Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    444
    Reputation
    1134
    Type
    Ghost

    Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Note to the mods: I have absolutely no idea in which forum I should have posted this. To me it could equally be posted in the Lounge, Random (Non-MGTOW), Philosophy or Rant, so I have posted it in the lounge. Please feel free to move it to whatever section you feel most appropriate.

    I was chatting with a friend a while back and the conversation turned to socialism vs. capitalism. I can’t remember much of the conversation but at some stage I mentioned the political spectrum as it was taught to me in my youth. It went something like this:

    Communism – Socialism – Centrism – Capitalism – Fascism

    I know that this is far from complete but this is how it was explained to me, with communism on the far left and fascism on the far right. It was a concept I never even questioned until my friend said something that bothered me. He said that the two extremes in this paradigm eventually come round and meet up. At the time I couldn’t accept this, as far as I was concerned communism and fascism were so far removed from each other that the notion seemed ludicrous.

    But the comment stayed with me long after the conversation ended. Why? Well there were two things actually.

    First, and I apologise for mentioning the NAZIs as it is a subject that IMO has been done to death, but it is pertinent to my reasoning. (Please restrain yourselves from turning this into a thread about them, that is not my intention.) It’s just the fact that their name translates into English as roughly the National Socialist German Workers' Party yet they are considered fascists. Why is a socialist movement (left) considered fascist (extreme right)?

    Second, the recent Antifa movement. Correct me if I’m wrong but the name is a contraction of Anti-Fascism, yet from what I have seen of their activism it smacks of everything I’ve been led to believe fascism is all about, i.e. taking action against citizens based purely on ethnicity, diversity and, in this case, gender and age – middle aged white men. Yet they are considered a socialist movement? I just cannot get my head around this.

    Unless…

    Fascism does not belong in the political spectrum on the far right. Allow me to explain my thinking.

    Socialism on its face claims to want equality for all, a noble aspiration it would seem. Those that espouse it often highlight inequality with regards the wage gap both between males and females, and between high earners and low earners; attrition rates in different sections of the community; homelessness; differences in conviction rates; and a number of other areas I’m sure you’ll be aware of.

    However, in order to have a society where all are treated equally, does it not follow that everyone must be the same? We should all think the same way, like the same things, act the same way, have the same concepts with regards right and wrong.

    Basically, to my way of thinking, it espouses equality for all – we are all the same, while underneath it promotes intolerance for anything that deviates from the narrative. If you do not think the way we think then you must be evil and need to be stopped by whatever means necessary. ‘Political Correctness’ – what is this but a form of mind control!

    Enter fascism.

    You do not think like us, you must be stopped. You do not look like us you must be stopped. You do not act like us you must be stopped.

    Capitalism and right wing politics gives affirmation and reward to creative thinkers and those that are prepared to go the extra mile regardless of colour or creed. That is not to say capitalism is perfect either, personally I have grown a distaste for all things ending –ism, it all smells of indoctrination to me. What’s wrong with weighing ideas solely on their merits? I suppose it takes too much effort and requires understanding!

    Anyhow, it is my opinion that fascism belongs firmly at the left extreme of socialism, if it belongs in the political spectrum at all.

    Socialists see fascism as something that is abhorrent to most people and wish to distance themselves from it by selling it as extreme right wing and in this they have been largely successful. While there might be some comparisons to be made, e.g. self-sufficiency, it is far more comparable to socialism. To me this is just one more example of how we are all lied to, in this case – socialism good, capitalism bad. I’m sad to say that I once fell for this indoctrination. In my youth and for many years thereafter I considered myself a socialist. Seeing the truth about it was another difficult red pill to swallow.

    No wonder feminism aligns itself with socialism: lies upon lies upon lies upon…
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  2. #2
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    299
    Reputation
    975
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Based on what I heard as definition of classical right vs left, the spectrum goes like this :

    From Leftmost to Rightmost : Communism – Socialism – Centrism – Capitalism – Anarchy

    The idea behind this (IMHO) is, the left is trying to be more about collectivism and right is trying to be more about individualism. Though in modern times, I think the right-wing is split into many factions. The newer versions are sometimes loosely called alt-right. They can vary significantly from the classical right on many social issues, and yet maintain their position on individualism.

    Regarding nazis, I really dont like to talk about them because I always feel like we are told only one side of the story. I dont think its possible that one day some dude woke up and decided to commit genocide of a specific group of people just because he could. When you see an extremely abnormal behavior in anything, there are good chances its a reaction to something. I am not saying that will always justify the action, but for the process of analysis, other side of the story should be known.

    Back to alt-right, even that group is not one single entity. There are some extreme alt-right variants which are like yeah nazis were right and they will tell about the words of General Patton, a US general, who said (about defeating nazis) : "We defeated the wrong enemy". And they will also tell about various sources of the other side of the story which I talked about in last paragraph. The problem with this approach, other than being extremely unacceptable in most civil discourse, is its too simplistic. The fascism has existed throughout history on several occasions and none of those empires are standing today. It doesnt work, it may look like it works for SOME time, atleast for SOME group of people of that empire/nation but eventually it cracks up and breaks apart.

    Other than these extreme zealots, there are other alt-right variants which just sound like some kind of tradcon government system. I remember reading about one such system on their website (which I wont name here) that they will ban porn. Yeah sure, like any good that will come out of blanket banning something which has some legitimate usage. From legitimate usage, I mean that all parties involved consent and its done in moderation, or any other restrictions put on it. The point is, porn is NOT always that harmful to just ban it. And with modern technology, banning it is next to impossible anyways. This is why I call those systems : tradcon. They tend to ignore the availability of technology.

    Then lastly, we also have who call themselves alt-lite. Even though they are labeled far right by antifa, they are simply just libertarians. They believe in equality of opportunity (as opposed to equality of outcome by far left), mutual respect for different ways of life, tolerance etc. Its very good in theory, in fact a bit too good in theory. And the reason given, to which I agree very strongly, is that cultures dont mix. And if you try to mix two very different cultures together, it will end up in violence. This is how human society works. Mixing with other very different cultures and giving them as much respect as we give to people of our same (or similar) culture is so against our psychological wiring that it just wont happen. Its a social unicorn.

    About -isms, I wont say I dislike all -isms. I have said before in many threads, I really like propertarianism. But even if we put this relatively new thing aside, that kind of thinking that all -ism are automatically bad, is again, IMHO, too simplistic. You are disliking something without understanding it. And even if you end up disliking it, I think there is still some merit in understanding it first. The propertarianism guys call themselves a variant of alt-right, because they are indeed a right wing ideology, that is, they focus on individualism. But its still quite different from all other right wing ideologies and also quite controversial for many reasons. But if I am asked, the biggest reason by far, is that it places a very heavy burden on the individual to really understand it. Its quite complex. It makes socialism and capitalism look like children's novel by comparison.

    PS: All of the above is my understanding of the situation. At someplaces I could've gone horribly wrong, because I only have cursory understanding of these things.
    A clever fighter not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. His victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom, nor credit for courage. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.

    Sun Tzu in The Art of War
    MGTOW is about making no mistakes against gynocentrism.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Knarley Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Kandiyohi County, Minnesota
    Posts
    372
    Reputation
    1930
    Type
    Toxic old fart

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    FASCISM:
    According to my dictionary..." A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of the state and business leadership, together with a belligerent nationalism".

    To me, it seems the left is the one causing the trouble. They are in power, and controlling business.
    But, when you look at that :
    Only white people can be racist.
    Only men can be sexist.
    Only people with guns are evil.
    There is no gender,and other nonsense , might as well pin it on the right.
    I'm not sure what is going on, the left wants to give every thing away, and have the citizenry pay for it, just seems goofy to me.
    Pretty obvious why the left wants to disarm every one except, for them selves of course.
    People have "Bug Out Bags" ready to go, but to where? I'm not going anywhere, but I live out in the "Sticks" anyway. I would imagine we will have to defend ourselves from the hoards of city people, and their bug out bags, looking for whatever. I hope it doesn't come down in the winter, I'm getting too old to be shooting at a tank, up to my butt in snow.....
    As soon as she says "I do", she don't
    MOLON LABE......."Come take them"

  4. #4

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    Note to the mods: I have absolutely no idea in which forum I should have posted this. To me it could equally be posted in the Lounge, Random (Non-MGTOW), Philosophy or Rant, so I have posted it in the lounge. Please feel free to move it to whatever section you feel most appropriate.

    I was chatting with a friend a while back and the conversation turned to socialism vs. capitalism. I can’t remember much of the conversation but at some stage I mentioned the political spectrum as it was taught to me in my youth. It went something like this:

    Communism – Socialism – Centrism – Capitalism – Fascism

    I know that this is far from complete but this is how it was explained to me, with communism on the far left and fascism on the far right. It was a concept I never even questioned until my friend said something that bothered me. He said that the two extremes in this paradigm eventually come round and meet up. At the time I couldn’t accept this, as far as I was concerned communism and fascism were so far removed from each other that the notion seemed ludicrous.

    But the comment stayed with me long after the conversation ended. Why? Well there were two things actually.

    First, and I apologise for mentioning the NAZIs as it is a subject that IMO has been done to death, but it is pertinent to my reasoning. (Please restrain yourselves from turning this into a thread about them, that is not my intention.) It’s just the fact that their name translates into English as roughly the National Socialist German Workers' Party yet they are considered fascists. Why is a socialist movement (left) considered fascist (extreme right)?

    Second, the recent Antifa movement. Correct me if I’m wrong but the name is a contraction of Anti-Fascism, yet from what I have seen of their activism it smacks of everything I’ve been led to believe fascism is all about, i.e. taking action against citizens based purely on ethnicity, diversity and, in this case, gender and age – middle aged white men. Yet they are considered a socialist movement? I just cannot get my head around this.

    Unless…

    Fascism does not belong in the political spectrum on the far right. Allow me to explain my thinking.

    Socialism on its face claims to want equality for all, a noble aspiration it would seem. Those that espouse it often highlight inequality with regards the wage gap both between males and females, and between high earners and low earners; attrition rates in different sections of the community; homelessness; differences in conviction rates; and a number of other areas I’m sure you’ll be aware of.

    However, in order to have a society where all are treated equally, does it not follow that everyone must be the same? We should all think the same way, like the same things, act the same way, have the same concepts with regards right and wrong.

    Basically, to my way of thinking, it espouses equality for all – we are all the same, while underneath it promotes intolerance for anything that deviates from the narrative. If you do not think the way we think then you must be evil and need to be stopped by whatever means necessary. ‘Political Correctness’ – what is this but a form of mind control!

    Enter fascism.

    You do not think like us, you must be stopped. You do not look like us you must be stopped. You do not act like us you must be stopped.

    Capitalism and right wing politics gives affirmation and reward to creative thinkers and those that are prepared to go the extra mile regardless of colour or creed. That is not to say capitalism is perfect either, personally I have grown a distaste for all things ending –ism, it all smells of indoctrination to me. What’s wrong with weighing ideas solely on their merits? I suppose it takes too much effort and requires understanding!

    Anyhow, it is my opinion that fascism belongs firmly at the left extreme of socialism, if it belongs in the political spectrum at all.

    Socialists see fascism as something that is abhorrent to most people and wish to distance themselves from it by selling it as extreme right wing and in this they have been largely successful. While there might be some comparisons to be made, e.g. self-sufficiency, it is far more comparable to socialism. To me this is just one more example of how we are all lied to, in this case – socialism good, capitalism bad. I’m sad to say that I once fell for this indoctrination. In my youth and for many years thereafter I considered myself a socialist. Seeing the truth about it was another difficult red pill to swallow.

    No wonder feminism aligns itself with socialism: lies upon lies upon lies upon…
    First off, on the issue of Nazis, it does not seem evident to me that they were really the bad guys, except if we take the assertions of the victors in the conflict as to their moral supremacy, but don't fail to take into consideration that these nations were doing things just as bad and at times even worse than the so called Nazis. Consider how america got involved in the war based on lies and half truths ...I have come to believe in the maxim that states " never do a bad thing for a good reason " . There lies a slippery slope which most people would be unable to navigate successfully. There are many other reasons why I think a person ought to more closely examine the evidence they are presented and hence this brings me to the issue you raised.


    I might be wrong however I think looking at any thing from the prism of only the positive benefits might hinder one's ability to appreciate the price we pay for every decision we make both conscious and unconscious. To elaborate upon what I am trying to illustrate, Freud the supposed father of modern psychology explained how most peoples decisions are based on unconscious processes which can be directed by providing the right trigger. From that his nephew built upon this theory and they were able to get women to consider smoking as a worthwhile endeavour by cloaking it in appealing gingoism.

    Essentially, from that point it was a short jump to the next point of deciding that a democracy cannot really be left in the hands of the masses who are pulled to and fro by emotional proddings subject to no rational progression, so they decided to provide them with a template for what emotions ought to appeal to them and hence herd them in the desired direction . So even a democracy in modern times is merely a sugar coated form of fascism. If anyone is interested in exploring this further it is available on youtube, the documentary is called "century of the self ".


    I think we ought not to lose sight that the goal is to learn to govern one's self in the most effective way possible which aligns with your goal in life and at times it might require forfeiting some symbolic token of said self governance to gain an advantage of more value, however in my opinion one should never become complacent that eventually all institutions degenerate eventually to a state where they start to serve themselves rather than the individuals that necessitated its creation.



    In the long run we should be always awake to the reality that even a pleasant dream can be more harmful than a nightmare for if one is compelled by virtue of displeasure to wake and realise his house is on fire then he can save himself but the one caught in the pleasant reverie might awaken too late to the reality of his situation.


    Hope I didnt stray too far off course...cheers

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    444
    Reputation
    1134
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    About -isms, I wont say I dislike all -isms. I have said before in many threads, I really like propertarianism. But even if we put this relatively new thing aside, that kind of thinking that all -ism are automatically bad, is again, IMHO, too simplistic. You are disliking something without understanding it. And even if you end up disliking it, I think there is still some merit in understanding it first.
    The reason I dislike ‘isms’ is not that I think they don’t have anything to offer, quite the contrary.

    IMO most philosophies whether they be religious, political or anything else have both good and bad elements. Neither should they be lightly dismissed as many people use them as tenets for living their lives and for this reason, as you say, they should at least be understood.

    No, my problem with them is more to do with the fact that once a person subscribes to a particular philosophy they tend to see the world through that lens. In a way they ‘give up’ a part of their reasoning ability and replace it with dogma – if this doesn’t fit with my adopted philosophy then it must be wrong / bad.

    Of course this is a rather large generalisation, however I tend to view any ‘ism’ in much the same way as I read a Wikipedia entry – there is probably a fair bit of knowledge to be gained but I read it with scepticism. (Oops there’s another ism.)
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  6. #6
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Ghost town USA
    Posts
    1,346
    Reputation
    6442
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    No, my problem with them is more to do with the fact that once a person subscribes to a particular philosophy they tend to see the world through that lens. In a way they ‘give up’ a part of their reasoning ability and replace it with dogma – if this doesn’t fit with my adopted philosophy then it must be wrong / bad.
    I just can't align with fagotisms no matter how long they keep pressing to suck my dick. I just can't reason with that no matter how open minded I try to be. Does that make me homophobic? I certainly hope so and peacefully remain indifferent, that is, until laws tell me I have to.

  7. #7
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    299
    Reputation
    975
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    ... once a person subscribes to a particular philosophy they tend to see the world through that lens. In a way they ‘give up’ a part of their reasoning ability and replace it with dogma – if this doesn’t fit with my adopted philosophy then it must be wrong / bad.
    Yeah, I can understand your point. People tend to make some -ism their religion and start to put blind faith into that. A capitalist will always favor capitalist policies, even to the detriment of overall society (eg: pollution).

    Though, the -ism which I subscribe to, is rather peculiar in some aspects. I actually thought of an interesting example. Lets take your statement "I dislike all -isms". That statement is just a personal preference, so I am going to modify it for the sake of this example. Imagine you said "All -isms are problematic", and that too on some public forum (which means this forum doesnt count). Also assume you have only very little or cursory knowledge of propertarianism.

    Now if you did that under propertarian system of government, you can be prosecuted for lying !!! Reason being, in this example, your statement is about all -isms, including propertarianism. So you basically implied, in public, that propertarianism is problematic, while not being informed of its intricacies. That is lack of due diligence before making a statement, which is one of the criterias of lying !

    My point is, before you (hypothetical "you" in this example), could cause any harm by piling any lie or misinformation, it caught you at a very very early stage !!
    A clever fighter not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. His victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom, nor credit for courage. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.

    Sun Tzu in The Art of War
    MGTOW is about making no mistakes against gynocentrism.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    444
    Reputation
    1134
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    Now if you did that under propertarian system of government, you can be prosecuted for lying !!! Reason being, in this example, your statement is about all -isms, including propertarianism. So you basically implied, in public, that propertarianism is problematic, while not being informed of its intricacies. That is lack of due diligence before making a statement, which is one of the criterias of lying !
    So, what you are saying is (and forgive me if I misunderstand you) that propertarianism does not allow for the voicing of opinion unless you make it abundantly clear that this is merely your opinion and should not be taken as literal fact?

    Sounds like it might make reasonable debate quite difficult if you have to pre-qualify each and every statement you make.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  9. #9

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Voltaire
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

    The ever growing list of absurdities being pushed is astounding. With several willing groups that do and will commit atrocities, antifa at the top of the list.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Knarley Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Kandiyohi County, Minnesota
    Posts
    372
    Reputation
    1930
    Type
    Toxic old fart

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by 743 Roadmaster View Post
    Voltaire
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

    The ever growing list of absurdities being pushed is astounding. With several willing groups that do and will commit atrocities, antifa at the top of the list.
    ANTIFA is supposedly Anti Fascist, but, they seem to be promoting it.
    I don't believe that "fascism" can only be tacked on to the right's point of view.
    On either extreme, one has the goof balls, no?
    As soon as she says "I do", she don't
    MOLON LABE......."Come take them"

  11. #11
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    299
    Reputation
    975
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    So, what you are saying is (and forgive me if I misunderstand you) that propertarianism does not allow for the voicing of opinion unless you make it abundantly clear that this is merely your opinion and should not be taken as literal fact?

    Sounds like it might make reasonable debate quite difficult if you have to pre-qualify each and every statement you make.
    Before I clarify the position of propertarianism, I must first clear up on opinion vs preference. "I like red color" is a preference. "I like sweets" is a preference. Preferences are personal choices. There can be nothing wrong or right about it. And furthuremore, the person saying about his/her preference has supreme authority over it, and there is also nothing wrong with it changing. So they can be considered honest. But, if its not a preference, but an opinion, like "red color IS bad", "sweets ARE bad", then you are not talking about your own tastes, you are making a factual statement, which needs to be tested for your honesty.

    Now, about propertarianism, yeah you are somewhat right about this one. It doesnt allow voicing of opinions unless and until you clear all the criterias of a truthful statement. If you fail to clear any of them, then it considers it an offense to voice it in PUBLIC. You are expected to first discuss that in private, with people who can help you clear all those criterias. If and when you go public, those criterias become as important as traffic laws in this regard, which means ignorance is not an excuse, and will still attract punishment.

    This is why it is made clear in their texts, that "free speech" is NOT ALLOWED under it. Free "TRUTHFUL" Speech is what is perfectly allowed. Let me modify that above example a little bit.

    Suppose you study propertarianism carefully, discuss with all your sources that your arguments are clear of all criterias, and there is something definitely wrong with the system. You can then now speak that in public and will be legally allowed to. Lets say the next day someone figures out a brilliant argument which counters your argument and proves you were false. You can still not be prosecuted for your past argument which was proven false, because, it was an honest error. You and your sources werent able to figure out the counter argument. BUT, you cannot make your old argument again. If you do that, then it will again be illegal, because there exists one public source which countered your argument.

    About making a public debate difficult, yeah that is EXACTLY the point. Voicing things in public has consequences, just like driving in traffic has. Why would you want to let a casual driver who isnt willing to abide by rules, drive on the public roads ? The huge difficulty wall is very very intended, and as of yet, I extremely agree with their position on the subject.
    Last edited by rkspsm; October 6, 2019 at 12:24 AM.
    A clever fighter not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. His victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom, nor credit for courage. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.

    Sun Tzu in The Art of War
    MGTOW is about making no mistakes against gynocentrism.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Joetech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    705
    Reputation
    2209
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    I don't trust the labels people put on things. Like Jackoff said, philosophies all have good and bad elements in them. Let's not forget that in 1938, I think, Time Magazine made Adolph Hitler their Man of the Year. When a society becomes so corrupt that leaders can be easily removed through lies and innuendo only, there is always a backlash. And no matter what you call it, a shit show by any other name is still just a shit show.

    The media likes to coin phrases like a bunch of ad execs selling toothpaste. Well, here's a phrase being coined now...no matter what you call the socialist construct that has taken over the United States..."I will not comply".
    "Don't follow in my footsteps. I stepped in something."

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    444
    Reputation
    1134
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    Now, about propertarianism, yeah you are somewhat right about this one. It doesnt allow voicing of opinions unless and until you clear all the criterias of a truthful statement. If you fail to clear any of them, then it considers it an offense to voice it in PUBLIC. You are expected to first discuss that in private, with people who can help you clear all those criterias. If and when you go public, those criterias become as important as traffic laws in this regard, which means ignorance is not an excuse, and will still attract punishment.

    ...

    The huge difficulty wall is very very intended
    Opinions are not always subject to truth tests. Consider this hypothetical using your example of the colour red.

    Person A believes the colour red denotes danger. He believes this because that is what he has been taught and can substantiate this claim as it is used in warning signs all around him. This is his experience.

    Person B believes the colour red denotes safety. He believes this because it is what he has been taught and substantiates this claim as it is the colour of his nation’s flag of which he is rightfully proud. To him saying red denotes danger not only seems arbitrary but at the same time appears to insult his homeland. This is his experience.

    Both of these are opinions not preferences and are based on each individual’s experiences. Neither is about absolute truth.

    I am currently looking into propertarianism since you first mentioned it and as yet have not formed an overall opinion, but on the surface at least it seems to be just as open to abuse as any other philosophy. Who gets to be arbiter? What are that person’s (or group’s) motives?

    My understanding at the moment:

    On the positive side it could be a very useful tool, as you say, to detect and deter deliberate misinformation, something for which I think we would all be grateful.

    On the negative side I have two points to make. First, so far it smacks of mind control: This is how you should speak, and by inference this is how you should think. Second, I know many people that struggle with basic reasoning, grammar and calculation. Does this mean that their views should be kept to themselves? Should we ostracise a large part of the population simply because they cannot get a basic grip of complex rules?

    I will, however, try to keep an open mind as I learn more.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  14. #14
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    299
    Reputation
    975
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    Person A believes the colour red denotes danger. He believes this because that is what he has been taught and can substantiate this claim as it is used in warning signs all around him. This is his experience.

    Person B believes the colour red denotes safety. He believes this because it is what he has been taught and substantiates this claim as it is the colour of his nation’s flag of which he is rightfully proud. To him saying red denotes danger not only seems arbitrary but at the same time appears to insult his homeland. This is his experience.

    Both of these are opinions not preferences and are based on each individual’s experiences. Neither is about absolute truth.
    That example isnt really a conflict. A and B belong to different societies, with different environment, circumstances and culture. Here both are correct in their own environments. One of the criterias of truthfulness test is called "external correspondence" or in more casual terms, it should match with the reality. If A goes into the culture of B and says that all warning signs should be turned red, then its a problem. And vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    ...but on the surface at least it seems to be just as open to abuse as any other philosophy. Who gets to be arbiter? What are that person’s (or group’s) motives?

    My understanding at the moment:

    On the positive side it could be a very useful tool, as you say, to detect and deter deliberate misinformation, something for which I think we would all be grateful.

    On the negative side I have two points to make. First, so far it smacks of mind control: This is how you should speak, and by inference this is how you should think. Second, I know many people that struggle with basic reasoning, grammar and calculation. Does this mean that their views should be kept to themselves? Should we ostracise a large part of the population simply because they cannot get a basic grip of complex rules?
    Yes, the question of "who gets to be arbiter" is very often asked and before I answer it, let me address your later point. You talk about mind control. Do you consider police enforcing traffic laws on public roads a form of tyranny ? You are still allowed to drive however you want in some private area, but you are required to follow the traffic rules when you are driving on public road. Propertarianism gives "public speech" same status as "public roads". Other systems treat it as some kind of private campus or something where anyone can drive however they want. And bad things eventually happen.

    Also, nobody is telling anyone "how to think". As long as you are honest and diligent, every opinion is welcome. If you are not willing to be either of that, then you should first develop your argument in private. There is absolutely no restriction on private discussion. Yes, many people struggle with basic reasoning, grammar etc. Well, again look it from the driving analogy. Why would you want a blind person to drive ? That person must be restricted from driving. Because if he is allowed, there will arise lots of problems. How about flying a plane ? Would you like to be a passenger of an airbus whose pilot isnt a qualified pilot and refused training ? The point is, public speech is not a casual speech, its not a playground. Things have consequences there. If you must say anything there, then you really really make sure your statements are logical, correct, honest, etc to the best of your ability.

    Now to "who will be the arbiter" question. This can be a very long discussion, I'll try to be as concise as possible. The answer is same as who is the arbiter in all other systems : Judges. On the surface it may appear that judges have all the power in the system. But it is not so, its certainly less than the power judges have in all current systems. First, the room for arbitrary gut feelings is very little. Most of those tests are very simple to apply and there is very little left for interpretation. What if a judge refuses to follow the rules ? Well, same as what we have right now. There are rules in place to impeach judges. At this point, it might appear that there is really not much improvement over the system, which again, isnt the case. In propertarian system, there are many more restrictions on which laws can be created. If those restrictions are placed right now, most existing laws will become illegal. This is basically the gist of propertarianism, there are a whole bunch of new laws all over the place, and none of that is arbitrary, there are reasoning behind all of it (as far as I know).

    Lastly, its not a system which can make all problems disappear magically. The intent is to devise a system which is BETTER than all existing or past systems. Objectively better, not just that someone thinks its better.
    A clever fighter not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. His victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom, nor credit for courage. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.

    Sun Tzu in The Art of War
    MGTOW is about making no mistakes against gynocentrism.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    444
    Reputation
    1134
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    Do you consider police enforcing traffic laws on public roads a form of tyranny ?

    ...

    Also, nobody is telling anyone "how to think". As long as you are honest and diligent, every opinion is welcome. If you are not willing to be either of that, then you should first develop your argument in private.

    ...

    In propertarian system, there are many more restrictions on which laws can be created. If those restrictions are placed right now, most existing laws will become illegal.

    ...

    Lastly, its not a system which can make all problems disappear magically. The intent is to devise a system which is BETTER than all existing or past systems. Objectively better, not just that someone thinks its better.
    I have highlighted four points and will address them individually.

    1. Absolutely. Traffic laws, and all laws, are a form of tyranny, but most reasonable people will accept them as an acceptable form of tyranny designed to protect the greater good.

    2. What if you're incapable of being diligent enough? What if your resources are so limited that due diligence is a non-starter? Should your views be summarily dismissed and even prosecuted? Chinese re-education camps come to mind.

    3. Most existing laws will become illegal? That way anarchy lies. Most criminal laws are there to protect the individual and for good reason for the most part. I do agree though that some would and should be banished.

    4. At last we agree. No system is perfect but there must be one that is better than what we have now. There is always room for improvement in any system.

    In any event, I have just re-read the introduction to propertarianism that you posted a link to:

    A Brief Introduction to Propertarianism

    There’s a lot in it and takes a few reads to understand, sometimes he appears to make a point then explains its deficiencies. Fair enough.

    However he makes a more than a few points that concern me:

    1. What is science?

    His description is of science as being an empirical method for gaining understanding.

    While there is some truth in this, it is not normally the case. Science, IMO, is merely a combination of various models to explain observed or theoretical phenomena. Anyone who has studied physics to any degree can confirm this. As we progress in the field of study we are hit with models that explain a notion that our level of education and understanding can cope with and many contradict to some extent, or merely add to, what we were previously taught. Even the so-called laws of physics seem to break down when discussing fields such as Quantum Physics.

    2. Eugenia and Dysgenia

    He seems to promote the idea of eugenics, a notion that has been thoroughly debunked by philosophers and scientists alike.

    3. Democracy

    “Ending democracy, egalitarian, majority rule, is always advisable and a step in the right direction.”

    Really? While I admit that there is no such thing as a true democracy where everyone’s views are equally represented, what is the alternative? Despotism? Or maybe we could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya? (Sorry for the sarcasm!)

    These are just three of the points he makes that I find dishonest, there are more. However I would also like to say in his defence that he makes many interesting points that deserve attention.

    Like I’ve stated previously no system is perfect, they all have their pros and cons.

    Maybe this is only one person’s perspective and I will consider it as such. I will continue my studies.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  16. #16
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    299
    Reputation
    975
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: Fascists to the left of us, fascists to the right of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    I have highlighted four points and will address them individually.

    1. Absolutely. Traffic laws, and all laws, are a form of tyranny, but most reasonable people will accept them as an acceptable form of tyranny designed to protect the greater good.

    2. What if you're incapable of being diligent enough? What if your resources are so limited that due diligence is a non-starter? Should your views be summarily dismissed and even prosecuted? Chinese re-education camps come to mind.

    3. Most existing laws will become illegal? That way anarchy lies. Most criminal laws are there to protect the individual and for good reason for the most part. I do agree though that some would and should be banished.

    4. At last we agree. No system is perfect but there must be one that is better than what we have now. There is always room for improvement in any system.
    Oh, now I actually understand your criticism, I think. The #1 and #2 means, in your opinion, the public space isnt sacred enough to make people follow those rules rigidly. I am not expert enough in law and/or have not read enough of Propertarianism myself to know concrete answer to that. The only thing I can say on this is, in my traffic laws analogy, because I am not looking them as a form of tyranny but a form development or progress. In my viewpoint, if I am unwilling to obey them, then I will consider myself a case of entitlement, and not someone fighting for freedom or justice.

    Regarding #3, what I meant was, most of the legislations which are passed these days by our government, infringing the rights of people granted by constitution, will become illegal. Child support and alimony for example, they dont exist under propertarianism. This was explicitly mentioned by John Mark in one of the videos, while acknowledging the problem for men in marrying and raising families.

    Regarding #4, if your viewpoint allows for public space being sacred enough, then you will find that the cons of this system are a very small subset of the cons of any other system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    1. What is science?

    His description is of science as being an empirical method for gaining understanding.

    While there is some truth in this, it is not normally the case. Science, IMO, is merely a combination of various models to explain observed or theoretical phenomena. Anyone who has studied physics to any degree can confirm this. As we progress in the field of study we are hit with models that explain a notion that our level of education and understanding can cope with and many contradict to some extent, or merely add to, what we were previously taught. Even the so-called laws of physics seem to break down when discussing fields such as Quantum Physics.

    2. Eugenia and Dysgenia

    He seems to promote the idea of eugenics, a notion that has been thoroughly debunked by philosophers and scientists alike.

    3. Democracy

    “Ending democracy, egalitarian, majority rule, is always advisable and a step in the right direction.”

    Really? While I admit that there is no such thing as a true democracy where everyone’s views are equally represented, what is the alternative? Despotism? Or maybe we could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya? (Sorry for the sarcasm!)
    Regarding #1: Science, what he meant was, that laws should be treated as a scientific study, not a moralistic study. This can probably answer the traffic law viewpoint. If you dont have traffic laws, nobody will reach anywhere and all kinds of nasty problems will be there on the road. Though this can go into a long discussion of its own, and again, because I didnt see a problem there, I never ventured, maybe you will find something they say related to this and write about it in future ?

    Regarding #3: Democracy, based on what I have read in other places, I mean other than just that intro page, he is targeting the full franchise democracy, which is often called tyranny of majority. I give a small example from my own country. We have similar system like US, where country is divided into smaller states. These states have authority to decide the structure of their schools and colleges. There is this thing which is called "general" category, which means people belonging to certain class and creed in the society. I belong to this category, and its like being white in western country. We are considered "majority" and are considered that we "oppressed" other classes. So some of these states have about 80% reservation for non-general category in their professional colleges. That means general category males are only allowed to fill upto 20% of the available seats and no more(women have their own quota separately). And nothing can be done against that, even if almost every family in general category is vehemently against that, because we arent really a majority in terms of population. I can say "almost every family" based on both the anecdotal evidence of my personal interactions and also based on past riots which have happened.

    And there are some other concerns with democracy, which can be talked under :

    #2: Eugenics and Dysgenia, well I wont discuss that there. That will be against the rules of this board. And this is the MAIN reason why I am rarely linking to anything. Whatever these guys talk about, can be extremely inflammatory.

    Thanks for discussing it this thoroughly though, now I am more aware of one weak spot of this system. While I dont see it as a weak spot based on my viewpoint in life, which is that I attach no intrinsic value to morals, but it can be for other people so its necessary to keep that angle in mind when talking about this to others. Our difference of viewpoint in this matter was apparent in other thread too where we talked about freedom of thought. I will now look for if something is written about related to this and will post if I find anything.
    A clever fighter not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. His victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom, nor credit for courage. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.

    Sun Tzu in The Art of War
    MGTOW is about making no mistakes against gynocentrism.


Similar Threads

  1. Any traditional women left in US?
    By MrVon in forum For Ghosts
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 8, 2019, 8:22 AM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: April 3, 2019, 1:53 PM
  3. Australia Lurches Left
    By Colin41 in forum Lounge
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 17, 2016, 7:55 PM
  4. Someone left the secret plans on the table
    By Mr Wombat in forum Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 24, 2015, 5:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •