Left Singularity
#1
Recent news out of Shanghai proves once again that communism always leads to disaster. Everyone intelligent already knew this, but leftists, turd positionists, and WYDNA Chungus Xiists insist that the horrors of the 20th century would not be repeated in the 21st century and that Chinese-style central planning was the most competent and empathetic type of government in the world. Now Shanghai is going through what is called a Left Singularity. Feminine moral hysteria about coronavirus is leading to mass starvation. "Volunteer" leftist death squads are kidnapping people who complain about this on the Internet. They are killing all of the cats and dogs because "they spread the virus". People are jumping out of high-rise buildings to escape the madness. Communism is bad. Central planning is bad. Moral hysteria is bad. When people turn their backs on capitalism and rationality it leads to swift decay and autogenocide. This is why the right shouldn't buy into the "pedophilia" moral hysteria. "Jim is always right." -Nick Land

https://blog.reaction.la/politics/left-p...ngularity/
https://web.archive.org/web/202105170115...ngularity/

Left political singularity

The French Red Terror, the Soviet Great Terror, the Cambodian autogenocide, and many others were all examples of what I call left political singularities.

Left wing repression tends to make things lefter, which tends to worsen left wing repression, which makes things even lefter, which … The process only stops when the latest despot starts to realize he is not left enough, he is being outflanked on the left, is going to be overthrown by those even lefter than himself, and promptly gets rid of everyone important who is even lefter than he is.

Right wing repression does not have this effect, because right wing repression, for example Pinochet, pressures people to forget about politics, whereas left wing repression reaches into every person’s life and forcefully pressures them to piously say the politically correct things. Left wing repression forcibly politicizes everything, even your personal private sexual activities. Right wing repression depoliticizes everything.

In Stalin’s pamphlet “Dizzy with success” it looks to me he was trying to thwart the terror, but terrified that if he tried to thwart it too vigorously, would be its next victim.

Under Tsar Nicholas II, the way to power came to be to be lefter than thou. The safest way to ally was no enemies to the left, no friends to the right. And so everything from there on moved ever lefter. And the lefter things got, the more the way to power was to be lefter than thou, the more dangerous it became to have friends to the right, so the lefter things became, the faster they moved left, consuming each leader in turn for insufficient leftism.

Left wing repression tends to make things lefter, which tends to worsen left wing repression.

We see a similar wind up in the French Revolution. The King moves left, leftists, in particular Rousseau and Voltaire, do very well, so everyone moves left. Voltaire and Rousseau were repressed by the supposedly right wing authorities only enough to generate favorable publicity for their works. The old order was condemned by highly successful intellectuals who somehow wound up with lots of money and young women. Where were the defenders of the old order? Not even the King defended it.

There is an obvious and plausible defense of hereditary monarchy and the hereditary principle: If power is up for the grabbing, there will be a lot of grabbing, and this will at best dissipate lots of wealth, and at worst kill lots of people. The replacement for King Log is apt to be King Stork. Past democracies and republics were apt to degenerate into advance auctions of stolen goods, and often those in power were reluctant to yield power when they were supposed to, so that election became civil war. In the lead up to the French Revolution, we see those attacking the monarchy prospering and succeeding, and we did not hear anyone defending the monarchy, not even the Monarch. Charles the First of England defended hereditary monarchy, first with the pen, then with the sword, and though he lost temporarily, and lost his head, in the end he won, but Louis the Sixteenth of France did as much to undermine monarchy as any man.

Voltaire tells the French that the monarchy needs overthrowing. Well, if the monarchy needs overthrowing, and and an intellectual can do very nicely under the monarchy while calling for its overthrow, likely an intellectual could do even better if it was overthrown, and those intellectuals had to step into the vacuum and replace it. And having stepped into that gap, they declined to imitate the monarchy’s tolerance for its enemies and disdain for its supporters.

King Charles the First told us that the King should protect the subject’s life, liberty, and property, but the subject should not concern himself with politics, that being the King’s business. King Louis the sixteenth however, told us that the King “must always consult public opinion; it is never wrong”. Well if the King himself says that, who is going to deny it? When the King himself will not defend the Royal prerogative, who would? And thus under Louis the sixteenth, an ever leftwards process was set in motion, culminating with the red terror in 1795.

Another way of stating this theory is that when a political belief system intent on gaining power, what I have been calling a theocracy, even if there is no God involved as such, finds it has been pushing on an open door, the push continues, till it blows up in their face and faith.

Leftism is such a belief system, rightism is not, rightism merely being a coalition of random odds and sods being rolled by leftism, and random odds and sods who disagree with leftism on any of a thousand different points of doctrine. Leftists, unlike orthodox Christians, can always be outflanked by purer and more extreme leftists, leftism being a this worldly doctrine, and so the push proceeds. Feminists get outflanked by gays, gays by transgendered.

[Image: goldenrule.png]
#2
I take a different approach to left vs right: Left as "systemism" (or "depersonalism") and the right as "personalism." Leftism relies on bureaucracy, institutions, *systems* in general, which are operated by consensus. Due to various quirks in people, like self-interest and trying not to cause deliberate offense, feedback loops arise, and you get people killing each other over stupid shit while leaving the actually important things to rot. And these feedback loops are exponential, and get faster and faster until it goes off the rails completely.

Rightism does the opposite - people are in charge personally, one man is the boss, and so on and so forth. This avoids the feedback loop, but is far less robust - successions are always tricky (a smooth succession automatically means a society isn't totally right wing), as is the case of what if the man in charge is bad. This is where we get leftism.

Here rationalism also makes an entrance - namely, leftism starts as a rational attempt to fix the personal system - "what if, like, instead of a boss, we had, like, a committee to control us" - the institution was born. This backfired atrociously, because at the time of the invention, silly ideas of blank slate-ism and that people are good and moral by default were en vogue, and they assumed that an institution would be immune to the bad people problem because good people would outnumber them, or something, ignoring facts like "ritual/mental pollution" and such.

Then, baddabing baddaboom, the institutions get stuffed with bad people too, except now it's even worse because people aren't really used to this sort of thinking yet, and still freeze when you propose a return to a personal system, and institutions are far more robust and powerful than 1 man can be. Sunk cost fallacy, or, a philosophical/religious/ideological equivalent of it hits, and what do they do? Well, MORE institutions to keep the institutions in check! See where the problem arises?

A leftist singularity occurs when, paradoxically, the institutions become like people. A dark mirror rightism occurs, when one institution, the Party, becomes master of all, like the kings of old. This is... very weird once it happens.

An even weirder state of affairs occurs when the dichotomy is completely crumpled, and the Party is controlled by 1 man, who effectively becomes an/the institution itself.

Back to rationality - rationalism is less of an ideology or philosophy, and more like a slider-scale thinking style that causes you to have a "rationalist" ideology. And how good or bad it is completely depends on the external conditions, albeit 100% rationalism turns you into a "quokka" inevitably. Being highly rational in rational times is good. Being highly rational in Axial ages of insanity, very bad (you will get your head smashed in by the rabid mob). This is mostly due to an inexplicable bug within the automatically-drawn-from-thinking-style ideology that assumes that... most other people are also rational when you are.

As for capitalism - trying to fight it is foolish, because capitalism is not an ideology or philosophy, but a simple phase of social evolution. Fighting it is like fighting air - even communists live in confines of capitalism.
#3
(04-11-2022, 08:52 AM)BillyONare Wrote: Right wing repression does not have this effect, because right wing repression, for example Pinochet, pressures people to forget about politics, whereas left wing repression reaches into every person’s life and forcefully pressures them to piously say the politically correct things.  Left wing repression forcibly politicizes everything, even your personal private sexual activities.  Right wing repression depoliticizes everything.
(04-11-2022, 10:09 AM)Svevlad Wrote: I take a different approach to left vs right: Left as "systemism" (or "depersonalism") and the right as "personalism." Leftism relies on bureaucracy, institutions, *systems* in general, which are operated by consensus. Due to various quirks in people, like self-interest and trying not to cause deliberate offense, feedback loops arise, and you get people killing each other over stupid shit while leaving the actually important things to rot. And these feedback loops are exponential, and get faster and faster until it goes off the rails completely.

Rightism does the opposite - people are in charge personally, one man is the boss, and so on and so forth. This avoids the feedback loop, but is far less robust - successions are always tricky (a smooth succession automatically means a society isn't totally right wing), as is the case of what if the man in charge is bad. This where we get leftism.
The Nature of leftism that Makes it “reach into every persons life” Comes From It’s Nature as a Morality. The Only way it Works is if EveryOne has the same Morality Leading to Leftists Demanding total Conformity. leftist Morality is Based on Liberalism and Egalitarianism. The French People Rising Against the Monarchy and Aristocracy to Establish the First Republic, the Proletariat Rising Against the Bourgeoise to Make a State of the Proletariat(even if Russian was too agrarian for Marx theory to work). The Right on the Other Hand has a Natural Hierarchy Based off Respect, Merit(competency), and Fraternity.

Liberalism and Egalitarianism were Invented to Achieve Harmony in the CommonWealth Between Men. They tried to mimic the bound Found in Natural Hierarchy without the same Closeness(brotherhood) or order, so Individuals could Remain Strangers yet still be in Amiable Relations. This leads to Civility being Established.

What Leads to leftist Singularities is the loss of Natural Order. The Revolutions were Unnatural Slave Revolts Against their Sickly and Feeble Masters. Both Monarchs had Ample time to Crush the Revolutions Before they were able to Spiral out of Control, Yet Both Failed. Once the Symbols of Natural Order failed to Quell the Angry Mobs Through Violence they Became Embolden and the Revolutions were able to be carried out. After Natural Order was gone the leftist Bureaucracies used Thugs and Criminals to Carry out the leftist Singularities.

The Military Creates the Rights Natural Hierarchies that have the Ability to Stop leftist Singularities from Forming. Napoleon Ended the First Republic, Veterans from The Great War Caused the Rise of Fascism in Europe Prior to WW2. The Rights Natural Hierarchies have Stronger Bounds then the lefts Morality makes, the Natural Being Higher then the Artificially Imposed.

Reconstruction is Another place a leftist Singularity could have Formed if not for the Valiant Efforts of the Confederate Veterans who populated the KKK, White Leagues, and Knights of the White Camalia. The Plot from the second part of Birth of a Nation Played out many times in the South during Reconstruction, CarpetBaggers Leading nigger militia to Impose Tyranny Upon the White Man. But they all ended the same, as a “Massacres”(which is the natural Result when a group of armed niggers attack armed White Men)(look up Colfax “Massacre”)
#4
Much of the grand theorizing about the nature of leftism a la Jim and Moldbug is pointless wankery. Stalin supposedly put a halt to the left singularity in the Soviet Union but its not like Stalinism was any better of a system. Most people lack the historical grounding to be able to have an educated discussion about the origins of the French Revolution without sounding like they're writing a paper for IB History of Europe. 

A discussion of this book, which Mikka once mentioned as being about how the concept of a "Republic" was inextricably tied to becoming an unstoppable military dictatorship to conquer all of Europe, would be much more interesting than the zillionth post about childless Rousseau the utopian.

Btw if it matters at all I’m….acck
#5
(01-16-2023, 03:12 PM)Guest Wrote: Much of the grand theorizing about the nature of leftism a la Jim and Moldbug is pointless wankery. 
I wouldn’t say it was pointless(meaningless) based on why it happens in the first place. You maybe right in that just by “grand theorizing” leftism will not suddenly dissipate into nothingness, it’s not like solving a math equation with the answer meaning the question is solved. The whole point of analysis and critique is that it’s done in the service of an idea. In the path of any great movement there will be ideas that prop it up, and inevitably these ideas will need to refute all movements or ideas in apposition to the idea and movement. This means leftism will always be analyzed and critiqued by non-leftist movements and it exist(critique/analysis) as a sign of that movements will to power. It can be thus concluded that it is inherently very meaningful as it’s literally a contest between meaning(belief(idea)).



Quote:Guest

Stalin supposedly put a halt to the left singularity in the Soviet Union but its not like Stalinism was any better of a system. 
I don’t think anyone claimed this. Although it was stated that Stalin did stop a Leftist Singularity the reason was not that he had a better system.

Quote:Guest

Most people lack the historical grounding to be able to have an educated discussion about the origins of the French Revolution without sounding like they're writing a paper for IB History of Europe. 
This maybe true, but the origins that lead to it are less significant to the story then how the revolution played out. Enlightenment idea, something about a very cold winter, mishandling of the royal treasury, lack of capital due to seven year war and et cetera. They are all not as significant that how the revolution played out, which could have been easily suppressed multiple times which would have thwarted the whole revolution. 

Quote:Guest

A discussion of this book, which Mikka once mentioned as being about how the concept of a "Republic" was inextricably tied to becoming an unstoppable military dictatorship to conquer all of Europe, would be much more interesting than the zillionth post about childless Rousseau the utopian.
Thanks for the recommendation. But the star of the French Revolution was Robespierre, proceed by Napoleon with the First French Empire. This is the only interesting way to study it. It should be made into an anime.
#6
Lelouch is Napoleon [Code Geass]

Light Yagami is Robespierre [Death Note]
Rainbow 
#7
(04-11-2022, 10:09 AM)Svevlad Wrote: I take a different approach to left vs right: Left as "systemism" (or "depersonalism") and the right as "personalism." Leftism relies on bureaucracy, institutions, *systems* in general, which are operated by consensus. Due to various quirks in people, like self-interest and trying not to cause deliberate offense, feedback loops arise, and you get people killing each other over stupid shit while leaving the actually important things to rot. And these feedback loops are exponential, and get faster and faster until it goes off the rails completely.

Rightism does the opposite - people are in charge personally, one man is the boss, and so on and so forth. This avoids the feedback loop, but is far less robust - successions are always tricky (a smooth succession automatically means a society isn't totally right wing), as is the case of what if the man in charge is bad. This is where we get leftism.

Here rationalism also makes an entrance - namely, leftism starts as a rational attempt to fix the personal system - "what if, like, instead of a boss, we had, like, a committee to control us" - the institution was born. This backfired atrociously, because at the time of the invention, silly ideas of blank slate-ism and that people are good and moral by default were en vogue, and they assumed that an institution would be immune to the bad people problem because good people would outnumber them, or something, ignoring facts like "ritual/mental pollution" and such.

Then, baddabing baddaboom, the institutions get stuffed with bad people too, except now it's even worse because people aren't really used to this sort of thinking yet, and still freeze when you propose a return to a personal system, and institutions are far more robust and powerful than 1 man can be. Sunk cost fallacy, or, a philosophical/religious/ideological equivalent of it hits, and what do they do? Well, MORE institutions to keep the institutions in check! See where the problem arises?

A leftist singularity occurs when, paradoxically, the institutions become like people. A dark mirror rightism occurs, when one institution, the Party, becomes master of all, like the kings of old. This is... very weird once it happens.

An even weirder state of affairs occurs when the dichotomy is completely crumpled, and the Party is controlled by 1 man, who effectively becomes an/the institution itself.

Back to rationality - rationalism is less of an ideology or philosophy, and more like a slider-scale thinking style that causes you to have a "rationalist" ideology. And how good or bad it is completely depends on the external conditions, albeit 100% rationalism turns you into a "quokka" inevitably. Being highly rational in rational times is good. Being highly rational in Axial ages of insanity, very bad (you will get your head smashed in by the rabid mob). This is mostly due to an inexplicable bug within the automatically-drawn-from-thinking-style ideology that assumes that... most other people are also rational when you are.

As for capitalism - trying to fight it is foolish, because capitalism is not an ideology or philosophy, but a simple phase of social evolution. Fighting it is like fighting air - even communists live in confines of capitalism.

Right Wing is hierarchy, Left Wing is rejection of hierarchy. There's no other definition, every other definition stems from this.
#8
Wrong. By that definition cops, Fauci, and public school teachers would be right wing.
#9
All intelligent people have had a working definition of leftism since the 1800s. Leftists are for dysgenics; rightists are for eugenics. Saying that “left and right are elemental forces, neither good nor evil, it’s bad if you go too far in one direction or the other” is Judenstein bullshit trying to obscure the truth and claim “actually BOTH sides are bad”. Leftists value ugliness over beauty, believe the stupid should rule over the smart, the poor should live off of the rich like parasites, the weak should kill the strong with mob violence, etc. There is no need for any leftism to exist.

Read Harrison Bergeron
Wink 
#10
(01-30-2023, 11:38 AM)BillyONare Wrote: All intelligent people have had a working definition of leftism since the 1800s. Leftists are for dysgenics; rightists are for eugenics. Saying that “left and right are elemental forces, neither good nor evil, it’s bad if you go too far in one direction or the other” is Judenstein bullshit trying to obscure the truth and claim “actually BOTH sides are bad”. Leftists value ugliness over beauty, believe the stupid should rule over the smart, the poor should live off of the rich like parasites, the weak should kill the strong with mob violence, etc. There is no need for any leftism to exist.

Read Harrison Bergeron

Eugenics is "far right" because it's hierarchical. You cannot enforce non-hierarchcal eugenics. Telling someone he's inferior and shouldn't breed implies a hierarchy imbued in all people, down to their very genes. The idea that a man, or group, is so inferior to a greater vision of man, that its genes themselves should be ended, is deeply hierarchical. 

Eugenics are right wing because they discriminate between higher blood and lower blood. Nature is right wing because it discriminates between fit for Life and unfit for Life. God is right wing because He discriminates between Creator and Creation. Art is right wing because it discriminates between the perfect and imperfect. Same applies to Wisdom, Strength, Beauty or whatever other concept is associated with the right wing.

Eugenics isn't as useful in figuring out what is or isn't right wing as hierarchy is. You could claim anything man-made as Right Wing because it led to eugenic results at some point, just as you can claim anything as left wing because it led to dysgenics. It's not a rational and clear-cut definition. 
 

Quote:Wrong. By that definition cops, Fauci, and public school teachers would be right wing.

Fauci is the head of a hierarchy, but he does not believe in hierarchy. He earnestly believes in saving black bodies by protecting them against a deadly disease. If he did it for Alex Jonesian Depopulation Agenda reasons, then he'd be very right wing. He's not and that's a problem.
Same applies to cops or teachers. All are in power in systems created by the right wing, but they believe in equity and inclusivity.


Admittedly, they are enthusiastic about Positive Discrimination. But leftist attempts at hierarchy are always seen as a temporary necessity with the endgoal of ending hierarchical systems. Comparing the Progressive Stack to Apartheid is comparing an abortion to a natural birth.
#11
Leftism is the inversion of values. This is the most exact description. You are using the shill definition of eugenics where the State or right wing death squads sterilize people they don’t like. Fauci is a liar and he knows the vaccine is probably not good. Cops and teachers are not right wing institutions lmfao. “Apartheid” is just people having freedom of association.

Take the shill test.

Complete the following sentence:
Women misbehave because –
[A] Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal Whites. If it weren’t for capitali$m, women would totally be completely sinless angels.
[B] The (((jews))) make these totally innocent angels misbehave, since the jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck Blacks and lowlifes. There’s no way that pure White women desire to be on OnlyFans to whore for money. The jews forced these angels on that website.
[C] Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
[D] Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men. It is men’s fault entirely, so men must be forced to pay for every bad decision done by any random women.
[E] They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival.
Lightbulb 
#12
(01-30-2023, 11:38 AM)BillyONare Wrote: All intelligent people have had a working definition of leftism since the 1800s. Leftists are for dysgenics; rightists are for eugenics. Saying that “left and right are elemental forces, neither good nor evil, it’s bad if you go too far in one direction or the other” is Judenstein bullshit trying to obscure the truth and claim “actually BOTH sides are bad”. Leftists value ugliness over beauty, believe the stupid should rule over the smart, the poor should live off of the rich like parasites, the weak should kill the strong with mob violence, etc. There is no need for any leftism to exist.

Read Harrison Bergeron
Great that your brought this up. Leftism as a definition is becoming progressively ambiguous. It’s starting to have more abstract attributes and definitions that makes it hard to talk about. I don’t think leftism is some transient metaphysical Spector possessing the deforms ugly monstrously stupid invalids with its promise of revenge against the perfect genetic elect for being chosen over them. 

I think communism and more modern forms of “leftism” are complete bastardizations of its core elements and principles merely appropriating them for the users agenda. Leftism is a morality based around liberalism and egalitarianism. Taken to its logical conclusion we would get something like Deathnote. Light yagami is literally the absolute sovereign from the leviathan, “all men in nature are at a state of war and only stop when a power puts them at aww” which that power is the leviathan commanded by the absolute sovereign(and Light with his divine power of the Deathnote). This isn’t a defense of leftism btw, I think Deathnote is a perfect critique of leftism. While the leftist elements are Light, the right wing elements are the eccentric non-conforming geniuses that play the role of L. In the end L (not original lawlet but his predecessor melo) win against Light. The mediocracy that Light wants to create of only hard working honest obsequious people is one not for the eccentric genius, thus the enviable battle between Light and L. Leftism is a bad system because it persecuted the higher man in preference of the average man. The higher man will alway want to destroy the mediocracy as he is suppressed in it.

 I do think a distinction should be made between la classical leftism and what we have today. Leftism is inherently a mediocrity while the right is meritocracy. The current left of today is dysgenic sludge slime nigger communism, destroying all but the most sickly perverted mud beasts. Leftism is the nation-state, right wing is the city-state, modern leftism nigger communism is the destruction of all higher elements, a victory of the cthonic subterranean inhuman mud mole creatures trying to destroy all traces of the hyperborean spirit on earth, it has no state in mind. 


(01-30-2023, 12:34 PM)Guest Wrote: Eugenics is "far right" because it's hierarchical. You cannot enforce non-hierarchcal eugenics. Telling someone he's inferior and shouldn't breed implies a hierarchy imbued in all people, down to their very genes. The idea that a man, or group, is so inferior to a greater vision of man, that its genes themselves should be ended, is deeply hierarchical. 

Eugenics are right wing because they discriminate between higher blood and lower blood. Nature is right wing because it discriminates between fit for Life and unfit for Life. God is right wing because He discriminates between Creator and Creation. Art is right wing because it discriminates between the perfect and imperfect. Same applies to Wisdom, Strength, Beauty or whatever other concept is associated with the right wing.

Eugenics isn't as useful in figuring out what is or isn't right wing as hierarchy is. You could claim anything man-made as Right Wing because it led to eugenic results at some point, just as you can claim anything as left wing because it led to dysgenics. It's not a rational and clear-cut definition.
Your using the concept of hierarchy is wrong. Hierarchy and the concept of inferior and superior are not the same thing. A hierarchy can place an  inferior person in a position of power above a naturally superior one, it’s about inequality but not necessarily a system based off a natural one. 

Right wing isn’t just another word for discrimination. Right wing is a discrimination with a theory and purpose behind it, a different theory and purpose would make it no longer right wing. Discriminating against the higher man is not right wing but it is discrimination.
Big Grin 
#13
(01-30-2023, 02:10 PM)BillyONare Wrote: Leftism is the inversion of values. This is the most exact description. You are using the shill definition of eugenics where the State or right wing death squads sterilize people they don’t like. Fauci is a liar and he knows the vaccine is probably not good. Cops and teachers are not right wing institutions lmfao. “Apartheid” is just people having freedom of association.

Take the shill test.

Complete the following sentence:
Women misbehave because –
[A] Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal Whites. If it weren’t for capitali$m, women would totally be completely sinless angels.
[B] The (((jews))) make these totally innocent angels misbehave, since the jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck Blacks and lowlifes. There’s no way that pure White women desire to be on OnlyFans to whore for money. The jews forced these angels on that website.
[C] Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
[D] Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men. It is men’s fault entirely, so men must be forced to pay for every bad decision done by any random women.
[E] They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival.
 
Eugenics has been practiced thorough all of human history, and it always required hierarchy. Even in a stateless tribal context. 
A tribe self-selecting by killing its weaker members, or genociding a genetically inferior tribe is practicing eugenics. In both cases, the tribe's aims are achieved through discrimination of the inferior by the superior.
I can't think of an example where Eugenics could be enforced without hierarchy. Maybe some /pol/ addicted browns that "choose" not to have children for the white race. But those freaks never had a chance in the first place.

Your [E] option already implies that there's a hierarchical system restraining female instincts and enforcing monogamy.
To answer your question, I lean towards [E] because that's how the western world has functioned until now. But I wouldn't say that's the peak of where we can go, eugenics wise. 
A "based state" with current technology could already organize aristocratic-level eugenic coupling on a mass scale. By creating a genetic database of its citizens and offering genetically gifted wives to men with superior genes. And incentivizing reproduction through tax breaks or social credit systems.

As for futuretech, A.Karlin mentioned how one will be able to measure his IQ through a simple genetic analysis. You will just swipe your hand at some ATM-like station, and it will display "90 IQ-unable to enter this establishment". If the half tajik mutt isn't lying, we don't even need to establish a theoretical based state to win.

(01-30-2023, 02:26 PM)Guest Wrote:
(01-30-2023, 12:34 PM)Guest Wrote: Eugenics is "far right" because it's hierarchical. You cannot enforce non-hierarchcal eugenics. Telling someone he's inferior and shouldn't breed implies a hierarchy imbued in all people, down to their very genes. The idea that a man, or group, is so inferior to a greater vision of man, that its genes themselves should be ended, is deeply hierarchical. 

Eugenics are right wing because they discriminate between higher blood and lower blood. Nature is right wing because it discriminates between fit for Life and unfit for Life. God is right wing because He discriminates between Creator and Creation. Art is right wing because it discriminates between the perfect and imperfect. Same applies to Wisdom, Strength, Beauty or whatever other concept is associated with the right wing.

Eugenics isn't as useful in figuring out what is or isn't right wing as hierarchy is. You could claim anything man-made as Right Wing because it led to eugenic results at some point, just as you can claim anything as left wing because it led to dysgenics. It's not a rational and clear-cut definition.
Your using the concept of hierarchy is wrong. Hierarchy and the concept of inferior and superior are not the same thing. A hierarchy can place an  inferior person in a position of power above a naturally superior one, it’s about inequality but not necessarily a system based off a natural one. 

Right wing isn’t just another word for discrimination. Right wing is a discrimination with a theory and purpose behind it, a different theory and purpose would make it no longer right wing. Discriminating against the higher man is not right wing but it is discrimination.

I agree that Right Wing is discrimination with theory and purpose. It's a school of political thought defined by support of hierarchy, to different degrees. 
The current system uses hierarchy because it works, it's the only way of organizing that actually works. But it uses hierarchy to destroy hierarchy. So that the inferior, the failed, the weak, can become equal to the superior & healthy. 
I don't think we disagree on anything here.
Lightbulb 
#14
(01-30-2023, 05:06 PM)Guest Wrote: I agree that Right Wing is discrimination with theory and purpose. It's a school of political thought defined by support of hierarchy, to different degrees. 
The current system uses hierarchy because it works, it's the only way of organizing that actually works. But it uses hierarchy to destroy hierarchy. So that the inferior, the failed, the weak, can become equal to the superior & healthy. 
I don't think we disagree on anything here.
My dissatisfaction with your use of the term hierarchy comes from lack of specification. You are right that hierarchy is the only system that works for organizing large groups of people but I do not think the hierarchy the left uses and the hierarchy that is natural to the right are the same. The lefts hierarchy is an unnatural one not based on merit or achievement nor connected with bounds of fraternity, it is an unnaturally tyranny of the inferior of quality over the superior in quality. The rights hierarchy’s are natural, natural hierarchies, made from bound of respect and fraternity that one would agree to. 

A distinction should be made from natural and unnatural hierarchies to avoid conflating the two.
#15
(01-30-2023, 11:38 AM)BillyONare Wrote: All intelligent people have had a working definition of leftism since the 1800s. Leftists are for dysgenics; rightists are for eugenics. Saying that “left and right are elemental forces, neither good nor evil, it’s bad if you go too far in one direction or the other” is Judenstein bullshit trying to obscure the truth and claim “actually BOTH sides are bad”. Leftists value ugliness over beauty, believe the stupid should rule over the smart, the poor should live off of the rich like parasites, the weak should kill the strong with mob violence, etc. There is no need for any leftism to exist.

Read Harrison Bergeron

post-war*

A major pillar of progressive movements in the pre-war world was a hierarchical system that would inform retards and individuals of poor morals what they MUST do. it comes from a similar point of view, but it was about the strong parenting the weak, and would often be explicitly talked about in those terms. Eugenics, the epitome of hierarchical thought applied to human beings, was in fact a part of the progressive mandate. Comte, a man so leftist in the modern sense that he basically codified our current cult around the idea of progress, wrote favorably about Eugenics very often, and he was not remotely alone in doing so. I think it only stopped being a part of the 'left' after culture decided everything the nazis touched was retroactively evil.

Your own country 100 years ago is as foreign to you as rural china is today. Modern labels and patterns of thought don't apply.
#16
No one mentioned "progress" or "progressives" in this discussion before you. "Progress" has nothing to do with "leftist in the modern sense"; obviously no leftist in the current year cares about that. Saying that Comte was "so leftist" sounds like shillspeak. In other words you are trying to own me by saying "ACTUALLY leftists are not against eugenics because Comte was for eugenics and also for progress and in the modern day leftists are sometimes called progressive which means he was a leftist but also you can't apply today's circumstances to the past because it was COMPLETELY different." Nonsense coal.

Quote:I think it only stopped being a part of the 'left' after culture decided everything the nazis touched was retroactively evil.

Why isn't socialism considered evil then?

Quote:Your own country 100 years ago is as foreign to you as rural china is today. Modern labels and patterns of thought don't apply.

Looting the rich (=dysgenics), negrophilia, feminism, Lysenkoism, autogenocide, science denial, and transgenderism have been staples of every leftist regime since the Russian Revolution at least. Leftism is just envy and about half of The Ten Commandments are about not being a socialist and coveting your neighbor's property (incl. his wife and servants). Everything Nietzsche wrote about slave morality or Rand wrote about selflessness rings absolutely true in 2023. It's looking like Atlas Shrugged was a documentary of the 2020s. Absolutely nothing has changed about leftism. Only the shills and the sophistry they use to dazzle midwits are different.
#17
Looting the rich (=dysgenics) even tho mikkagroyper
#18
[nods sagely] "Yes, even tho mikkagroyper..."

[Image: soyjak-nodding-sagely.gif]
#19
"That depends on whom is doing the looting."

There's also a substantial difference between genuine looting, as they've done in the past, and which hasn't meaningfully happened in decades, and school-ish browbeating preaching that rich men should share their money with yet ever more brown people.
It's unfair to even call it 'looting,' since said rich men cannot lose anything without a willful choice on their end to 'just be a decent fucking person.'
An endless black hole of 'charity' and humanism that consumes anything industrious or extravagant that money could be spent on.

All of this is a concept that's easily differentiated from calmly, directly taking everything from a decrepit and lifeless fossil so it may be given to a Tested and Qualified Young Man.
That's the exact opposite of what a leftard would want to do with the money.
The appeal in looting to them is in taking everything from an accomplished white man to increase black trans biomass, or the closest available proxy. That is Socialism, that's the goal it has always stood for.

AlThough leftist looting was much funnier when they actually did it... It showed how quickly a state can implode by handing everything to a libtarded socialist. And these weren't even niggers.
All the 'functional' socialist states today are at least smart enough to maintain a population of generally-apolitical, traditionally wealthy men. Like some malformed ecosystem.
#20
Quote:No one mentioned "progress" or "progressives" in this discussion before you. "Progress" has nothing to do with "leftist in the modern sense"; obviously no leftist in the current year cares about that. Saying that Comte was "so leftist" sounds like shillspeak. In other words you are trying to own me by saying "ACTUALLY leftists are not against eugenics because Comte was for eugenics and also for progress and in the modern day leftists are sometimes called progressive which means he was a leftist but also you can't apply today's circumstances to the past because it was COMPLETELY different." Nonsense coal.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant leftist in the sense you're referring to, not in the modern sense.

If the progressives, and the pro-eugenics reformist socialists I'm referring to aren't leftist, then who else was leftist in the 1800s? Just marxists and anarchists? I don't think the modern left only takes from them in verbage, and especially not in practice.

My entire point was that the word 'leftism' as it'd be applied to the past isn't 1:1 with modern leftists just because they're referred to with the same word. You're the one who's saying it is.

Quote:Why isn't socialism considered evil then?
 
Because most people think the nazis either weren't socialist or were anti-socialist because they hated bolsheviks. It's pretty obvious to anyone on this forum dealing with them on their own terms, but even most historians don't think they were socialist in any way besides the name.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)