by Occult Means Hidden » Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:46 am
I posted this in the conformity video thread. In short, RI isn't pro-left. It's pro correct and pro majority (as in most people welfare in accordance with the golden rule's conception of freedom and not pro-majority as the majority's attitude in this or that idea)...
From the heart: I completely agree that a need to abandon a left/right way of describing social politics needs to be done for change to occur.
1) left/right gives the psychological impression that the "two" alternatives (and only two, either/or) are on par with each other. Their association with left/right is itself an association with lateral linear thinking. They are on the same "level". There is no hierarchy in this system. Thus, no way to determine root causes. Only attitudes and attitudes are spontaneous, random and enscribed by varied experience. How does one hope to bring about a synthesis from such a setup when there will always be division? i.e., It's "human nature" they say. Hence no free will.
2.) There is ony "corrrect" and "incorrect" insofar as what is universally deemed so - common respect, the golden rule. Being the left isn't being the right, which is being right - correct. Do you know that the word "sinister" means left? There is a deep tradition as to why. Right means right. So if most people naturally gravitate to a center-left (which I believe they do in the existing model, with flaws), then you need further psychological associations to distance them from recognizing their own empowerment.
3.) Most people are right handed, right legged. Most people are right-eyed dominant. When facing the north, the sun rises on the right. The west/left is where it falls, dark and death (moon is sin). Maps are made to view the right to the east. They could have just as easily been designed to face the other direction since the south for most of humanity has greater light - but that would empower the left rising sun. The place of the right-side is the place of the good and powerful in tradition, history and masonic mythology (my right-hand man, etc.). This attempts to edge out a righteous rightest (conservative) attitude preference above the left. The right is masculine, the left feminine. How many times have Limbaugh ilk described democrats as weak, faggots, or girly? An understanding of fascism shows a strong and well understood compartmentalization of the feminine. The feminine tendency has always been known to be more egalitarian. During times of turmoil (and turmoil is the new normal), the fascist rightest tendencies are embraced for its strength. Right is might.
4.) When lateral choices in this manner: 1, 2, 3, 4 - most choose the option behind door number 3 because their predisposed bias to the right side of their experience. - Preference theory, no citation.
5.) the right/left paradigm's inabillity to decide root causes because its inability to recognize hierarchy - gives rise to the perception of false hierarchies. Liberal elites and George Soros and ACORN. Conservative George W. Bush and not corporations.
Suppose instead of just liberal elites, or conservative elites, it could just be elites? This moves the thinking from a lateral to a hierachial, top-down perspective. This is threatening to the institutions that constitute that hierachy.
6.) Divide and conquer. Many people can root FANATICALLY for their home sports team. They idenify themselves through this association. Once this self-identification takes place, people cannot be easily divorced from choosing their side. People wear their sport teams jerseys, have it as wallpaper on their myspace profiles, introduce themselves as New York Yankees fans. No hierachy, means false hierachies, means wrong actions and attentions that have no threat to the actual hierarchies.
7.) Liberal and conservative are "tendencies" that don't fit the mold of left/right as well as political "scientists" love to believe. Liberal is a dictionary tendency to liberalism or dictionary libertarianism or freedom. Conservatism, is at it's root, conservation, a mere delay in the liberal tendency while debating the right course of action toward the liberated freedom. The utopian idealized idea is to work toward full freedom until other's freedom is infringed.
"Liberal" is co-opted as something bad. Just as "democrat" is co-opted as something bad, and not say, one who espouses democracy - a disempowerment of hierarchy. A Republican, the one supported by rightists, is one who merely espouses a republican (representative) form of government - which isn't necessarily a democracy and not necessarily anti-hierachial. The meanings are stolen. The fact that "conservative" has more syllables than, "liberal" makes it more difficult to degrade into meaningful derision - see: niggers, spics, libs, commies, etc. What are we going to do? Call conservatives cons? Connies, er, conservies? Rightists (correctists)? This is an effect of Neuro-linguisitic Programming.
8.) When meaning are stolen: ie liberal = lucifer, conservative = pro-life (who isn't pro-life anyway?), it is impossible to communicate. This is evidenced by our very own political process. There is no "debate" as a means toward greater freedom. Merely stolen ideas meaning the opposite to opposite people as a means to disempower.
Gee, I guess since you aren't pro-life, for life, you are against life and love. Is that it?
9.) Liberals even abandoned the "liberal" monicker in favor of a potentially left/right transcending "progressive". This confirms that "liberals" are the ones needing to redefine themselves, thus they are the weaker, and perhaps therefore also the more incorrect "side", and the minority. Even minorities are liberals. Closer inspection shows "liberals" not even able to get along with each other. Self-described socialist and communists/anarchists, liberal politicians and libertarian free-marketers have little in-common. One would even say, often, they are diametrically opposed. The "left" being the people's greater inclination, is more so, even more fractured. Some don't realize this fracturing is the result of it being a "people's party". Why else, are blacks, whites, hispanics, commies, liberal democrats, etc, grouped together, versus a near homogenous conservative rightist coalition? Hierachies need this setup to disempower the "anarchies". Rightists love to believe that the media is liberal. Reactionary liberals act the defensive. Whereas the true system shows the media hierarchy as being both in practice and organizationally pro-hierachy.
To progress forward is to move forward from left/right determinations. Now to be progressive is to be left, which is to be... etc...
10.) The left/right paradigm gives false alternatives. The extreme left of the left side is Communism, the extreme right of the right side is fascism. Both are totalitarian and extremely hierarchial. The only sensible option is to find "middle" ground, or constant compromise in the center. The center is a realm of compromise with fascists and hierachists. Compromise with them, is giving into their tendency. Some espouse the middle/center as to what is really the divorced left/right paradigm. "I'm open-minded, hence i'm middle center". Furthermore, even the meaning of communism is completely divorced of meaning. Notice it's the left "side" that is divorced of this meaning? Communism means worker control of industry (capital generators). This means disempowerment of hierarchy to a degree because everyone is a worker, it means a democracy more radical (to the root) than the current state of affairs. The difference between fascism and communism was supposedly that fascism is a hierachy involving "capitalism" (a whole other conversation) + government, while communism is a hierachy involving government. Wow, the difference is stunning...
Anarchism is radical democracy. Radical democracy is for the criminals supposedly, and not as Chomsky describes: not a rejection of government, but a rejection of illegitimate government, government that isn't by democratic consensus.
Workers were never in control in Russia. They were as communist as America is democratic. China had even less of a pretense of democratic communism - yet the history books are written. Who are the victors?
Rage against the ever vicious downward spiral.
Time to get back to basics. [url=http://zmag.org/zmi/readlabor.htm]Worker Control of Industry![/url]
