Is the Left Better Organized than the Right?

This might be old news, so to speak, but here it is: storify.com/sphenoid/days-of-rage-pt-5-finale-what-does-it-portend

This David Hines guy is trying (after having read the book 'Days of Rage') to make the case that the left would likely overtake the right in a time of violent, civil unrest. He argues that the left is more organized and has more infrastructure and resources than the right, and as a result, the left would swiftly do away with the right.

This actually makes some sense if you consider the far-reaching infrastructure that the left has created in western society. For example:

>The MSM
>Planned Parenthood/Pro-Choice Lobby
>Global Warming Lobby
>Hollywood
>The National Lawyers Guild
>Corporations like Starbuck's, Amazon, Disney, etc.
>Much of Academia-- especially the humanities
>Arguably the CIA
>George Soros
>The Obama DOJ
>Canada

The right has the NRA and perhaps the military which means that they seem to command the field with respect to weaponry, but Hines argues that it isn't certain that the US military would fire on US citizens. I'm not sure either.

If you look at prominent right-wing rallies/gatherings, they are routinely disrupted by out-of-state, paid protesters. The same cannot be said of left-wing gatherings. For 8 years (or really 10 years if you include the last two years of the Bush admin, after he lost the trust of the American people) the left has basically had free reign to have its gatherings and push policy points without much pushback from the right. The only course of action for the right has been congressional obstruction.

I guess there's a reason it's called the silent majority, right? They aren't the ones out there trying to make a difference on the streets. The silent mostly relevant during election years. If that system breaks down, who knows if they could take the left.

>If that system breaks down, who knows if they could take the left.
If the system breaks down the left isn't left with anything it can win with lol

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

"The Left" today is actually a criminal syndicate. It's just our cartels. They discovered a few things. Firstly, they discovered that the taboo against arresting political dissidents is so strong that making criminals dissidents protects them from the police. Secondly, they discovered that by taking up certain specific politics, they could have excuses to crack down on police whenever they rose into office. Equality isn't just not on the agenda, it's not allowed to be on the agenda: these are people who will not tolerate anything less than being completely above the law.
Search your brain! You know it to be true! We have watched people die for this!

I suppose it's more like the left is more adept at manipulating the system such that once it breaks down (which seems to be its goal) they are better off due to their preparation than the right is.

Maybe 40 years ago. Nowadays it's possibly the other way around.
Although it'd be more accurate to say both the Left and the Right are disorganized, only the top-1% kikes are truly "organized" - through such globalist & statist instutitions such as the UN, World Bank, EU, USA Deep State, etc. etc. This group has taken over the governmental reformist Left. It has also incorporated a lot of Rightist ideals into their rhetoric.
Ultimately, both the Left and the Right get played by (((them))).

Zionists trash

>The MSM
Globalist, liberal & definitely not Leftist.

>Planned Parenthood/Pro-Choice Lobby
Leftist.

>Global Warming Lobby
Globalist & liberal.

>Hollywood
Globalist, liberal & definitely not Leftist.

>The National Lawyers Guild
Globalist, liberal & definitely not Leftist.

>Corporations like Starbuck's, Amazon, Disney, etc.
Globalist, liberal & definitely not Leftist.

>Much of Academia-- especially the humanities
Globalist, liberal & definitely not Leftist.

>Arguably the CIA
Globalist & definitely not Leftist.

>George Soros
Globalist & definitely not Leftist.


It seems, OP, you've mistaken the real Left for the neoliberal Democrat consensus that has appropriate the true Left's label for their own anti-white NGO agenda.

>left
>fairness

alright i chuckled

liberal I think you mean progressive

All these labels have been rendered useless many years ago anyway.

But it's the "top-1% kikes" who are using *left-wing ideology* to organize large swaths of people. They may have their own interests, but the people they control are more obedient than and outnumber the right.

Picture is accurate in some respects, but not overall.

Also the meme of the left caring for the poor is a complete fucking lie. People on the right give far more to charity than those on the left.

This picture has an incredible amount of leftist bias

>the left can get hundreds of unarmed teens and 20 somethings into the streets to protest
>the right can put a single man with a rifle on an island with these same leftists and render their "(((organization)))" useless
SO MUCH FOR THE ORGANIZED LEFT

I mean, the terms here are being used vaguely. I can specify in what sense I'm using them.

Liberal, progressive, and leftist refer broadly to both theoretical and practical politics that are characterized by excessive economic redistribution and political correctness and its concomitants (e.g. feminism, gender politics, etc.). Basically politics that aren't centrist or right-wing. These politics also tend to be more authoritarian than not.

I tend to use 'liberal' to mean something closer to 'classical Lockean liberal' or 'libertarian' when I speak with people I know, but the public has coopted the word and conflated it with leftism, so when in Rome..

>the "top-1% kikes" who are using *left-wing ideology*
They don't. The use cheap partisan lip service and emotional appeals to keep one half of the population loyal. Then they turn around and pour money into the second half of the spectrum, the one that dishes out cheap partisan lip service to the Right.

If you still think the top-bottom dichotomy mirrors the Left-Right dichotomy, or any other standard partisan dualism the mass media is desperate to make you a blind follower of one side of, it simply means you've yet to swallow the biggest red pill of them all.

Our cuckservative politicians are globalist who do nothing to fight back or organize

So what, the left is relying on Disney to bankroll mercenaries to fight their battles?
I don't think the US military would have any qualms fighting what amounts to a treasonously funded foreign invasion

Agreed. The picture gets some things wrong. See also, the equity vs equality distinction. Doesn't the right care more about liberty than equity? Or do those binaries not line up so neatly?

That's exactly right. The left only cares about equity.

>economic redistribution
Material concept.

>political correctness
Cultural concept.

>authoritarian
Political concept.

You see what you're doing here? You're blending in a bunch of really quite dispersed ideas which have no real reason to be in any way linked or "packaged" together into one broad umbrella label. It is this narrow mindedness that "mainstream" media and the school system has been hammering into you from the day you've been old enough to not shit your pants.
Realize this: There is no actual reason why these things need to go together. There's no reason why we can't have material redistribution combined with cultural traditionalism, or any other grabbag mix of stances that do no conflict.

This is both true and stupid. The left is better organized because individually they are much weaker and less self reliant than the right.
Thinking that the right can't organize it's self in the blink of an eye means you don't understand the dirty little secret of the anglosaxon brain.

The Right doesn't care about liberty. The Right cares more about order and societal stability. The Left are the ones who push for limitless & unaccountable freedom.

So you're telling me that there is no real, non-trivial left-right dichotomy at play in society?

I don't doubt the validity of the top-down dichotomy, but I don't think that it's the entire story.

Being that we don't have access the exact motivations as to why the "top-1% percent kikes" do what they do, I think that it is more prudent to represent them as actually buying what they say. That's actually more dangerous than hollow posturing. If anything, we're safer to believe the latter if we lack solid evidence of the former.

And don't tell me that you no the exact, psychological dispositions and motivations of the global elite..you don't anymore than you understand the dispositions and motivations of a TV character. Our access to them is the same.

Leftists aren't "fulfilled adults" at all. All of them are on antidepressants a couple steps away from suicide 24/7.

The left's ranks are swelled with 18-25 year olds with very few life experiences which makes them very moldable. Add youthful exuberance and you've for a pretty handy zombie army

Hell no.

Okay retard. I'm not saying that economic redistribution, PC, and authoritarianism are mutually inclusive to one another. I'm saying that these are equally pernicious forces compelling half of the population to act crazy.

By including those concepts together, all I'm doing is creating a partial picture of the current socio-political state of things.

My estimation is not narrow bipartisanism. I'm not ham-fistedly trying to force these concepts under one heading, I'm just trying my best to describe material reality.

Now I'm the retard for accidentally same-fagging

>Okay retard. I'm not saying that economic redistribution, PC, and authoritarianism are mutually inclusive to one another. I'm saying that these are equally pernicious forces compelling half of the population to act crazy.
>By including those concepts together, all I'm doing is creating a partial picture of the current socio-political state of things.
>My estimation is not narrow bipartisanism. I'm not ham-fistedly trying to force these concepts under one heading, I'm just trying my best to describe material reality.

This was meant for (You)

The only liberty the left pushes is that of tolerance and apathy of behaviors that are damaging to society and the complete antithesis of economic freedom.

Besides there are plenty of people on the right who don't give a fuck what you do, be a fag, trap, or nigger w/e. Just leave everyone else the fuck alone. The left does not operate in a libertarian fashion at all.

>implying globalism and liberalism arnt leftist
Shlomo pls

The Left is "doves". fucking hell....

This is an important point, I think.

The right used to be in everyone's business-- think 50's America, as well as the Satanic panic-- but I'd imagine that this board would argue that the gov't was justified at least in the case of 50's America as it is the shining exemplar of the family unit something something yaddah yaddah. I don't have an opinion on this, currently.

As usual, the author confuses the willingness to use political violence with the capacity to do so. Yes, the left is more likely to take to the streets in large (and increasingly futile) mass protests. And even that is hardly linked to an ideology, as the right has been pulling things like the March for Life for years.

Further, the left is historically more willing to harbor political criminals, such as the Weathermen. However, both of these categories, which are the basis of any given "The left will win the civil war!" article are ultimately useless in the face of civil breakdown. The right is has more groups in organized, albeit disparate militias. They are more likely to own fire arms and practice self sufficiency. And importantly, in recent years they are less likely to initiate violence. This is particularly important given that whoever strikes first will likely lose the support of the Police and Military, organizations that will already overwhelmingly sympathize with the left.

Ultimately what i comes down to is a monopoly on violence which the right has in spades. The vast majority of gun owners the police and the military and more people willing to fight and die for their cause. What we have seen since the Trump election is for the first time in god knows how long the Right wing has taken to the streets and we've found out we're pretty good at street fighting which i would count as a start to organizational prowess and its only gonna get better from here. The military might not fire on US citizens but you can bet the defectors will when they find out Xavier Bourgeoise plans to tear down their local church and replace it with a mosque and or trans gender activist center.

Ever since retaking full control and crushing the lower classes after 1970 (but really after WW2), the elites have maintained a very strict and very consistent polity of economic liberalization, financial deregulation, governmental bloat, fiat currency shenanigans, open borders, and in general a very pro-big-business and pro-finance government policies.

The idea that the elite is even spread left-wing propaganda is simply false. The elite are conspicuously silent themselves. The ones who do the 'speaking' are the sub-elite class - the ~5% directly below the top 1%. They are the media, they are the academia, they are hollywood. Not the managerial people and the bankers who own their corporations.
The elite IS "left-wing", at least partially, and at least in the sense the concepts of Left and Right have been twisted by 200 years of political cockfighting. But they're only "left-wing" in the same way urban elites have always been "left-wing": metropolitan acceptance and openness, a natural consequence of being liberated by their own power from any national, legal, communal, social or familial obligation.

>tolerance and apathy of behaviors that are damaging to society
So - liberty, then?
This is what liberty is all about - do what you want, consequences be damned. Anything less is just diluted trash. The only difference between political ideologies is how much rosewater you mix into it.

>equity on the right and equality on the left
whoever made this chart got a few things backwards

Thats not to say we should rest on our Laurels however we should always try to increase our organization effectiveness and fighting prowess

It's not liberty when it's being shoved down your throat and must be accepted otherwise your a racist, homophobic, bigot, Israeli.

The left deliver themselves from economic consequence via social welfare and affirmative action type initiatives.

Someone on the right who is libertarian minded doesn't care if you suck feminine dicks and shoot H into your dick. They just don't want to pay for the failure you call your life or force people hire/associate with you.

It's not liberty at all.

From this diagram, if you are male and you are left, you truly are absolute worst POS that inhabit this earth

>Arguably the CIA

The CIA is run by the Mormons who just want to put themselves in control over everything.

>Further, the left is historically more willing to harbor political criminals, such as the Weathermen. However, both of these categories, which are the basis of any given "The left will win the civil war!" article are ultimately useless in the face of civil breakdown. The right is has more groups in organized, albeit disparate militias. They are more likely to own fire arms and practice self sufficiency. And importantly, in recent years they are less likely to initiate violence. This is particularly important given that whoever strikes first will likely lose the support of the Police and Military, organizations that will already overwhelmingly sympathize with the left.

These are really good points.

The only infrastructure they have immediately becomes irrelevant in a war. And it doesn't really matter how many warm bodies they can turn out for a protest, since that's a zero risk activity. All those people become liabilities in a civil war. The author is simply retarded.

>you've mistaken the real Left for the neoliberal Democrat
In effect they are 100% the same. They are a de facto alliance and in any war they will be on the same side.

Here's the monkey-wrench--and it's totally hypothetical, but plausible-- what if the left finally figures out that it's gun-control angle isn't working, and they decide to stock up themselves? I'm assuming it would still take a while for them to amass the same wealth of weapons as the right.

And they'd still need to not be pussies around guns and actually learn how to use them. I do know that the right has a massive cultural advantage on the left in this respect.

>the left's goal
>is personal freedom
what

that's the old-school liberal goal. They lost that in part during the 80s and 90s due to paleo-political correctness.

>goal: personal freedom
>government: interfere with society and social life

>what if the left finally figures out that it's gun-control angle isn't working, and they decide to stock up themselves?
It doesn't matter. "The left" is 75% female and 99% worthless. The amount if people they can actually mobilize is very small, and the rest is dead weight or a liability. The right can mobilize a much larger section of it's people, and they have skills and experience (combat vets who are almost all right wing).

The right actually has much more to worry about if things *don't* go violent, because the left controls almost all of the peacetime institutions and it is only a matter of time before the can wipe us out with institutional power. Without that, they have very little.

yeah, a college kid or recent college graduate definitely made this chart.

Errors and leftist bias abound.

Still a pretty cool picture to look through, however.

Best hypothesis is that this guy is a crypto-leftist attempting FUD and concern trolling

That's the way it use to be back in Hunter S. Thompson's days. The left formed anti-government militias which have been taken over by fat fuck survivalist boomer retards who lick up the CIA's butthole.

Hmmm, maybe I've been thinking about this in the inverse. You're saying that the left stands to gain more if the institutions are upheld..I'm trying to figure if that's a feature of leftist-ideology or if it's a feature of the pussy-foots who exemplify it. Soviet leftists were bad ass and didn't have problems being violent. But I suppose that's largely due to a cultural and historical difference.

But old-school liberals wanted economic freedom as well. Old-school liberals are not leftists anyway.

Yeah, I have a former prof who is really shaken about "what's happened to liberalism." He talks about how liberals used to champion personal and economic liberty and how they would sacrifice narrow, national interests for global interests-- and not this (((global interest))) stuff today.

My prof routinely questions whether or not he's a liberal at all these days. My conclusion is that contemporary libertarians are closer to old-school liberals than are progressives.

>But I suppose that's largely due to a cultural and historical difference
Obviously early-mid 20th century slavs are not made of the same stuff as the American champagne socialist set.

Actually, better hypothesis after reading his twitter. David Hines is IC, attepting to corral the right wing back into the stable. His Jacobite mag reads like standard controlled opp gatekeeping.

the left currently has no money outside of what evil billionaires shit on them
they have no org other than what they over-pay for
they have no guns other than the police they stupidly decided to be AGAINST at this point in history
the left is dead short of a stead injection of low IQ meat
they know this
we know this
when you faggots stop giving them attention they will die entirely

When shit hits the fan CNN aint gonna save you.

What could give leftists a boost is that they are truly international and serve globalist interests, so foreign/globalist parties would give them reinforcement. Inflows of weaponry and so on.