Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Has There Ever Been a True Venn Intersection Between the Leftist Worldview and the Worldview of the Constitutional Right?

I'm thinking that a true agreement between Left and the rest of us to pursue a common goal has occurred only in times of war, and specifically WWII. The currently devastated Democrat party is showing that it has nothing in common with a free people, and is focused on forcing the entire populace into a single worldview: theirs. That Trump does not share their worldview has kept the Left in a state of insane fury ever since the minute he was declared winner.

Insane fury is, in fact, a component of the Left's tactics, a showy form of self-righteous virtue declaration. That in turn is a consistent part of Class War, and the identification of friend vs foe vs necessary victims.

The "class" issue was responsible for the elimination in France, 1791, of the feudal system. The proposition of a compromise within which both a monarchy and in which a free people could exist, caused the revolution to begin. By 1793, the Left had taken control, and the Reign of Terror began.

And that recalls the original "Left" from the "virtuous" massacres by the French Public Safety Committee's guillotine. Called the "Reign of Terror", the terrorist government of the French Revolution went around France executing their known enemies as well as suspected enemies. The concept of "Leftism" was born in totalitarian massacre of its own people, those of France. And it was justified in the term, "public safety": no one could be "safe" until all of the enemy were beheaded. What could be more virtuous?

So from that start and through the following centuries, the French Revolution and its "virtues" became icons for leftist revolutionaries world wide.
As he sought to measure progress of the Russian Revolution, Lenin often compared it to the Great 18th Century French Revolution. Speaking to a congress on adult education in May 1919, he said, "Take the great French Revolution. It is with good reason that it is called a great revolution. It did so much for the class that it served, for the bourgeoisie, that it left its imprint on the entire nineteenth century, the century which gave civilisation and culture to the whole of mankind. The great French revolutionaries served the interests of the bourgeoisie although they did not realise it for their vision was obscured by the words “liberty, equality and fraternity”; in the nineteenth century, however, what they had begun was continued, carried out piecemeal and finished in all parts of the world."

"Everybody who studies history seriously will admit that although it was crushed, the French Revolution was nevertheless triumphant, because it laid down for the whole world such firm foundations of bourgeois democracy, of bourgeois freedom, that they could never be uprooted."

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen was quoted later by the revolutionaries of Vietnam, including Ho Chi Minh, when they made their own "Declaration of Independence from French colonialism in 1945.

Lenin emphasized that in Russia they had carried the process of revolution a big step further: "In a matter of eighteen months our revolution has done ever so much more for our class, the class we serve, the proletariat, than the great French revolutionaries did."
And what class does the current Leftist serve? Claiming blacks, women, and many previously defined mental disorders as Victimhood Classes sounds virtuous to those who need such a class for political gains. From that start the Left has not proposed to ever equilibrate such minorities successfully into assimilation, but to forever use them as unequal, incompetent, unable to compete with whites - who succeed only due to the massive, racist, (etc) monolithic cultural machine which is perpetually devoted to suppression of non-whites. Forget that many of those minority members do, in fact, enter the machine and succeed without the help of the Left. (Help from the Left results in "tokenism" which works against all minority members).

A blatant example of non-intersection is the RadFem refusal to accept either transwomen or black women. And the current war on whites and "whiteness" is the removal of any commonality of euro-americans with any/all Victimhood Groups.

There is no common Venn area of intersection for the cultural stability needed to provide peace/opportunity in the populace and a common worldview, provide a set of common objectives, and provide conditions for the treatment of individuals.

Disagree? Then list the areas which are common to both the Left and Right. And forget things like chocolate and puppies; I mean actual political/cultural and personal development issues.

15 comments:

Stan said...

Hugo,
Your comment wound up in the spam folder, which I group deleted just as I saw your name flash off.

Repeat it if you still care to.

Hugo Pelland said...

No problem. It was a quick response to the last part of the post:

"There is no common Venn area of intersection for the cultural stability needed to provide peace/opportunity in the populace and a common worldview, provide a set of common objectives, and provide conditions for the treatment of individuals.

Disagree?"

Yes, diasgree. The statement is clearly false and the opposite is actually true. You can never find anything that everyone in a certain agrees. Take surveys of any topic, and the answers won't be 100% on either side. Therefore, there is always some overlap between two groups who are generally opposed to each other.

Stan said...

That's just your opinion, of course, unless you can show points that the Left pursue are the same points that the Right pursue.

In fact, if that were the case, then those issues wouldn't be bi-polar, and not Left or Right defining concepts. So the issue becomes one of tautology, seemingly.

Stan said...

For example we can probably agree that Hillary should not go topless. Not a politically defining issue.

Hugo Pelland said...

You're saying that there is no overlap, at all, between the Left and the Right, and I am telling you that this is false because within each of these groups you can find individuals that agree on certain specific issues, even if overall they fall on opposite sides. Plus, it's more complicated than that as Left/Right is a simplistic divide that does not represent individuals very well. Leftist does not necessarily equal Liberals, for instance, just like Right-wing does not equal Conservative.

Here's an example: you mentioned Jordan Peterson in the other giant thread. Did you ever that Jordan Peterson does not believe there is such a thing as objective truth and that he considers morality to be pretty much entirely based in biological evolution? That's not quite what you believe... right? Yet, you mentioned him because you agree with him on his fight in favor of Free Speech and against the extreme-Left aka SJW aka post-modernists.

Stan said...

Roughly half of the nation voted for Hillary. That is what counts. Here's why: voting for Hillary meant that they accepted abortion; they accepted Hillary as both a feminist and a woman abuser defending her rapist husband; they accepted Hillary as "the future",despite selling 1/3 of the US supply of Uranium to the Russians who they now vilify while taking $millions for their "Foundation"; they accept that the other half of the nation is a basket of deplorables, worthy of sucking dry and then eradicating. They are lawless and without moral bounds.

The other half of the nation believes in lawfulness, honesty, truth, life, anti-corruption, anti-comunism/anti-fascism, and they are not stupid and can see that the false charges against them are just the daily lies of the Left.

As for Jordan Peterson, he started out as a persecuted advocate for freedom of speech, but then deteriorated on other subjects (Vox Day has done a good analysis of Peterson). Because he is a Leftist and has been caught in both lies and false analysis, I no longer believe anything he says. That means that his flight into "free speech" cannot be believed.

Leftists do not differentiate between truth and not-truth. They do believe in the supremacy of man, and within that boundary, supremacy of themselves over the Herd, hence they own and must govern the Herd. There is no intersection possible between the Left 50% (still screaming for Trump's blood because he deposed the presumptive Empress of the World) and truth, Truth, lawfulness, the people own the government.

Don't bother with generalities; give examples of worldview positions that both groups agree on. And don't bother with the mix and match approach: one cannot believe in Life and be a Democrat, but must swear to protect abortion.

Just list out some Leftist Sacraments that a significant number of Constitutionalists agree with, also. And be careful, the RINO factor, and Never-Trump camp is Leftist to the core and are not constitutionalists.

Stan said...

Now let's take the position of being NOT of the Left, and NOT of the Right. So what do we have here? Having no position is no great glorious feat. Or perhaps it involves believing in some small pieces of the Left, and some small pieces of the Right.

This mental confusion indicates a truncated view of both sides, regardless of their contradiction,a and therefore irrationality. One cannot believe in either truth or Truth or Life or the US Constitution - for example - and yet be a Leftist, UNLESS one is hopelessly cranially scrambled.

In fact the belief in contradiction as an OK path to decision making is both Post Modern (or beyond), and anti-rational/anti-Modernism, so facts do not matter to such people.

Gotta git.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan,

You mentioned so many things... and generalize, again, that roughly half the population of the USA is literally dangerous insane people, just because of 1 vote. ONE VOTE. In reality, you can't know that much about these people. Just like we, you and I, can't know that much about the other half. Sure, there are tendencies and common points, but not all.

Plus, only around 80M people voted... so what about the others? Or what about those who cancel their vote or vote for a 3rd party? And why is voting that important in the first place when it comes to generalize HALF of the population?

I am not saying your points are wrong (many are...) but what's definetely wrong is your generalization and incapacity at sticking to arguements, or specific topics.

Stan said...

Exactly how many votes for pure evil does it take? What is your metric? How do you justify it? What sort of logic/evidence do YOU use? I give demonstrable evidence, which you claim can't say anything about the particular. False. Members of a set must contain the characteristics which define the set. Claiming not so defies rational principles.

BTW, set theory is the opposite of classism theory. This is because classism assigns people to classes based on political criteria (Marxism). Set theory discovers traits that are common based on objective criteria, and uses those discovered traits with commonality to define sets.

You invoke your particular flavor of ideological skepticism for all points which you do not like but cannot disprove. Skepticism is neither logic nor evidence nor even an argument in and of itself. Skepticism is always pure rhetoric which is used to attempt to induce doubt rather than provide rational points. You have always done this, and it is one reason you have been banned before.

Those who don't vote, don't count. They aren't even noise in the national debate, nor in the determination of the future of constitutional representational democracy. Their sector is huge, yet is useless except for their provision of labor into the economy, and making people like the Kardashians filthy rich for no discernible reason.

Here's some data:
Total Ballots Counted: 136,700,729
http://www.electproject.org/2016g

Total votes for Donald Trump (R) 61,898,584
Total votes for Hillary Clinton (D) 63,551,979

Total number of Americans eligible to vote 218,959,000
Total number of Americans registered to vote 146,311,000
https://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/


Something like 72M American adults do not even register to vote. In a political sense, they are chaff, driven by whatever political wind exists at the moment.

If you think there is more than one topic, above, then you are confused. I addressed your questions and made points to support my statements. As for generality, ideological skepticism is the most general approach of all.

In fact, such skepticism not only throws shade on the user, it also is a main tool of the person who can't find flaws, so uses the doubt without reason approach... mainly to support ideology that is not supportable with empirical data and/or Aristotelian deductive analysis... such as Atheism and Leftism.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan, you said:

"Set theory discovers traits that are common based on objective criteria, and uses those discovered traits with commonality to define sets."

Yes, exactly! That's what I am saying, not you! You do the exact opposite. You keep talking about this group that you call "Leftists" and then throw in there everybody that you disagree with, on anything.

Jordan Peterson is the best example; you used him as an example of someone attacked by the Left and not called him a Leftist because you don't like certain things he said more recently. You did exactly what you said is wrong to do: assigns people to classes, instead of talking about ideas, arguments, opinions, facts, evidence.

Stan said...

I don't disagree, at least not completely. The Class System has been forced upon us for the past three decades. As the Left has always said, "work within the system" (the Clinton's motto). The Left/Right/Ignorant classes have been made real by the political, social, corporate and educational systems. You don't accept that, ever, it appears, and you have always attacked me for considering that people who define *groups* have been formed into Classes and do not, cannot, think outside that Marxist paradigm. So we must fight within that paradigm by knowing why they are the foe, and who they are.

"You did exactly what you said is wrong to do: assigns people to classes, instead of talking about ideas, arguments, opinions, facts, evidence."

How many times must we go through this? Class is forced upon us, it's the framework of the fight, the terrain of the battle which cannot be avoided. One must be either a pollyanna or completely unaware of what the Left's intent to think otherwise.

It is no longer possible to be indecisive as are you. Denying that there is a Left/Right Class divide is just - ignorant. A person cannot rationally hold two contradictory opinions and a Leftist cannot hold Rightist principles (for one thing, like Kanye who has been stripped of his blackness this week, the Left cannot and will not allow it).

Denying this obvious trait of the cultural Marxism indicates what? Denying the existence and extent of cultural Marxism indicates what?

As for Jordan Peterson, I haven't followed him for a while. The recent Vox Day analysis of the Peterson responses to attacks on himself provides a deeper look into the situation with Peterson.

This is a culture of "identification, friend or foe". You will disagree because "people aren't all alike", which is totally beside the point, logically. Here's why, once again.

The Left has seized control of the culture.

The Left demands the categorization by race, sex, sexuality, etc.

The Left demands conformance and rejects individualism.

The Left cannot tolerate the "intolerables/deplorables/unclassifiable as victims or messiahs.

The Left is unconstrained by laws of any nature, save their Narrative which is both volatile and absolute, which demonstrates that...

The Left is Post-Modern, rejecting actual truth and facts which are not of value to the Narrative, and creating lies which are declared fact in order to support the Narrative. The Left purposefully creates larger ideological chasms every day in order to be presented clearly as the saviors/messiahs of the Victimhood Classes. That is how they give themselves value: by devaluing the Other, i.e., both the Oppressor Class and the Victimhood Classes (always retained as Victims for the purposes of the Messiah Class).

If you cannot see the total separation of the Left from the principles of the Right by this point, then there is no amount of observation or evidence that will convince you.

Whether you become convinced is of no concern to me. It is all up to you.

Hugo Pelland said...

I'll try one last comment on this thread, and basically just ask one question and be done with it, so I thank you in advance for your answer. I hope it will help clarify the 1 specific topic of this 1 thread and especially when it comes to "knowing why they are the foe, and who they are" because I don't understand who you are putting in which bucket and why. If it doesn't clarify anything, too bad I will have to move on, but there will be lots of other posts that cover the examples I am going to list at the end of this comment so I am sure it will come up again...

The title is: "Has There Ever Been a True Venn Intersection Between the Leftist Worldview and the Worldview of the Constitutional Right?". Depending on what these 2 worldviews are and who is included in each group, the answer can either be 'yes' or 'no'.

If the groups are large enough and include a lot of topics, as in roughly a 50-50 split across the population of the USA and dozens of topics, then the answer is obviously 'yes', there are lots of overlap. Even though there is definitely a broad "Left" and a broad "Right", I am not denying that at all, there are lots of topics and values that both sides agree on, or that individuals within each side agree on even if they don't agree on everything.

If the groups are narrow enough and focus on a few specific topics, then it also becomes obvious that the answer is 'no', pretty much by definition.

Therefore, my question is: What are some specific positions and/or values that are unique to the Constitutional Right such that it does not overlap at all with the group you call "The Left" in the title of the post?

Hugo Pelland said...

To make my question clearer, here are some of the points you have already mentioned and why I don't think they fit under that notion that there is no overlap, hence my question.

1) "The Left has seized control of the culture."
Most of Hollywood stars, artists of all kinds, and local folks involved in various types of artistic fields are indeed way more to the Left. But there is no shortage of individuals who are part of that culture and fall under the broad Right. Moreover, the SJWs type of Leftists, or anyone who is more anti-establishment is actually disgusted by our current culture. They are part of the broad political Left but also complain that the culture has been seized by others, who they perceive as the Right, the Capitalists, in their case.

2) "The Left demands conformance and rejects individualism."
Liberals, among the broad Left, are actually a lot more in favor of individualism than the Conservatives within the broad Right, as Liberals tend to be in favor of a "laissez faire" approach when it comes to personal choices. It's the Right that wants the government to care about good moral Christian values, for example, and complains about the loss of conformity to Judeo-Christian values. But the exact opposite happens too with other sub-groups. The more recent Alt-Right is all about the individual and generally rejects organized religion while the SJW Leftists types are willing to protest speakers they don't like and want conformity in that sense. That's why some people like Dave Rubbin, Milo or of the Weinstein brothers are, to one degree or another, part of what used to be the broad Left but are now labeled as Right-wing by extreme Leftists.

3) "The Left is Post-Modern, rejecting actual truth and facts which are not of value to the Narrative"
There is again a big gap within the Left, and the Right, regarding this but I think it's more consistent on the Right. There are some post-modernists within the Left that claim there is no objective Truth of any kind, as it's all about opinions and perceptions. The Right seems to be more united in that they are either God believers who think objectivity comes from God, or Atheists who value critical thinking and actually focus on the facts, which some of the Left reject for the sake of the narrative.

Hugo Pelland said...

4) The Constitution, the Government, the System as a whole...
This one is not a quote but it came up in various forms through your posts. There are basically 2 positions: some think we should work within the current system to try to improve it, while others think that we should tear down the system and rebuild it. What we find is that within both the broad Left and the broad Right there are individuals who are in either camp. This is thus where there is definitely a lot of overlap between the 2 Venn diagram of the Left and the Right, as the sub-groups are shifted around a lot. Here is how I see the 4 sub-groups that this create:
Right, Pro-Establishment: This might be what you call the Constitutional Right; those who want to work with the Constitution of the USA, with the institutions, with the current system to effect small changes and mostly keep the system .
Right, Anti-Establishment: This is more around the so-called Alt-Right, Libertarians, and perhaps some hardcore groups such as White Supremacists and extreme religious cults who happen to share their views. This is a sub-group that thinks the system is completely broken and want a new one.
Left, Pro-Establishment: This tends to be the Liberals within the Left, most of the corporate Democrats and the slightly more conservatives among the broad Left. They have Liberal values, tend to prefer a bigger government, but think we need to preserve the system.
Left, Anti-Establishment: This tends to be the SJW and other more extreme groups like Antifa or Communists, who think the system is broken and want to tear it down. Some of them, even though they didn't like Trump, were still happier with him than Clinton as she represented the establishment.

So I hope you can clarify where you stand among all of these and where you think there's that divide between just 2 groups, because I don't see it... especially because of the 4th point above. Looking forward to your clarifications but, again, I will not reply back here on this thread as it has run its course I believe.

Stan said...

As I said earlier: three groups.
1. Trump Voters. (lawful Constitutional Right)
2. Hillary Voters. (Leftist scofflaws)
3. Non-voters. (inconsequential)

Votes are the actions that define the separation of worldviews.