I'm genuinely curious on what are lefties thinking processes when taking decisions or speaking their minds. I'ts like they live in a tale book where they're the heroes fighting for some (((noble))) cause.
Another fact I've realized is the consistency of historical "left" revolutions, most revolutions are by nature left-formed.
Is the lefty made or born? And more important, how do we BTFO their irrational rants?
What is your definition of a lefty? I consider myself left wing so if you have any questions ask me?
They're all narcissists who want to control other people and make them suffer (taxes and restrictive laws) for their own pleasure (virtue signaling)
They're the daycare generation, spoilt little kids starved of affection and unable to experience a normal healthy life
surely Stalin was a pacifist
You can basically break it down into guilt vs. shame motivation.
left:
>contempt and empathy for enemies
>pity for others
>irreligion, substantiating self-gratification and freedom
>guilt for selfishness/racism/wealth/power/etc
>envy and resentment of above
right
>fear of enemies
>disgust of others
>obligation (family, community, people, religion, tradition)
>shame of failure
>hate and contempt of perceived failures
A leftist is someone who wants to save hurting foreigners, a rightist is someone who shames them for needing to be "saved".
anonymousconservative.com
It's a long ass read, but it will answer any questions you might have.
That chart simplifies things quite a bit but it is a good starting point. It should really be in 2D, or even 3D as there is a difference between Authoritarian and Libertarian left and right etc.
Authoritarian western leftism is born from the same sentiment that dualistic religions of the past were. The fundamental axiom is that of a struggle between an unambiguous good and an unambiguous evil. Within their belief systems there is an unambiguous ethic passed down to them from a higher power. This ethic dictates right and wrong for the follower and leaves no room for independent ethical reservations. Since this system is by definition good, everything that lies outside of it is evil and must be attacked. Furthermore they believe that the natural state of the world is good. If anything bad ever happens then it must be the result of the conscious action of a malicious force. Keeping along with that same line of reasoning reveals a telling statement about human agency. The statement being that people are automata. And that they behave in very predictable ways when left to their own devices. The leftist leader thinks of themselves as a sort of shepherd. If the shepherd wasn't there the sheep would fall prey to wolves. Were there no wolves the sheep would leave in peace among eachother. In the presence of a malicious force the leftist leader, seeing themselves as being above and beyond the common man, takes it upon themselves to curtail the free action of his livestock, to prevent them from coming to a ruinous end at the hands of some great devil. (cont)
So according to this leftyism is part of the brain?
A lot of them were children of single mothers, at least from those I've spoken to.
Back on the point of devils; the leftist mentality is always dualist in nature. If there is a problem it is never incidental to the nature of the subject matter. It is consciously being caused by some wicked force. And if that wicked force were only weeded out there would be harmony. They see the chosen force, be it the rich or the banks or whatever, as a pure devil rather than human beings. They decry the utility and humanity of their chosen antagonist, and do everything in the name of a crusade against this enemy. Ironically, the stated goals are almost always in conflict with the actions of such groups. But since they see themselves as an unequivocal good, they proceed as the crusader did, believing that their infallible god will cover their mistakes. Whenever they fail to achueve a goal they take it as evidence of an even greater evil behind the scenes, and resolve to replay the dualist drama on a larger scale against a different devil, lest they admit defeat and consequently the fallibility of their god. The pathological crusader mindset is actually aggravated by atheism rather than diminished by it. For a Christian falling in the holy land, there is Paradise as a reward. The only reward for materialist martyrdom is the satisfaction of any masochistic tendencies that may have been incidental to the ordeal. For mortal, failure is not an option. Death is a dead end. And giving up will leave them without purpose, a fate worse than death. The only option is to continue the fight even if there's no hope of victory. Because victory was never the goal in the first place.(cont)
>Another fact I've realized is the consistency of historical "left" revolutions, most revolutions are by nature left-formed.
I am not sure about that one. Could you explain further?
There are in this world true idealists or utopians who believe in some form of perfect world just over the horizon. However, a utopia can only instilled and maintained by methoods that most utopians disaprove of. The freedom fighter is rather the pathological revolutionary. These are the people for whom the goal and the struggle are both rebelion. After most successful revolutions, for instance in the soviet union and Cuba, you will see a purging of supporters that helped the current regime cpme to power. This no accident, nor is it coincidence. The pathological revolutionary is not ideaological, although they may believe that they are. To them, order itself is the enemy. It would be no sooner than the success of a communist revolution, that the same revolutionaries woukd be claiming that this new order is not true communism and must be dismantled. For them, victory is transitory. There must be constant revolution in order to satisfy them. It's how they draw meaning from a sterile and mechanical world. The combination of utopians, such as Karl Marx, revolutionaries, such as Trotsky, and authoritarian planners, such as Stalin, is what makes up the body of all leftisim and authoritarianism in general. A utopian tells the masses that everything would be perfect, if only some small wrong were righted. This spurs the revolutionaries to action and tempts the ordinary man to tolerance. Once the revolutionaries have succeeded, the planners purge them, and either attempt to exploit the consolidation of power, or sincerely believe that they are above their fellow men in terms of humanity. No matter which, the result is the same.
>left
>diplomacy; pacifism
topkek
>falsely calls marx an utopian
>is unironically an ancap
Where are the roads nigger?
Im not ancap. I'm just using it for illustrative purposes. And he wasn't strictly utopian but had utopian tendencies in his writings by ignoring that human nature was the sorce of most of the problems that he identified.
I make all arguments based on actual verifiable evidence. Not that I just post stats but understanding the context around them as well.
Conservashits just work off of feelies
Russian revolution, french revolution, german revolution, mexican revolution, chinese revolution
>It is consciously being caused by some wicked force. And if that wicked force were only weeded out there would be harmony
And this is false as well. Right-wingers are notorious for thinking that outside forces are what make the system fail, while leftists think that internal forces of said system is what makes it fall.
left wingers consider their political opponents to be evil rather than just wrong. This is an important distinction because if one is evil than one cannot ever be bargained with or tolerated but if one is just wrong, than one can be bargained with and tolerated. the majority of right wingers think left wingers are just wrong and not necessarily evil.
You seem to misunderstand the statement entirely. The point is that there is something that a specific conscious antagonist is chosen to play the role of the evil for the duration of the campaign. It's unacceptable to say that such things may be of no one's fault but instead incidental and inherent problems that can be worked on pragmatically and judiciously regarldess of other forces. There is always an enemy. Furthermore this applies to all authoritarians. Not just left wing ones. But op asked about the left wing so I tried to determine what left wing meant to them and explain it from that point of view. In reality left/right dichotomy is entirely meaningless and vague so as to be useless in any critical discussion of specific institutions or phenomena of government and politics.
IF communism is so perfect then, how does it fail from "internal forces"?
Sure you do.
Are you guys talking about liberals? Because if so, then I agree. If you're talking about socialists, then you're dead wrong. Socialists recognize that there are internal contradictions in the current system, while liberals think that the ''white cis patriarchy'' is the evil behind all things.
Communism is not perfect (no system is), and neither has it ever been achieved. At best, we've had USSR trying to cheat history with state capitalism. It didn't work.
Socialists have the same problems outlined in the first post. The socialist planner sees the common person as less capable of making their own decisions as themself. Planners for others infringe on their freedom to varying degrees. The cardinal sin here is that the socialist believes that they have more insight into the affairs of the collective than the collective itself. And thus attempt to herd them in the direction they think is most appropriate, as if they weren't humans of the same mental faculty. This is not to mention that Socialism necessarily involves state sanctioned robery in order to achieve its goals. This is different from taxation, which is a fair fee for common use services. Socialism is targeted, and therefore biased or at the very least inequal in the treatment of citizens. Socialism can only be maintained by methods of which most socialists disaprove. This herding cannot be maintained without implicit threats of violence against violators of the planner's designs. And what of these violations? Are they seen as internal factors? The problems that arise within? If they are indeed correct in all their dealings with the people's rebellion, then the socialist government is exceptionally gifted, on par with gods of government. If not, then they are simply engaging in oppression to satisfy some personal designs. In this way the socialist sees the citizen, not as a human being but as raw material for some end, or perhaps the end itself, but not as a free man with free will.
bump, I want to hear more about how right wingers pathologize leftists.
Inability to understand or emphasise with another point of view is a common sign of autism.
Inability to understand economics is...?
