Many of the people who would fall into the left side of the current political spectrum that most people think of grew up with parents, grand-parents, and other family members who are hardcore Leftists. By hardcore Leftists I mean Communists and National Socialists. By the term I mean actual national socialists like the Nazis, but of their own particular countries or religions. For example, many radical Islamists; like most moderate Muslims have been saying for years the radical Islamists are not real Muslims, they are only using the religion to spread their ideology, which is the same as the Communist ideology. They were raised with no moral codes or philosophies. For children raised in families of immigrant groups from far left leaning areas of the world, this affect is even more intense because not only your family, but everyone you interact with are either hardcore communists or nationalist socialists. The majority of human beings are largely a product of their environment. Libertarians and Voluntaryists live by a moral philosophy of the non-aggression principle, the vast majority of Republicans live by their various moral values that they adopt through their particular religions. These religions include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. All religions, even atheistic religions like Buddhism ultimately teach a way to interact with other human beings and the world around you according to particular moral values taught by the religion. The underlying principle between the moral values taught all religions is the same as the non- aggression principle. The principle is that it is wrong to initiate force against another human being; all people who practice the moral values taught by their particular religion will agree with this simple truth.
Instead of moral values, children raised in Communist and national socialist communities are taught ideology. Imagine growing up in an environment where those around you live their lives with no moral values, but act only out of self-interest and ideology. Children raised in such environments have little choice but to adopt the ideology that they are taught and emulate the behavior that they see. Many of the people who fall on the Right side of the political spectrum consider those on the left to be dumb. I believe that this is not the case, the goal of the hardcore left is not to help the poor or help an oppressed group, their goal is to bring down a system that goes against the ideology that they have been taught and raised in. The truth is, hardcore Leftists don’t care about the poor, or gays, transsexuals, or minorities. In fact, the majority of the bigots who do hateful actions and spread hate about these groups are Leftists, particularly the national socialists. Attaching themselves to and claiming to represent groups of people who have been legitimately oppressed in the past or are currently being oppressed allows them to claim the moral high ground. This allows them to propose ideas and push agendas that are purposely fundamentally flawed and claim moral outrage at any who oppose their ideas or agendas. They do this by basically saying since we represent oppressed groups, you are racist, sexist, anti-gay, misogynist, etc. if you disagree with our ideas and agendas. This is identity politics. This tactic throws reason and logic away completely and creates in the mind of someone watching the following scenario: I am in group A, there are 2 sides to this debate I am seeing on TV, party 1 claims to represent group A, therefore I will side with them.
This may seem like a simple tactic when only looked at on the surface, but it has very insidious effects and intent. To illustrate what I mean I will use the following example of what happens in the mind of someone who has been conditioned not to use reason, logic, and evidence: Paul Krugman has a PHD. Paul Krugman says 2+2 = 5, therefore 2+2 = 5. If a janitor says to him or her, 2+2 = 4 and I can show you by counting on my fingers, the person who has been conditioned not to use reason, logic, and evidence will think, “what does the janitor know, I will defer to Paul Krugman who has a PHD and therefore is an “expert”. This dynamic goes even further, since degrees put categories on what a person is considered to be an “expert” on, only “experts” of a particular specialty like economics, science, medicine, etc. are given credibility when speaking about that specialty. For example, in the mind of someone who does not use reason, logic, and evidence, Ron Paul may be given credibility as an “expert” in medicine because he is a doctor, but he is not given credibility as an “expert” in economics. However, Paul Krugman, who has a PHD in economics, is an “expert” in economics and even if he spouts complete nonsense, the person who uses no reason, logic, or evidence will defer to his opinions on topics of economics.
The communist and national socialist ideology is basically summarized by this slogan popularized by Karl Marx, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” According to this ideology, status in a society must be earned through “effort” and “hard work”. The amount of “effort” and “hard-work” required is controlled by an authority such as a college and regulated based on the particular field a person wants to specialize in so that the person can be considered an “expert” in that field. The person’s degree of “expertize” is determined by the level of validation they receive from the authority (a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, a PHD, etc.) The idea of IQ is hated. This is completely understandable because IQ is so arbitrary, it changes very little from the time a person is born. You can make a smart person dumber by not challenging the person up to his or her potential, but taking someone with a low IQ and raising it is impossible. For example, someone with a low IQ can train for a long time and become very good at a task, but that person cannot be as good at the task as someone who has natural talent in performing that task. To understand this, suppose Michael Jordan had never seen a basketball till he was 17 and I had been training at playing basketball since the day I could walk (I’m 5’9), suppose we both just turned 18, who would be the better basketball player? I may have trained enough to become a very good basketball player, but I would not be anywhere as good as Michael Jordan, not even close.
The idea of a person being a genius is especially hated by those who follow this ideology because someone with a very high IQ will be very successful in the free market. This is because something called the Pareto distribution governs the popularity of everything that people produce in every industry (both industrial production and artistic production). What the Pareto distribution explains is that almost everything fails and a few things succeed beyond anyone’s wildest imagination, for example, the IPhone and other extraordinarily dominant products. A very common theme that is in much of academia and entertainment media that is part of Leftist ideology is that genius should be used for the benefit of all of society or mankind and not for one’s own benefit. For example, Donald Trump did not use his genius for the benefit of society. He used his genius for his own benefit, made a lot of money, and had a lot of fun doing it. This is hated by the Leftists because according to their ideology, this is seen as a crime. To a hardcore Leftist, there is no sense of morality, no sense of right and wrong. Right and wrong to them simply put means, with them (support their ideology) or against them (do not support their ideology). To understand this you simply have to imagine the situation that I presented at the beginning of this article. They are acting out of only their ideology. To them, Donald Trump who has used his genius for his own benefit to achieve such a high status in society is seen as the greatest evil. This is the reason they call him and others like him Nazis, fascists, racists, sexists, etc. The names mean nothing, what they are really saying is: he does not support our ideology and we hate that he has achieved such a high status even though he put forth no “hard work” and “effort” to become an “expert” in a particular field. This is the reason that many of the people with high IQs who are born into Leftist communities tend to become artists (painters, poets, authors, etc.) This is the reason for the classic stories of the tortured artist. The artist is trying to pour his or her immense ability onto the canvas that he or she is painting. This is how great works of art (masterpieces) are created. Even after creating a masterpiece, the artist is tortured and continuously paints in an attempt to pour his or her immense ability onto the canvas, but this is not possible because the canvas is not big enough. The genius must paint himself or herself across the world. The artist cannot do this because he or she has been raised under the ideology that using your genius for your own benefit is the greatest evil. This does not happen in every case and the truth is that most “artists” are perfectly content painting “works of art” that look like scenery from default Microsoft wallpapers. Art is taught as something that benefits all of society by Leftist Ideology. The reason is to direct people with high IQs who are born in Leftist communities towards art so that they do not venture out into the free market; this is the purpose for the Leftist dominance and contributions in artistic ventures.
There are two other types of Leftists besides the hardcore Leftists, these are the types of leftists who may eventually be able to see past the ideology that they have been taught and listen to reason, logic, and evidence. The first type is the bleeding heart, they are usually quick to support “causes” orchestrated by those who set the agenda of the Left that stir an emotional response from them. This type is used by the left as a sympathetic and caring front. I have no sympathy for this type because instead of trying to find the truth about the “causes” they are supporting or the issues they feel so passionately about, they blindly jump on the bandwagon so they can receive the emotional gratification of supporting a “cause”, the majority of which are purposely set to destabilize society. Finding the truth takes time, it takes introspection, it takes the ability to admit when you are wrong (even if it is only to yourself). It is much easier to go for the instant emotional gratification of supporting a “cause” and like most cowards, they go for the easy, quick path to feel good for a short time. The third type are the Leftists who are motivated solely by self-interest with little indoctrination in the ideology. Groups in society who have been oppressed or are currently being oppressed are the majority of the people who are the third type of Leftist. It is perfectly understandable for groups of people who have been oppressed to support, out of self-interest, “causes” set by the Left that are advertised as an attempt to right a past wrong committed against the oppressed group. For example, I can understand how a group of people who have been legitimately oppressed in the past like black people in America can support “causes” out of self-interest that would give them an advantage in society whether the “cause” is just or not. This type is used by the Left as both a front and a shield. They are used as a front because it allows the Left to claim to diverse, they are used as a shield when the Left has to defend the bad ideas and agendas they push, the Left will claim by not supporting our agendas or ideas, you are against these oppressed groups. I believe that the third type of leftist can be reasoned with, especially if they are capable of understanding morality, the reason for this is that they have not been as indoctrinated by the Leftist ideology.
The complaints that Leftists claim that they have are not the ones that actually concern them, the only “issue” that concerns them is the one that goes against their ideology. For example, one “issue” that Leftists say is unfair is that people are born into wealthy families and start out with more wealth and thus receive an unfair advantage in society, in truth, this does not concern them at all, the only “issue” that concerns them is that people are arbitrarily born with high IQs and no matter how society is organized or how the odds are stacked against them, they can find a way to “succeed” and achieve a high status. The true goal of leftist ideology is not the socialist paradise that they claim where workers own part of the companies they work for, their true goal is to do away with what they consider to be the genetic abnormality of people being born with high IQs. This is the real reason for the majority of bullying that takes place in schools and narcissistic-codependent relationships in adults; people teach their children to hate smart people, children bully their smart classmates; similar dynamic with the narcissistic-codependent relationships. I could write an entire book on this ridiculous phenomenon.
This is the reason that the goal of real news sources, whether that be a large production or someone sharing truth on their Facebook page, should be to push the Right towards adopting a moral stance on issues by criticizing leaders on the Right who act against the fundamental moral principles that the Right stands for. Reasoning with hardcore Leftists is not only useless, but impossible. You may have some luck with the other 2 types of Leftists. Other than this I do not think real news sources should engage with the “arguments” and other antics of the Left at all, their goal is the same as SJW demonstrators; to get attention and a reaction, then feed off that attention and reaction. They are a joke onto itself. Instead of worrying so much about their ridiculous antics, sane people should look at them as what they really are, an endless source of comedy via cringe videos, nonsensical arguments, and other jokes.
When it comes to the topic of "left" politics, I think that the most true, pure, shining definition, the one that many self-proclaimed leftists forget, is that the left represents "Opposing authoritarianism".
The right represents authoritarianism. In its most pure form, the most utterly right concept is to value and respect morals, tradition, governments, states, and other social norms.
These things do not exist. It is pure indoctrination.
All values that you are talking about, be it SJW morals, or Christian morals, or Islamic morals, nazi morals, or even your own morals and beliefs, are completely bullshit in every way.
The only thing we can be sure of is "Cogito ergo sum", and all your talk about morals, law, states, supply or demand, is bullshit.
These concepts exist as abstractions of people's subjective view of reality, and their subjective opinions on reality. What you call moral, another person calls trash.
That's just how it is, and you trying to be so self-righteous as to be "anti-left", is absurd. Both left and right are absurd concepts.
The only concept that can be admitted, is the concept that all of these ideas, political, religious, social, and even economic ideas, are all completely made up, and have no truth to them at all.
I'm not sure if you're a troll, but how do you define authoritarianism if you think the Left is against it? I'm not sure if I understand the rest of what you wrote, the only thing you are sure of is "I think therefore, I am", so that means that rational thought is bullshit? Also, according to whatever you believe, can you explain to me why rape, murder, theft, etc is wrong or if you think it is not wrong, could you explain why? Anyway, there was no argument in anything you wrote, try again please.
Yes, rational thought is not rational.
I don't think most people who call themselves rational are fully rational.
Human logic is often VERY flawed, to the point where logic itself feels shallow.
Accepting the universe as it is seems more logical, than to try to be logical, especially concerning society or politics. Logic works best when applied to physics or chemistry.
Rape, murder, theft, etc, is not wrong. To find out why, check out this article I wrote yesterday. https://steemit.com/morality/@heretickitten/objective-morality-is-a-fabrication-you-need-to-invent-your-own-moral-code-and-be-aware-that-you-made-it-up-there-is-no-truth-to
I'm not a troll, I'm just harshly poetic with words. But I responded to you because what you said is brilliant.
I don't think you're at all on the wrong path. I just think you need to go further. If you're committed to honor, love, justice, and truth, then we're on the same team.
Oh, and I define authoritarianism as the concept that you are not in control of yourself.
If you feel compelled to act a certain way by an outside source, you are no longer in control. Many of these outside sources are not quite authoritarian, but many are, in subtle, complex ways.
Religions, society itself, and most certainly governments, are all very authoritarian.
Not only that, but moral codes, ethical codes, social norms, and other common behavior, including language itself, and what words are available to use freely, are authoritarian in nature, because having them or not having them alters our behavior.
If our behavior is a person walking in a straight line, each aspect of authoritarianism shoves that person in another direction.
In the real world, most leftism IS authoritarianism, and is therefor "right", not left.
For leftism to have a useful meaning, it needs to be against authoritarianism, while rightism must be for authoritarianism, which does include subjectively good things like law and order.
The only reason leftism looks like trash is because it attracts many punky "rebels", who end up growing up and becoming rightists. Only their rightism is concealed because they call themselves left. Only as a label.
True leftism is always pro-freedom, and anti-authoritarian.
Seeing left or right as good or evil is the weakness.
You must see each idea as it truly is, without the labels or bullshit.
Wisdom is understanding both sides of a subjective ideal, and realizing that neither side is objectively good or true.
I read your article. Animals commit rape, murder, theft, etc. all the time in nature by the definition that we human beings give to those words. This is pretty obvious, and considering that human beings are also part of nature, in a purely biological sense, we are animals. However, human beings are the only animals that are capable of empathy, which is why human beings are the only animals who are capable of rape, murder, theft, etc. Evil (intentionally causing suffering unnecessarily) is an offshoot of empathy, if I know what hurts me, I know what will hurt you. A lion may attack you, eat you while you're still alive, and kill you slowly, but you can't call this evil, the lion is just eating. If a human being was to do the same action, it is evil, because he or she knows what he or she is doing, the human being can imagine the suffering he or she is causing because he or she can imagine it being done to him or her.
Also, I noticed in your article that you included things like cheating as part of immoral acts. This is not really the case. In the case of cheating, it is a breach of a contract between partners, it is not immoral as it is unaesthetic. The only immoral acts are those committed against the self-ownership of another. If I were to punch myself in the face, it is not evil because no one has a higher claim to my body and life than me because no one can literally use my body and life but me. Someone can threaten me and force me to do something, but ultimately the only one that can control my body and life is me. The immoral act if someone was to threaten me to force me to do something, is the threat and the actions of the other person. He or she is attempting to control something through force that he or she has no claim to.
If two partners are in a relationship, they have a contract between them of what is expected out of the relationship. If one of the partners was to decide to cancel the contract, all that needs to be done is to cancel the contract (basically just saying I don’t agree to this deal anymore, we need to renegotiate or part ways). If one of the partners decides to breach the contract, it may be a shitty thing to do, but it is not immoral, there was no violation of the self-ownership of the other person, only a breach of contract.
"If one of the partners decides to breach the contract, it may be a shitty thing to do, but it is not immoral, there was no violation of the self-ownership of the other person, only a breach of contract."
I'd call that immoral, according to my moral code.
The fact that you disagree means that your moral code is different.
Because I've seen evidence that people often perpetually disagree on right/wrong, I'll say that neither of us is objective right.
Your moral code is made up by you, and mine is made up by me.
That's why you don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you.
Nothing is wrong with this.
It just means that morality is subjective.
A human being eating/ killing a chicken is not the same as a human being eating/ killing another human being because of what makes us different from a chicken, empathy. Since human beings are the only animals capable of this, they are able to reciprocate morality for each other, treat someone the way you want to be treated or at least don't treat someone in a way that causes suffering. I may be able to do this for an animal, but an animal is incapable of reciprocating. Like it or not, in a purely objective sense, the lives of human beings are more valuable than the lives of other animals because human beings are capable of morality, other animals are not. You are arguing that morality is not universal, but the only morality is that which is universal. Like you said, some cultures may believe that eating other animals is wrong or even that eating certain plants is wrong (Jainism), however ALL of those cultures would agree that killing a human being is wrong, that makes this universal. I believe what you are calling your moral code are your values (not saying there is anything wrong with living according to your values), true morality is always universal.
People don't go to war, governments do. If 99 percent of people thought murder was OK, it would still be immoral. Are you saying what is right and wrong depends on how many people agree with you? I don't think a bird spends it's life dreaming of the slaughterhouse or of anything else, it isn't capable of it. It obviously experiences pain, if you think it's wrong to eat a chicken, don't eat the chicken, that's between you and the chicken, it has nothing to do with me or any other person.
Have you heard of the political compass? The left and right are not essentially authoritarian or not, either can be either. https://www.politicalcompass.org/
Cogito ergo sum is not enough at all. The presence of other people matters, if you look at primatology you can see that it's not just indoctrination. So perhaps we should add Nos itaque sumus. "Made up" doesn't make things unreal, it just makes them changeable. The tangible isn't the only realm.
I agree that this author is far too self righteous, and ironically this is essentially and ideological diatribe.
I've heard of the political compass, but I don't agree with it, at least not in this context.
Instead, I've created my own version of it, one that suits me as an "anarchist vs the concept of the state", rather than defaulting towards "which type of statism do I prefer?"
My version uses the scale of "anarchic" to "authoritarian", to suggest that level of control is more important than policies put into place.
To me, cogito ergo sum is the bootstrap code for developing a philosophy.
It's the first step, but beyond that, you must grow and grow, and find out what makes sense to you as a being. And if you accept yourself as part of a community or society, you can add that to your collection of philosophies as well.
Perhaps instead you have discovered a third dimension to it.
Oh my, that sounds much more true.
How interesting.
There is not a group of people in the world who lack a moral framework and a moral life. These morals may be very different, mostly they are not, but it is very incorrect to say that communistic usurp ideology with morals.
You talk about leftists in a know-your-enemy way, in the sense that you oppose dismissing them as dumb. This is wise, but to suggest they are robots following some ideological programming is just as damaging to know who you're dealing with.
It is possible to consider ideology like a meme (in the original sense of the word) which is an idea that seeks to replicate itself. There may be some truth in this, I don't know. You can look at tradition, etc. in the same way, and what you inevitably arrive at is the idea of free will and are we really making our own decisions or just at the mercy of our genes / memes. I don't know, but to suggest that one group (leftists) are uniquely taken by it is stupid, in the same know-you-enemy sense.
Also the conflation with Nazi's and leftism is a really tiresome point I keep seeing, it's also factually incorrect. Nazism was born out of far-right movements and political philosophy. They were natural enemies of communists and were anti-liberal, etc.
There are lots of other problems with this piece.
Congratulations @johnm862! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!