Why does the Right stand any chance - at all?

Post Reply New Topic

The Left is also killing its chances through it’s own prejudice.

[color=black]If people are LGBTQ, minorities, immigrants (legal or not), handicapped, poor, abused, or under-privileged, then The Left embraces them like family, even when those “family” members are junkies, criminals, or even terrorists.

But let people be “straight”, native-born, cis-gendered, sane, able-bodied, healthy, wealthy and “privileged”, and The Left scorns them like parasites, [i]even when those “parasites” openly support Leftist causes.

I’ve approached several “progressive” organizations as a volunteer, and have been rejected by them for not being one of them already.

LGBTQ rights? I’m a gynotropic cis-male, so “obviously” I don’t belong with them.

Women’s rights? Same.

Immigrant rights? I’m a native-born American, so “obviously” I don’t belong with them.

I could go on, but let me finish by saying that even though those groups rejected my physical presence and personal involvement, they were certainly interested in taking my money instead.

Trump was "the left" candidate, and Clinton the conservative.

Trump offered …

-amnesty for illegal aliens (Clinton didn't)
-tariffs to protect jobs (Clinton didn't)
-end trade deals (Clinton didn't)
-bring jobs backs home (Clinton didn't)
-end the ACA mandate targeted at lower middle class (Clinton didn't)
-middle class tax cuts (Clinton only did at the very end)
-better health care (Clinton didn't)
-make America great again (Clinton didn't , she said it's already great)

I tend to see junkies, criminals, and terrorists more as side-effects (with Sam Harris, Robert Sapolsky, and Noah Yuval Harrari I don't see any good evidence for free will) but getting back to their scorn of anything majority-oriented, that's that winnowing/distilling effect in motion. When you get to these sorts of pushy people who are willing to destroy anyone (most recent sacrifice being ContraPoints) who isn't pure enough you're no longer dealing with people fighting to get needs met, you're dealing with something closer to a deep wish for revenge on everyone else who isn't exactly like them and even with that done I'm still not sure they'd stop at their own likeness.

In other words, “If they’re part of the Majority (i.e., able-bodied, straight, white, et cetera), then they must be of The Right and they’re just trying to infiltrate and usurp our cause.”

Got it.

No more causes (Left or Right) for me.

^^

The above video was 6:05, I'm watching a commentary on it by Rationaly Rules and he offers some helpful parsing (11:18 run-time).

I'm going to ask as well - who would absolutely love infantilized adults, essentially the veal the system is making now? I can think of at least a couple groups:

1) A government that feels like the world is spinning out of control (people landing personal drones near heads of state, next we'll have synthetic biology in more hands) and needs to start pulling back liberal democracy would benefit hugely from people so fragile that they can't handle freedoms and that they'd gladly give them back to the state as torments to be lifted and carried by a strong father or mother state.

2) A corporate media and advertising machine that wants to maximize profit and selling quite often useless things does much better with less independent thought because there's less interference between a fool and his or her money.


I really think if the decay of the left and the 'snowflake' culture keeps going in the direction it is someone's going to have an absolutely brilliant answer along those last couple points - China-style dictatorship, surveillance, and social credit system!

While I'm generally icky about conspiracy theories I can't imagine groups with interests not noticing emergent events and making use of something as simple as Hegelian dialectic - ie. if there's no solution to the thesis/antithesis given they can pour gasoline on the fire (mass media, Google, etc.) and bargain people toward the only synthesis they can think of - one that most people in their right minds would never want but one that if things got a lot worse people might be willing to except in lieu of the world around them continuing to burn.

Then you're not interested in getting under it and I'll leave it rest there.

Completely ret*d. And then there are some who might accept you, but relegate you to the status of "ally", a second class citizen in the organisation firmly under a glass ceiling.

I remember I was once in a conversation with one of these far left types, and the question was if there was someone you could vote for to be the leader in your country who was perfect for you in every way possible with the exception of being a holocaust denier (only a denier, not remotely nazi) would you vote for them, and not only was the answer no, it was incomprehensible that it could even be considered. And this person was not a Jew.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Well, the left decided recently that a black man who de-radicalized 200 odd Klansmen is actually a White supremacist, so it's probably less to do with positive qualities on the right than with rabid lunatics running the show on the left.

ummm you do realise Trump has not delivered on one of these so called promises??

and what he is left off? Genghis Khan?

I'm guessing since you are taking aim at leftists you are happy to use the r-word like good other "good" conservatives...very admirable

You guess wrong. When the word fits, I'll use it on anything.

I find it interesting that a lot of answers to the question start out with "because rich people in power on the right" as if the people in power on the left are not also rich. And when that is brought up the response is usually "well that's different". The filthy rich on the left (or those not considered to be right wingers), are supposed to full of virtue and altruism. Which seems to me to be an obviously false paradigm.

Not exactly.

I'm perfectly aware that "The Left" is run by a bunch of rich a$$holes, but it comes down whether I want one of MY a$$holes in charge, or one of their a$$holes.

Negative message.


Terrible assumptions. You're assuming that nobody, NOBODY values the elderly or even their own parents. The welfare, entitlement state serves to isolate the elderly and infirm from their children so that they have no reason to be inconvenienced by elderly parents or grandparents. Younger generations have no concept of being able to take mom or dad in when health and mind take a turn. On top of that, it's not just a matter of personal wealth. It's a matter of government regulation that makes caring for a parent prohibitively expensive. You can't even set up a charitable hospital without being faced with a million and one regulations that are only there to punish you for trying to do the right thing.


What "rights" should workers have? The only right I recognize is the right to do a great job. If you want more rights, you must accept more responsibility. To get more responsibility, you have to earn it. There are no "rights" beyond what you do on your own initiative. What most people consider "rights" these days really only refer to "entitlements," and it's the idea of unearned entitlements that's causing trouble.


Ok? But this is a matter of values. A free employee doesn't have to worry about getting beat up. If he gets beat up, he leaves his job. Also, there is nothing wrong with corporal punishment in its effective use. The problem with corporal punishment is its overuse. And I agree it's ineffective when dealing with mental problems. But mentally able students become immune to it. You're not really going to make an effective point arguing corporal punishment because that's a parenting thing, too, and you can't argue against any disciplinary method that's EFFECTIVE, i.e. results in modified behavior.

But getting back to employees...are you referring to slave labor? That's a moral issue. I agree slavery is immoral. But slavery takes a number of forms. There is forced, physical slavery and human chattel. But there are hidden, subtle forms of slavery as well. Debt is the largest form. There's also the lie that education is the answer for everything. Along with that is the lie that you need massive student loans for that education. Students are sold into slavery every year thinking it's the answer to their problems when it is, in fact, the cause of a host of other problems and the loss of their freedom. So I think, too, part of the solution is educating students to the dangers of higher education and the scam that it is. There's nothing WRONG with advanced education, of course. But there is plenty wrong with false promises of success, a forced dependency on the education system, and metaphorically selling your soul to get there. Universities are supposed to be for smart people. Selling yourself for ANY reason is unintelligent. If that's what it takes to get an education, it's not worth it. Make your own way.


But it doesn't take excessive, unreasonable litigation and onerous laws to get there. You don't like how you're treated at work? QUIT!! ! Quit, and get everyone else to quit with you. Start a company to compete. Innovate. Set your own safety standards. Put your former employer out of business. That's the way it has always worked prior to social "reforms." Over-regulation has made it near impossible to really grow a business because the tiniest misstep is suicide.


The vote for freedom and self-determination. When an employer does well, the employees reap the benefits.


The left also cares about creating victims and common enemies. Racial slavery is perhaps the best illustration of collectivism. Slaves are taught they cannot take care of themselves, cannot think for themselves, that if they just work hard and support the system, they'll have food, clothing, shelter...basic vital necessities. All you have to do is just keep me in power. It amuses me that Civil War Democrats and pre-Civil Rights Democrats are painted as conservative while Republicans around the same period of time were "radical" or "progressive." Truth is nobody changed. Democrats just went from promoting one form of slavery to another. If we can't get your labor, at least we can get your mind. And with your mind and your votes, we can concentrate power for ourselves. Ever wonder why Democrats get so upset when someone from a victim class leaves the proverbial plantation?


Entitlements come at a steep cost--not just to the wealthy, not just to the middle-of-the-road taxpayer, but to those receiving them. It's difficult to distance yourself from entitlements after you receive them. Take entry-level jobs, for instance. Immigrants (the legal kind), refugees, and minorities coming from low income, low opportunity areas will often say that they have a greater income from entitlement, welfare programs than they'd ever receive at an entry-level job. Now, sure, part of the problem might be that entry-level jobs don't pay what employees deserve, but also the nature of entry-level work is such that it's impossible to earn what a worker is really worth. That's why it's "ENTRY LEVEL." You're not SUPPOSED to want to stay in those positions. As a former min-wage worker at McDonald's, I can tell you right now they don't expect employees to stay long, and certainly not every single employee is going to make manager. It's a means to an end. And when you feel your skills and experience warrant it, you move on. McDonald's doesn't have to compete for those kinds of employees. It doesn't take a neurosurgeon to make a QP with cheese.

But retailers do have to compete. Hospitals do. Law offices do. Software companies. Communications. And any occupation with any kind of skilled specialization. It's quite simple: You earn what you work.


But...but...(wait for it...)...


THERE it is!! ! The employer, making the hard decisions? The employer, who makes value statements? The employer, who writes the vision and mission statements? The employer, who invented the product, marketed the product, upgraded the product, redesigned an even better product, and left the world a better place than he found it in? THAT employer? And he's only successful because people WILLINGLY work for him because they believe in what he's doing? Because they enjoy the work they do, and enjoy reaping the benefit of the product of their hands? THAT employer? The one who is only successful because of HIS ingenuity, HIS innovation, HIS belief in his own product, and because people are lining up, circling the building a few times over because of how HIS work changes their lives for the better? You're telling me, or you expect me to believe, that it's perfectly ok to punish employers, the ones who are PAYING THEIR EMPLOYEES so that they'll keep coming back to work? You want to punish THAT guy???


Have you ever considered that's really what's happening? I can understand if you haven't thought it through quite to that conclusion. If that's all you know or all you ever see, it's a logical conclusion that socialism is all about good intentions and people getting what they deserve. It's all about taking care of both the worker, the farmer, and everyone right beside the elderly and infirm. In practice, however, socialists demonize those of means and ability, creating victim classes and common enemies. NEVER has a socialist regime ever actually solved any problems. There are ALWAYS in a state of perpetual revolution, a state of war and rebellion even when there's no one to war or rebel against. Even if you succeed in installing a communist or socialist regime in your own country, "equality" always ends up putting everyone in the poorhouse with only those in power receiving any real benefit. It's kinda like going to conferences where they have motivational speakers, or buying self-help books. Who's making money of pro-dev? The motivational speaker. Who makes money of self-help books designed to equip you to earn more money? The guy who wrote the book you bought. In the end, when I hear a motivational speaker, or I read a book on leadership, I leave the experience feeling refreshed, feeling a little bit affirmed, and feeling a little bit better about myself. I WANT to go and keep doing my best. But the only value I find it those kinds of things are warm and fuzzy feelings. Maybe it was what I needed right then to keep from burning out. Reading a book and following seven easy steps will NOT make me rich, and I'm well aware of that.

The socialist agenda preaches equality for all. It's a feel-good exercise in altruism and wishful thinking. But in the end, equality in socialism simply means that "some people are more equal than others." I recall at one point my wife and I were experiencing financial hardship to the effect we were about to lose our house. We were at that place where we seriously were having to figure out where our next meal was coming from, and we had two small children. We heard about a local assistance program, and I suggested my wife talk to them. The first thing that happened was she had to fill out a stack of paperwork and could ONLY hand in the paperwork within a certain window before having to start the process completely over. She got the documents that they requested, only to be turned down because certain docs weren't acceptable. So we found out what that meant and started over with the right documentation. Then they told us THAT wasn't right, either. This went on for a couple of weeks, but she was patient and kept cutting one red tape after another. Three weeks later, when she FINALLY got all her documentation, every form filled out, they told her they were rejecting her application. She asked why. One of the social workers there pulled her aside and said, "If you hadn't worn a dress and you'd taken off your engagement ring and said you had no way to find your husband, we might have accepted your application." You may not be able to appreciate this where you live, but down here where WE live, that means something a little different than what's on the surface: You're not "our kind." In other words, you're white and you're married. Doesn't matter what the rules say, doesn't matter what the paperwork says. We're discriminating against you because we can and there's nothing anyone can say against it.

They were later sued for corruption on an unrelated matter, and we weren't surprised.

THAT is your welfare state. THAT is socialism at work. In a socialist or communist nation, the corruption doesn't go away. It just takes a different form. Because the means of acquiring wealth is exhausted, employers have to go outside the system for income. The accumulation of wealth can be tolerated through kickbacks and bribes, or anything that helps keep the party leader in power. The ACTUAL means of production is a matter of playing favorites, of who is "more entitled" to it. Not everyone gets a turn, even if the law says they have to. It becomes a matter of quotas, all subject to government approval. "...more equal than others."


Stalin? That's because of the socialist bait-and-switch. Socialist policies. Ok, COMMUNIST policies, but I see communism as the end of socialism, not socialism as the end of communism. But these policies and goals are only achievable through revolution. Lenin wasn't revolutionary enough. Lenin already go rid of all the enemies of communism. There's no revolution left to fight. Stalin's paranoia is symptomatic of the mental disease that socialism is. If there's no enemy, then you have to create an enemy. Who were Stalin's enemies? He had no enemies. But that didn't stop him from demonizing prominent officials within the communist party of his time along with yesteryear's protected groups. You got a couple of farmers complaining about quotas? Confiscate grain and make possession of it a capital offense. Famine breaks out? Blame the peasants. Prisons getting full? Release EVERYONE you jailed for minor offenses, circumvent the courts and imprison officials over false imprisonment, and have some factory workers executed for good measure. Or what about Yezhov, the man Stalin worked side-by-side with in the Great Purge? When people within his own party start pointing their fingers at Stalin, what does he do? Oh, well, it was Yezhov. It was always Yezhov. I'll deal with him and that will be the end of it. Stalin "made him disappear."

Lenin and Stalin were successful because they were adept, and Stalin more so than Lenin, at creating enemies. Ultimately that's what socialism is. If there's no common enemy? Who needs a revolution? Who needs to die? Today it's the Romanovs. Tomorrow it's the Mensheviks. Next week it's Poland. And later next year it's the West. Trotsky, Schmotsky, I got a guy in Mexico.

You mentioned the hippies... Look, Christians tried that back in the Acts of the Apostles. A husband and wife were struck down dead for lying. Why lie? You have something to fear in a socialist mini-state that you really don't want to be a part of? That just shows you the cracks in the foundation. Socialism didn't work for the early Christians. It didn't work in the earliest North American settlements. It didn't work in the CCCP. And tell me what all those hippies are up to these days? They sold out back in the 1980's and never looked back. Why? Because SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK!! ! And it's a tiny, tiny step from hippies to Antifa. And I don't have to remind anyone that radical, collectivist "community organizer" groups existed alongside the hippies back in the day. Can you say "Weather Underground"? It's nothing new. But you want socialism. You want violence. You want hate groups. You want victimhood. You want envy. You want greed. Enjoy it, because that's what you're signing up for.

Personally, I have more hope for humanity than that. I have no enemies. I could do without my student loans, but aside from that I'm free. Get away from socialism. Be happy!

^ Thanks, but I'm content keeping both mine and my mother's health insurance, and my disability checks.

Doubt I'd be more "free" living in the street without my medication.