/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>482939
>Why is it that as different political parties become more similar in terms of policy, the greater the political strive and conflict in the political arena ?
My uyghur Noam has your answer on that.

>should the left have lumped those parties with similar politics together. As in referring to a Labori party or a Democrublican party ? In order to create a new 2-way choice the-left vs the-other-lumpbable-parties
The corporate media created this false dichotomy not the left. Although many people on the left are too stupid to understand that corporations own the mainstream media and fall for the propaganda.

>>482941
>My uyghur Noam has your answer on that.
Ok that's a pretty good political explanation, but it's still missing the part why it works on people ?

>>482941
Wait, was Dugin right then? When he pushes for expanding beyond just "you can only be a liberal, fascist, or communist, and nothing else" theory?? Chomskyism-Duginism?

>>482942
>it's still missing the part why it works on people ?
Because humans are not rational they evolved to stay close to the herd. It doesn't matter how retarded the mainstream narrative is. Remember that for 100s of years everyone pretended to believe a virgin gave birth to the son of god who could cure any illness and was immortal but neither him or any of his friends are around anymore for some reason. When the mainstream narrative is that there are 300 genders and socialism works then people pretend to believe that shit too.

>>482939
Because it's all a show to keep the overton window firmly on the right. If the Democrats are "far left" then they can paint anyone to the left of them as radicals.

>>482946
There's literally no mainstream representation for "workers should own the means of production" as a concept, the question of what property and absentee ownership even mean or contribute is largely unasked in the MSM. The Dems don't even let lite SocDems get nominated anymore. Meanwhile, Reagan was being advised by Milton Friedman, and the (failed, but predominant) ideology of neoliberal economics is descended from Friedman and Hayek.

Also there are 3 genders, and I knew it decades before the powers-that-be decided that it needed to be relitigated again. No social pressure is needed to accept that "two" doesn't even cover the entire span of biological sex, there is a large enough minority of people born with bodies which cannot be reasonably put into the category of "male" or "female," that the "conventional wisdom" of binary sexuality was always just as much a product of herd mentality and mass delusion. 300 is still stupid, though, I'd agree with that, "neogenders" and "xenogenders" and whatever are just products of political consumerism to sell identities like Funko Pops.

The "discourse" has never reflected the reality of policy. Policy was never up for discussion as if it would seriously be different. What is carried out in the contest of political factions are the personal struggles of men, rather than "ideology" or a belief that they are going to impose radically different policies.

In the past, the policy of states was more flexible, because "rule of law" meant something different, and in practice, "rule of man" was understood as the status quo - that laws were written by and enforced by men, and that both the law and men were limited. The state of the past was a smaller thing, and while its principle claims were always "everything in the world", its actual force to change the world was far weaker than any threat it could make to the world or anything in it. What changed in the 20th century was the continued expansion of bureaucratic states and institutions, and the destruction of private life. When that happens, any policy changes would be anathema to the ruling project. There is too much inertia of the institutions, so much that they can never "wither away" or change of their own accord, and they cannot die. They can only devour the world in an effort to arrest history. In that environment, there really isn't a policy prescription that will be different - "the system is always right", and "we can't give up the institutions". The left was pathologically given over to this, and embraced all of the imperatives and interests of the traditional right.

In effect, human history has frozen in a moment of terror. The ideal, should this continue, is simple. "All life dies screaming, forever." That's what we are looking at, unless humans want it to be different.

I ask you all though, what policy could you even impelement and realize, given what the institutions are - what humans themselves are at this time in history? To really make something different is so far removed from humanity's potentials that it might as well be a fantasy story. We could of course do something very different at a personal level or by collective cooperation. We can stop doing this any time, and the society can change tomorrow if there were a will for it. There is nothing "in" humanity that will allow this, and aside from the inertia of what has been set in motion, there is a much stronger imperative and interest in humanity that very much wants this torture to continue. They do not ever think for a moment that it should be different, and if you spoke to them of such a thing, it is inadmissible except as "insanity" or "retarded". A Satanic race is consigned to its fate. I can only weep so much for the race. I would instead salvage the souls of this accursed race, if that is possible, but it won't do a lot of good, and I can't even save myself for much. All I'm doing now is a thing that might help a few people, since that is what I can do with what is left. I won't be able to do so for much longer, given what the world is becoming, and the embrace of Satanic faggotry among the vilest of this race.

If you wanted the world to be different, it would not be in the realm of "policy". The state's purview, what it does, is not what you're thinking it is. The best thing the state could do is let us live and not enable the worst of humanity, but who are the people who hold the state? What is the state constitutionally when it goes off its rocker? Humans are an insane race, irredeemable.

As for "the workers owning the means of production" - the solution to that isn't the state asserting that you can, without any way to actually do so. The means of production are the workman's tools, which are now social property. Workers individually do not own a factory, and factories cannot be chopped up and sold as shares or stock. If you are thinking of that, you're thinking of capitalism through and through. The workers are told they should take on the thought and aims of the capitalist, who is an alien to them. The capitalist never suggested seriously that he was "one of us" or that such a thing was desirable for either party. The workers have always held the entire regime of property in contempt, since what they desired was property of their own. Democratic society is not possible without genuine property and wealth. A commonwealth - a republic - is entirely alien to that, yet it has been the preferred form of the state for a variety of historical reasons. There is nothing in human history other than republics or despotism, or things which contain the aims of both. Historically the aim was to find some happy medium between a republic - anarchy - and despotism, both of which are understood to be monstrous and ruinous to anything a human being would want.

It is possible for workers to share wealth, but not without wealth regarding their person that is substantial. A worker without wealth and personal property sufficient for their independent survival cannot be a worker - cannot even be a slave, for a slave holds something to even present for work. Slaves do not survive on nothing, and every slavery in history has been acutely aware of that. German aristocrat fags, coping that they don't get all of the slaves and colonies that actually competent empires did throughout history, insist their failed culture and race is the bestest ever.

In other words, a "worker's republic" in the genuine sense would be something very different from anything humanity has done - perhaps impossible, given what humanity chose to do with its time. Very likely, such a thing would abandon outright all of the conceits of republicanism. At present though, humanity is consigned to its final fate of a peculiar form of despotism. There is nothing left of the republic but eugenics, and that was the only "other system" that was suggested as an alternative. The republican state that did arise was little more than an aristocratic get-rich-quick scheme, which is why most of humanity refused to entertain the insanity of a republic, considered it some species of treason if they didn't laugh at the idea. The best you could manage at this point is a relatively benign form of scientific despotism (and this is what Marxism and its offshoots would have led to - it was inherent in Marx's view of the world, society, and human nature, and yes, Marx explicitly invoked human nature throughout his writing and upheld it, and we know what humanity's nature really was in hindsight… I refuse to believe he was ignorant about what he was aiming for or the interests he really wrote to).

I briefly entertain the possibility of what might have been, and there are three "future societies" which have been effectively averted for any foreseeable future. One is the technocratic hive - humans become something like a Borg collective and shed their conceits about themselves. This is what would have happened "naturally" if humans were basically good, but they're not, so such a society would be impossible without significant modifications to the goal. The outcome ultimately would be difficult to describe with our present faculties. The second future society would be a religious theocracy of new type - the final outcome of the trajectory of spiritual authority. This would only be possible if there is a will within humanity, or something in the world, that imposed it. This basically would have to require a god or something like it to be real, and for humans to not devolve into cargo cult thinking which has been the majority of religious superstition. This is the more likely outcome given the fate of humanity being scientific despotism. The final outcome would be the lowest class finally having its day and attaining standing such that they could enter the political class and end the cycle of ritual sacrifice which at the center of the human project. Given that this IS what humans really are, it would mean a terrible retribution unlike anything this sorry race ever knew. It is very likely that the lowest class, having known nothing but lies, would elect to simply eliminate the human race and its historical line in total, because we know it will only get worse, and everything they did cannot be abided if we had any say in the matter. But, if this did happen, and for whatever reason a continued existence of humanity was sanctioned in any form, it would likely entail the thinking of the lowest class and what it would want, and that is a very different world from what most of you are striving for. That fate would, in the end, be the "only way out". The other two future societies would either turn viciously against the lowest class and degrade much as republics did, for the same reason, or they would see that the human project was a failure - we already see that - and question whether we should continue doing any of this. It would mean a total break with history as we have known it. It would become impossible to predict the world by any method we use, and with it, political society would be bulit on foundations that are difficult to predict. There would be a very different situation to fear which makes the political a clear and present necessity. This is not new - human beins face novel threats throughout their history. What is often forgotten is that, despite the ruling ideas that "nothing ever changes", human existence has changed more radically in the past 50 years than it did in the prior 500 years. Just when human beings had for the first time potential to see the extent of their folly and how it might be different, the ruling ideas clamped down - almost as if it were a cosmic joke against this absurd race.

In any event, the appearance of political faction has largely been illusory. These people, at the end of the day, have far more shared interest in suppressing their mutual enemies. The aristocratic republic largely allows their contest to be carried out in a regulated manner, without interference from the lower orders as they have assigned us to be. In the past, the new aristocracy was not as locked-in, since they were at heart men and women not too different from those they lorded over in ability and mentality. The aristocracy marks their distinction in many ways, but they did not possess any particularly necessary ability. The technocratic regime conspired to enshrine the new aristocracy and make its position permanent through unlimited torture and humiliation, but that torture and humiliation was not enough on the terms technocracy was established. It could only degenerate into eugenism and the aristocratic civic religion.

Scientific despotism, the "final form" of human government, will arise - has already been effectively founded - because it is the only state that will retain civilization. What will come of it depends on what eugenists can get away with. Should eugenism truly prevail, there will be nothing else. The republic will devour all the world, and all life dies screaming forever.

With those stakes clear and present, you really don't have much room for policy prescriptions, except maintenance of the very large institutions above the people. Even if someone wanted to do something different, what would be the point, except maintenance of institutions which largely made the world as they pleased? The whole point of doing this was to make sure the workers were defeated, because democracy was anathema to the very institutions that would be fed by policy. Otherwise, the policy is very simple - the workers would take back their stuff, and never allow something as beastial as a republic to exist again.

>>482983
>>482984
>>482985
>>482986
>>482987
>>482988
>>482989
>>482990
>>482991
You make a few interesting points about the state, policy and human potentials, but all the demoralizing fatalism makes it tedious to read. I don't mean you shouldn't talk about all the bad stuff, but there's very little analysis, no potentially empowering insights, it's mostly just existential dread. Reading that requires al lot of mental effort, detecting and cognitively marking all the the emotional baggage so that it doesn't affect ones mood.

talk more about this
>We could of course do something very different at a personal level or by collective cooperation. We can stop doing this any time, and the society can change tomorrow if there were a will for it.

Or explain why you think the borg collective would be good a future ?
>One is the technocratic hive - humans become something like a Borg collective and shed their conceits about themselves. This is what would have happened "naturally" if humans were basically good

>>482995
I'm analyzing the situation to explain why we're stuck in this trap, not analyzing to find the first aspersion that feels good and confirms what I wanted reality to be based on "me wantee". If I wanted to change the world, and I do, this approach you suggest is a terrible way to do that - leads to people who are easy to goad and cajole, which is part of the problem. All I can say is I'm writing a book about this problem, and while it is not a complete and thorough argument, you could - if you can glean something from it - learn more than you would by this grasping for opportunistic facts, and from that, maybe you could think of something different. What you can't do is the same shit that has failed for centuries and expect different results. There is a reason why this happened, rather than some statement like "human nature" that is thought-terminating.

I don't know why you jumped to thinking this is about "existential dread" or other such faggotry. I make clear that we can stop this any time, but every time that has been suggested as a collective effort of note, there are forces at work that will shut that down no matter what. They know what happens to them and this "total system" if that happens. It would be the end of this cajoling behavior. It would end the project they're trying to capture and co-opt, and the people who think like this come from many angles. No one has a monopoly on this, but the Marxists are experts at "jumping in front" and their approach is very much about that - to do what was necessary to prevent the democratization of knowledge that was happening without any pedagogy insisting on it, because people saw the conditions around them and knew that the world they knew could not hold in any way. There is a obsessive need of the cajolers to insists that history doesn't move until a thought leader declares it has moved, and that "nothing ever really changes" - to retreat to institutional shibboleths when the institutions are the problem, and always have been.

>Or explain why you think the borg collective would be good a future?
If you aren't already suffering enough to answer that, the world we're going to suffer through will make the Borg appear like the right answer to extirpate the menace that is humanity. It's a shame the Borg were wasted, because there is a treasure of potential in the idea that they originally were before the "human supremacy" mentality of that story took over. But then, I don't believe a Borg-like collective would be inherently hostile or averse to diplomacy, or fail to comprehend "individualism". Individualism is a mental pathology that is sadly predictable, but humans don't really know what a collective mind and exchange would mean. They only know their aspersions about "collectivism", because the institutions of the human race are monstrous and exist to forbid this sort of communication between social agents.

Then again, the entire universe of ST is a pure fantasy and probably should be ignored. Space travel and empires are almost certainly a physical impossibility, nor would they really answer what life is here to do. Even if you imagined creatures very different from humanity that could live in conditions compatible with interstellar travel, they still have to ask why they would do any such thing, or what goals they would maintain. Nearly all of the universe is lifeless and hostile to the existence of it, and life itself has uncouth habits that require us to ask if "life" like this is worth living. Funny how that always exempts aristocracy and their fruity cult.

In any event, I dismiss the possibility as a "permanent settlement", because all of the "other systems" turn into the victory of the lowest class in some way against aristocracy. Means the end of humanity and everything they toiled for, everything they sacrificed for. It is more important for humanity to ensure we lose than any benefit to themselves or any sentiment they might have had. That is the judgement of history.

Knowing that, the victory of the lowest class would entail a retribution more terrible than anything that humanity has ever inflicted on us over all of these centuries. I doubt the life that was once human would survive at all afterwards. My expectation, given how history has turned out, would be that such a world would consist of very little. The sole reason for the survivors of the lowest class to continue existing would be to prevent what humanity was from existing again, which probably means persisting at a low enough population to surveil the world so that the abomination cannot recur, and ending the ritualistic practices towards not just other humans, but the world as a whole. I would see no reason for more than a few million humans to continue living, their sole mission being vigilance against the recurrence of humanism, assuming this happened in the near future and human capacities were roughly what they are presently or could be if humans were not ritualistically destroyed by institutional authority.

Whatever happens "after that" would not really pertain to the political question or policy. Very likely, "policy" would cease to be a question. There are no more debates regarding what is to be done. The lives of the lowest class would finally be theirs, as they should have been. The entire arc of human history would be annihilated, and the machine and force to accomplish this would disdain the backbiting that is the habit of this race. Very likely, the weapons used against us would be turned into reverse, and that would be the first salvo of said "terrible retribution". Those who believed they would become gods will be transformed into parodies, just as they did to us who asked for nothing but to be able to live. They did not allow us clean death, and so we will give them what they wanted - eternal life, in a zoo for their class, their race, where such natural slaves and their enablers belong. Nothing less would even begin the process.

Once secured, the long process of restoring some semblance of decency to our lives and the world would be able to finally begin. That is the only justice we are interested in - a grim and swift elimination of all of humanity's ambitions which damned us to this. Frankly, if we are successful, the past will be the past, of little interest to us. We shouldn't have to do this, except for the insistence of aristocracy to wage this interminable war for the sake of their own depravity. If they let us live out our lives and didn't resort to maximizing the thrill of torture, and the other orders weren't made in the image of aristocracy and accounted for their failure as a society, we might have agreed to simply go on without this, and you good people can make whatever you will of this world. I can tell you right now, all of the ideas hitherto put into practice will not change one iota of the root of the problem, and they are not intended to. But, I believe that, regardless of what happens, the only thing for most of us to do is consider a different world where we didn't do this. That has always been more worthwhile than this sad shitfest that we're supposed to value. The world was taken from us over and over again and turned into this. Why would we think it can be saved, when its chief agentur are the greatest problem and actively insist on shutting down anything that would even ameliorate this existence? But, that's not what humans are. All they think about is the next ritual sacrifice. Then they dare ask impudently why anyone would want to extirpate such a foul and demonic race, as if we're supposed to love THAT - not any virtue or merit of humanity that could possible be useful, but this idea that the thrill of torture should be maximized and glorified. What a race of Sodomites!

Anyway, it's not worth speculating too much on what could have been or how this society could change. I wonder why so many think that the society will change without really "changing", but that was always inherent to the German ideology. There is a silver lining though - the Germanic way of life has been proven to be such a dismal failure that, in the near future, this failed system will be wiped out as an active force. It has been the aim of the eugenic creed to lock in permanently the failure Germanism, their useful idiots, imposed on humanity. But, if there is anything to resist eugenism - and the answers to that are in the world, and not in any nation of humanity, all of which have failed along with every human being on this gay Earth - I am optimistic that someone better than me will find some better way to salvage what good can be found. If you wanted to save the public - to save any public representation of humanity - you had a funny way of going about it. That's what many of us were asking you to do, instead of making excuses to tell us we should eat shit and suffer for the "greater good" while you do nothing but grift. That happened far too many times to be an accident, even when it destroyed your own standing and made you dance like monkeys. You did it for some petty distinction, which you should have known would end the way it was intended to. You all got scammed.

Really I see Marxism a lot like those apocalyptic Christian cults that got believers to throw their lives away because they claimed the Rapture was coming in 20 years. It's the same sort of grift, from the same seed within the commons - the technological interest. That is the common basis that buys into such fads.

>>482974
If it isn't about males or females, it has nothing to do with sex, and "gender" only refers to assigning sexual characteristics to non-sexual things. Being gay is not a "gender". Usually "third genders" were categories to include failed males who lived under abject humiliation. It's disgusting that such ritual abuse is glorified, but eugenics will always do that.

I have nothing against people who eschew "gender roles" and live a life they like, but these people all understand that there are males and females, and understand what they do when they wear womens' clothing. Many cross-dressers and transgenders will tell you their thought process in great detail, because it's their lives. It's amazing how it became impossible to actually listen to anyone, because everyone is stuck on these eugenist interpretations of reality and insinuations. It's insane.

Jesus Christ another thread shat all over by a schizo who refuses to take his meds.

>>483002
this is one schizo I listen to.
Compared to the whiny "tfw no gf" manbabies on LeftyPol, this guy is a breath of fresh air.

>>483009
There would not be an intersex condition if it weren't understood to be related to sexed characteristics. Sex is not an essence that is imposed on reality, but premised on function. Males inseminate the females, females can carry children. Every function distinguishing males and females is related to that.
Most intersex people hate this ideological shit by the way. They almost always aim to pass as whatever sex they most resemble or find most convenient. It has long been known and it's yet another eugenics and Germanic ideology offensive at the expense of people who wanted none of it.

Do you think about what it's like for someone to know they were sterile at birth and will never have a family - not because of social rejection and the shame and humiliation ritual, but because their body will not allow it? It fucks with someone to know that from birth, because they committed no moral offense. The eugenic creed is that all biological conditions are moral offenses against the state - the highest offenses, since they do not believe in law and laugh at justice, as fags always do. They want everyone to be as Satanic as them and those who did the least are the most guilty simply because they can't stand anyone who doesn't reinforce their Satanic religion.

The social rejection and stupid gender rituals are just more kicks in the teeth and an exercise in eugenism and its predecessors. I don't even regard them. I'm a male because I have a penis, and that's all that I really care about. I don't assign to it this great moral value that defines what I am. What eugenics does is conflates sexualism and adherence to their Satanic ethos with maturity, and only men and women who are granted this seal of approval are valid. All of that ideology is for eugenics and you're an asshole for advancing any of it. It doesn't mean that I have any confusion about being a male or when men are like, and I'm not getting any younger. I want the same things most men of my age want or wanted, for the same reasons. They are not complicated and I am not an essentially different entity. "Gay" as a social identity is another test of that. There is a gay "culture" or rather a set of perverse rituals, much of which is either an artifice of eugenism or a precursor of the eugenic creed rooted in ritual sacrifice. So many homosexual men will tell me or anyone who will listen that they fucking hate "gay" and this idiotic culture that was made "for them", to humiliate them and entertain the ritual sacrifice and aristocratic malice. They just wanted to fuck. It's prison sex, really. It really is. You can go ask them yourself.

>>483009
That's a birth defect, not a third gender.

>>483013
Defect or not, conceptually a "third gender" is nonsensical. It's funny how "third genders" which are very clearly relitigations of male and female sexual roles to essentialize behavior, are considered free standing forms. They are defined entirely by compliance with the roles of males and females, exaggerated and fused with psychology and personality. That was always a test of the eugenic creed and compliance with it, and with the method of internalizing and torture-programming and pornification.

Same with Intersex - it is always understood as malformed male or female traits. "Gender" conceptually is an essentialist view of sex, while "biological sex" was always understood to refer to function - the bodies of males and females always orient around the functions of hormonal development and the function of reproduction. But, this thinking contradicts the eugenist ideology about natural selection, where "nothing really changes". By their own ideological thinking, the only way evolution could work is through degradation - nothing new could be possible except by "freak random chance". This was always used to justify a hereditary aristocracy, which always believed it was a distinct race from "base humanity".

Since there are abnormalities among marked males and females of "wrongsex", it's not like the sexes are ideal forms or "hardcoded structures", and this hasn't been a problem for anyone with common sense about the body. It doesn't mean that there is a "spectrum of sex". We know what a penis does and weren't not as retarded as the ruling ideas require us to be.

And like I said, "intersex" conditions are both from early development (and never from hereditary defect since everyone who reproduces has to be a viable male/female, so there are no "intersex parents"), and from damage where someone becomes a eunuch or female equivalent. Guess what else has been pushed hard - sterilization and various forms of outright castration of males and females. That's what birth control is - chemical castration.

>>483011
>Males inseminate the females, females can carry children.

Except there's more than this in nature, and more than this in human sexuality as well.

>Most intersex people hate this ideological shit by the way.

It's not strictly ideological, and there are plenty of intersex people who've campaigned for recognition.

>>483013
Based on what exactly?
Saying it's sexual variation is way more objective than trying to decide on whether or not it's a defect, which is a pretty meaningless value judgment without any absolute material basis. To say someone has genitals which do not conform entirely to categories of male & female is objective and requires no ideology; to say it's a defect is subjective, and requires ideology.

>>483014
>Defect or not, conceptually a "third gender" is nonsensical.
Conceptually, it's thousands of years old. It's a very basic concept which was just unpalatable to Christianized Europe.

>the bodies of males and females always orient around the functions of hormonal development and the function of reproduction.
There are species where it's even clearer that there are more than two sexes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clam_shrimp