We have always known "lockdowns" and "mandates" to be capitalistic endeavours that favour transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, followed by a further transfer of wealth from the inflation resulting from government bailouts.
All leftists knew this in 2019.
The ACLU also knew this in 2019.
But progressives and leftists lost their damned minds in 2020, and I think it's through very effective marketing from the germophobes at the CDC, the WHO, and Imperial College. These people should all lose their job.
I think that the left right paradigm still holds some water. Liberals generally believe that mankind can be perfected with the right "leadership", that government is a force for good, and that intentions are a important as outcomes. Conservatives generally believe that mankind is imperfect and cannot be perfected, that laws therefore protect mankind from overzealous government, and are suspicious of all governments. Government did everything to help people realize that authoritarianism was their central instinct.
Yes. Leftism is authoritarianism (top-down government, force the individual to change and fit the mold). The right is individualism (bottom-up government, the government should leave us alone as individuals, assume only those responsibilities for which there is supermajority agreement).
The extreme right is anarchy. The extreme left is totalitarianism. "Far-right fascism" does not exist, it's a contradiction in terms.
The "right" is absolutely NOT about individualism! There is nothing less individualistic than faith, church, morals, anti-blasphemy laws, mining towns, and Amazon and fast food workers!
"Western" jeans "Made in China" is by no means individualistic.
Monopolies are not individualist, they create monoliths of sheople.
Far right fascism was Hitler. Hitler's Germany was the most productive capitalism in history.
"Conservative libertarian" is the oxymoron. Conservatives are about conserving, libertarianism is about freedom. They are contradictions. Libertarianism belongs to the Liberal camp, but Liberals, once they tasted power, became conservative about preserving their power, and completely ceased being Liberal.
Church is leftist, it is an attempt by the elite to put a hierarchy between people and God. They can then use this to control and influence.
Morals are individual.
Anti-blasphemy laws appear to be right-wing, and the freedom from them appears to be leftist, because the globohomo can't sell you slavery unless they package it as freedom of some sort. So they sell you social freedom but you really get complete slavery.
Mining towns (revolving around a company that owns the town), Amazon, corporate food outlets, this is all globohomo. It's totalitarian and leftist.
Giant corporations and monopolies are small communisms. Their internal functioning is totalitarian and leftist. The people who inhabit them are leftists.
You seem to confuse "right" with "nationalist". Nationalism really did not exist until the globohomo invented it, so they could topple kings and form "democratic" countries where they control the press, control the money, and decide the outcomes of elections.
The real political dichotomy is totalitarianism vs. individualism. You need to understand our political history in proper terms to see it has always been about that. Historically, the right has had its own totalitarian instincts, but the right is mainly about preserving the individual whereas the left is about jumping straight off the cliff, into the totalitarian transhumanist hive-mind.
Actually I agree with that. Folks on the “left” are masterful at re-purposing our language. I could have used progressive, but I don’t find that there is anything about it that resembles progress.
Although I sensed their reaction as an instictive urge to overthrow any form of established authority, the stricter enforcement just feeding their base, automatic impulse to challenge and bring down the status quo, in order to "rebuild" the world on their own dictatorial instincts.
The USA is the perfect country to try out NON authoritarian communism. I wish California would just go ahead and do it. For non authoritarian communism to work, people must be free to participate or not.
The problem with past attempts at communism is they relied on industry. Industry can NEVER be communist, for industry by definition requires great capital in order to extract and transform resource. Cuba is the only country to came close to honest communism, and it was accidental, imposed upon them by the embargo, which forced them to have a less industrial society. Still there was some authoritarianism. People must be allowed to leave, simultaneously, there should also be migration by all the communists from abroad.
Why did each "tribe" choose one side or the other in the first place, though? It wasn't random or arbitrary. The response maps pretty closely to how each tribe responds to other problems and crises (real or imagined). People who think Covid can and should be solved by technocratic ("expert") government controls tend to think that about everything else too. And vice versa. So it's not just tribalism-qua-tribalism. It reflects an actual difference in each tribe's values.
Communists, I would suggest, may have been skeptical simply because they wouldn't be running it. Nobody's authoritarian or revolutionary in the abstract. The difference between them is just whether one happens to be in power or seeking it.
Yes, technocrats are on both sides. Technocrats on the left want to us to live forever, and technocrats on the right want to force new lives into being. Technocracies serve numbers, more, more, more.
Except that's not an accurate description of what the right wants, or why it wants it. (Nor of what the left wants, for that matter.)
The argument on "the right" (if you're alluding to abortion) is not that people should be forced to bring new life into being -- least of all to satisfy some arbitrary numerical life-creation quota determined by government "experts". It's certainly possible to imagine such an argument, but it's a straw man. It's not the strongest argument for that position, and it's not the argument being made in real life.
Rather the argument is that new life has *already* been brought into being; that this extant life is morally entitled to legal protection; and that this outweighs the liberty interest of the person seeking or performing an abortion.
We needn't get into whether this argument is substantively correct. We could go back and forth about that ad infinitum. The point is that it's not a technocratic argument, and therefore it doesn't show that there are "technocrats are on both sides".
Isn't a communist pretty much by definition an authoritarian? In their view, your property is theirs, your children are theirs and the first fruits of your labor are theirs. Short of prison, it's hard to imagine something more authoritarian.
They’re left-authoritarians, like in the diagram. And… ahem, in the abstract, they’re ok violating economic freedom, and less ok violating personal freedom.
Capitalism as we have it today is 100% authoritarian. A small hot dog vendor is not allowed to set up shop on a small Canadian sidewalk because that would disrupt the profit flow of the big restaurants who hog all the business.
So?
We need anti-authoritarian systems, and for there to be more freedom, there needs to be less tech and less population.
"Progressives", now the majority of western civilization, have become obsessed with the Trekkie dogma of "Live Long and Prosper".
Though I liked Star Trek well enough, my philosophy in life has always been the opposite, live hard and die young.
"Progressives" will chant that Big Pharma and "modernity" extended human longevity from an average of 30 to 90 years. But that is false. The fact is that the wretched "average 30 years old" misinformation is that it includes failed infancy. 90% of infants didn't make it to age 5, but once 5 years are achieved, survivability increased logarithmically. At that point, average lifespan was closer to 50-60, or in other terms, menopause, or the reproductive age.
But in recent decades, excess longevity is achieved not through better living, but through extended death.
Western "progressives" now *expect*, nay, they DEMAND to live to 100. People are retiring between 50 and 60 and DEMANDING that policy favour their going to 100, 40-50 years of "retirement".
Westerners have become drunk on socially constructed "life expectancy". It's ludicrous, and not sustainable.
Death is a part of the definition of life, and we really shouldn't be here past menopause, unless one has exceptional circumstance.
In this particular context, without the overly old, there was no pandemic.
ya we've all read your kind of nonsense answers before. You are CONFUSED between killing people, suicide, and not being a breeder. I have added no humans to the planet, and plan on departing no later than age 69 which is coming soon. The planet can not survive your types.
Death IS the definition of life. Without death, there is no evolution, only Hubris and evil.
Wow. You've made quite a leap about a lot of my personal attributes. I'm not even sure how to interpret some of that.
You seem pretty angry at me, though, so I won't argue.
Have a nice trip. I intend to take up space enjoying myself for as long as possible and encouraging my kid to do the same. Like every living thing on earth tries to do.
Please show me an example of communism that is not authoritarian. How else is wealth confiscated and redistributed according to central command if not by force?
They’re left-authoritarians, like in the diagram. And… ahem, in the abstract, they’re ok violating economic freedom, and less ok violating personal freedom.
There's a line- getting brighter every day- where violating economic freedom starts violating personal freedom pretty quickly. ("You don't HAVE to get the jab, but you're unemployable and will pay insurance penalties with money you soon won't have.")
Oh, and please tell every communist regime that mandated birth or birth control when facing alleged population problems the bit about "less ok violating personal freedom."
We have always known "lockdowns" and "mandates" to be capitalistic endeavours that favour transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, followed by a further transfer of wealth from the inflation resulting from government bailouts.
All leftists knew this in 2019.
The ACLU also knew this in 2019.
But progressives and leftists lost their damned minds in 2020, and I think it's through very effective marketing from the germophobes at the CDC, the WHO, and Imperial College. These people should all lose their job.
I think that the left right paradigm still holds some water. Liberals generally believe that mankind can be perfected with the right "leadership", that government is a force for good, and that intentions are a important as outcomes. Conservatives generally believe that mankind is imperfect and cannot be perfected, that laws therefore protect mankind from overzealous government, and are suspicious of all governments. Government did everything to help people realize that authoritarianism was their central instinct.
Yes. Leftism is authoritarianism (top-down government, force the individual to change and fit the mold). The right is individualism (bottom-up government, the government should leave us alone as individuals, assume only those responsibilities for which there is supermajority agreement).
The extreme right is anarchy. The extreme left is totalitarianism. "Far-right fascism" does not exist, it's a contradiction in terms.
The "right" is absolutely NOT about individualism! There is nothing less individualistic than faith, church, morals, anti-blasphemy laws, mining towns, and Amazon and fast food workers!
"Western" jeans "Made in China" is by no means individualistic.
Monopolies are not individualist, they create monoliths of sheople.
Far right fascism was Hitler. Hitler's Germany was the most productive capitalism in history.
"Conservative libertarian" is the oxymoron. Conservatives are about conserving, libertarianism is about freedom. They are contradictions. Libertarianism belongs to the Liberal camp, but Liberals, once they tasted power, became conservative about preserving their power, and completely ceased being Liberal.
Faith is individual.
Church is leftist, it is an attempt by the elite to put a hierarchy between people and God. They can then use this to control and influence.
Morals are individual.
Anti-blasphemy laws appear to be right-wing, and the freedom from them appears to be leftist, because the globohomo can't sell you slavery unless they package it as freedom of some sort. So they sell you social freedom but you really get complete slavery.
Mining towns (revolving around a company that owns the town), Amazon, corporate food outlets, this is all globohomo. It's totalitarian and leftist.
Giant corporations and monopolies are small communisms. Their internal functioning is totalitarian and leftist. The people who inhabit them are leftists.
You seem to confuse "right" with "nationalist". Nationalism really did not exist until the globohomo invented it, so they could topple kings and form "democratic" countries where they control the press, control the money, and decide the outcomes of elections.
The real political dichotomy is totalitarianism vs. individualism. You need to understand our political history in proper terms to see it has always been about that. Historically, the right has had its own totalitarian instincts, but the right is mainly about preserving the individual whereas the left is about jumping straight off the cliff, into the totalitarian transhumanist hive-mind.
"leadership" is the opposite of true liberalism.
Actually I agree with that. Folks on the “left” are masterful at re-purposing our language. I could have used progressive, but I don’t find that there is anything about it that resembles progress.
Exactly my experience also.
Although I sensed their reaction as an instictive urge to overthrow any form of established authority, the stricter enforcement just feeding their base, automatic impulse to challenge and bring down the status quo, in order to "rebuild" the world on their own dictatorial instincts.
The USA is the perfect country to try out NON authoritarian communism. I wish California would just go ahead and do it. For non authoritarian communism to work, people must be free to participate or not.
The problem with past attempts at communism is they relied on industry. Industry can NEVER be communist, for industry by definition requires great capital in order to extract and transform resource. Cuba is the only country to came close to honest communism, and it was accidental, imposed upon them by the embargo, which forced them to have a less industrial society. Still there was some authoritarianism. People must be allowed to leave, simultaneously, there should also be migration by all the communists from abroad.
Why did each "tribe" choose one side or the other in the first place, though? It wasn't random or arbitrary. The response maps pretty closely to how each tribe responds to other problems and crises (real or imagined). People who think Covid can and should be solved by technocratic ("expert") government controls tend to think that about everything else too. And vice versa. So it's not just tribalism-qua-tribalism. It reflects an actual difference in each tribe's values.
Communists, I would suggest, may have been skeptical simply because they wouldn't be running it. Nobody's authoritarian or revolutionary in the abstract. The difference between them is just whether one happens to be in power or seeking it.
https://twitter.com/markchangizi/status/1309635767665340418?s=21&t=Czu1gsRWeVGtKbvBDBarFQ
Yes, technocrats are on both sides. Technocrats on the left want to us to live forever, and technocrats on the right want to force new lives into being. Technocracies serve numbers, more, more, more.
Except that's not an accurate description of what the right wants, or why it wants it. (Nor of what the left wants, for that matter.)
The argument on "the right" (if you're alluding to abortion) is not that people should be forced to bring new life into being -- least of all to satisfy some arbitrary numerical life-creation quota determined by government "experts". It's certainly possible to imagine such an argument, but it's a straw man. It's not the strongest argument for that position, and it's not the argument being made in real life.
Rather the argument is that new life has *already* been brought into being; that this extant life is morally entitled to legal protection; and that this outweighs the liberty interest of the person seeking or performing an abortion.
We needn't get into whether this argument is substantively correct. We could go back and forth about that ad infinitum. The point is that it's not a technocratic argument, and therefore it doesn't show that there are "technocrats are on both sides".
Isn't a communist pretty much by definition an authoritarian? In their view, your property is theirs, your children are theirs and the first fruits of your labor are theirs. Short of prison, it's hard to imagine something more authoritarian.
They’re left-authoritarians, like in the diagram. And… ahem, in the abstract, they’re ok violating economic freedom, and less ok violating personal freedom.
Capitalism as we have it today is 100% authoritarian. A small hot dog vendor is not allowed to set up shop on a small Canadian sidewalk because that would disrupt the profit flow of the big restaurants who hog all the business.
So?
We need anti-authoritarian systems, and for there to be more freedom, there needs to be less tech and less population.
"Progressives", now the majority of western civilization, have become obsessed with the Trekkie dogma of "Live Long and Prosper".
Though I liked Star Trek well enough, my philosophy in life has always been the opposite, live hard and die young.
"Progressives" will chant that Big Pharma and "modernity" extended human longevity from an average of 30 to 90 years. But that is false. The fact is that the wretched "average 30 years old" misinformation is that it includes failed infancy. 90% of infants didn't make it to age 5, but once 5 years are achieved, survivability increased logarithmically. At that point, average lifespan was closer to 50-60, or in other terms, menopause, or the reproductive age.
But in recent decades, excess longevity is achieved not through better living, but through extended death.
Western "progressives" now *expect*, nay, they DEMAND to live to 100. People are retiring between 50 and 60 and DEMANDING that policy favour their going to 100, 40-50 years of "retirement".
Westerners have become drunk on socially constructed "life expectancy". It's ludicrous, and not sustainable.
Death is a part of the definition of life, and we really shouldn't be here past menopause, unless one has exceptional circumstance.
In this particular context, without the overly old, there was no pandemic.
>> Death is a part of the definition of life, and we really shouldn't be here past menopause, unless one has exceptional circumstance.
You first.
ya we've all read your kind of nonsense answers before. You are CONFUSED between killing people, suicide, and not being a breeder. I have added no humans to the planet, and plan on departing no later than age 69 which is coming soon. The planet can not survive your types.
Death IS the definition of life. Without death, there is no evolution, only Hubris and evil.
Wow. You've made quite a leap about a lot of my personal attributes. I'm not even sure how to interpret some of that.
You seem pretty angry at me, though, so I won't argue.
Have a nice trip. I intend to take up space enjoying myself for as long as possible and encouraging my kid to do the same. Like every living thing on earth tries to do.
Yes I have a short fuse for any asshole who tells people to commit suicide.
I would, too! Who said that awful thing to you? Let's get them!
Please show me an example of communism that is not authoritarian. How else is wealth confiscated and redistributed according to central command if not by force?
They’re left-authoritarians, like in the diagram. And… ahem, in the abstract, they’re ok violating economic freedom, and less ok violating personal freedom.
There's a line- getting brighter every day- where violating economic freedom starts violating personal freedom pretty quickly. ("You don't HAVE to get the jab, but you're unemployable and will pay insurance penalties with money you soon won't have.")
Oh, and please tell every communist regime that mandated birth or birth control when facing alleged population problems the bit about "less ok violating personal freedom."