t have any guns?

There’s no logic to any of this. As for the Anders Brevik killings, which I can sympathize with - though about half of the people he killed were probably innocent and his overall ideology was kinda mystical and bizarre - if one of those people had a gun, he would have been toast. The reason that he, the Colorado and Virginia Tech shootings were so successful is because everyone else was legally disarmed.

I think a major problem to this is that guns have become politicized. And when an issue becomes politicized, logical thought on the issue evaporates. You see it with global warming, which the “liberals” are probably right about, and on guns, which the “conservatives” are balls-in-your-face right about.

It’s odd. On these more abstract scientific questions, “liberals” tend to be correct - the existence of god, evolution, and probably global warming. But on real-life issues, like general economic policy, racial policy and civilian armament, it’s the towneys who have better sense.