Philosophy Now Forum

The geopolitical Left vs. Right is generally a reflection of the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division respectively.
By understanding the nature of the latter, the dynamics of the former may be understood at any given time.

There is not a single division on this planet that does not ultimately concern the over-arching "believer vs. unbeliever" division.
That is: all apparent divisions are ultimately motivated directly/indirectly by the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division.

Note: it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others and/or others are inferior to themselves,
thus in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" division, all supremacists (ie. Nazis) are invariably pinned
to the side of the "believers". The same is true for "believing" evil is good / satan is god, regardless of what they are,
as it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true in any circumstance.

Follows: all Nazis are "believers", but not all "believers" are Nazis.

faith in the perfection of the state is more deadly than faith in the perfection of the deity yet both bring perfect death to errant believers...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:40 pm faith in the perfection of the state is more deadly than faith in the perfection of the deity yet both bring perfect death to errant believers...

-Imp

I think you’re on to something. Please say more.

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:40 pm The geopolitical Left vs. Right is generally a reflection of the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division respectively.
By understanding the nature of the latter, the dynamics of the former may be understood at any given time.

There is not a single division on this planet that does not ultimately concern the over-arching "believer vs. unbeliever" division.
That is: all apparent divisions are ultimately motivated directly/indirectly by the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division.

Note: it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others and/or others are inferior to themselves,
thus in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" division, all supremacists (ie. Nazis) are invariably pinned
to the side of the "believers". The same is true for "believing" evil is good / satan is god, regardless of what they are,
as it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true in any circumstance.

Follows: all Nazis are "believers", but not all "believers" are Nazis.

Are you saying something like it’s the religious right believers v the secular left non-believers? Please tell me more—I’m intrigued.

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:40 pm The geopolitical Left vs. Right is generally a reflection of the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division respectively.
By understanding the nature of the latter, the dynamics of the former may be understood at any given time.

There is not a single division on this planet that does not ultimately concern the over-arching "believer vs. unbeliever" division.
That is: all apparent divisions are ultimately motivated directly/indirectly by the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division.

Note: it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others and/or others are inferior to themselves,
thus in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" division, all supremacists (ie. Nazis) are invariably pinned
to the side of the "believers". The same is true for "believing" evil is good / satan is god, regardless of what they are,
as it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true in any circumstance.

Follows: all Nazis are "believers", but not all "believers" are Nazis.

Religion is within all political ideologies but differ on what types they are.

The general right-wing is anti-democratic, meaning that they don't want a government OF the general population to determine lawmaking. They favor a system that doesn't limit the powers of individuals to gain unlimited wealth with a 'right' to pass on their benefits to those they alone choose. The initial reasoning comes from those IN POWER who do not want to lose it and are thus wanting to CONSERVE the benefits they have. Lawmaking that appeals to the masses though competes to equalize the playing field but requires taking away the fortunes of those with inherited wealth. Because the powerful and wealthy lack a realistic democratic appeal, they prefer the masses to be more BLINDLY FAITHFUL of their superiority. The only arguments to support this is to BEG others that their fortunes are DUE to something intrinsic to NATURE itself. This 'NATURE' is argued to be a "god" presumably of us all that commands absolute obediance or risk a penalty of eternal damnation. This defines the kinds of religions they utilize as ones that are so absurd that they require FAITH rather than RATIONAL debate and a gernral preference for DUMBING DOWN the population beyond their own inner circles. But ironically, there are two parts of the people supporting the 'right-wing' ideology: those powerful at the top who are NOT actually religious but FAKE they are and, the support of those populations often most weak in hope that are attracted to the 'gambling' implicit in blind-faith religions.

The general left-wing is prodemocratic because they consist of the majority of people who want a government BY the people. Original Christianity was actually of this form because it asserted the world belongs to the masses of those who actually suffer, encourages those in power to humble themselves and accept all people as 'equal' in birth. Thus, religion still exists here but is less necessary to impose literal mythical assumptions. They favor one's EFFORTS in behavior here on Earth to justify whether they will be rewarded in any afterlife.

All political persuasions have some form of religious ideology because NATURE itself is logically unfair regardless of what we could do and given lawmaking of any sort are moral rules of conduct and penalties lacking reality, religion is a means for most to feel justified for presuming NATURE holds absolutes about such conduct.

Even Communist atheism has this feature but not labeled as such: the belief that some future society CAN exist ideally. But if you are not religious, what does it mean to think of a time beyond this present life outside of some compassion for ones' offspring? Communism demands sacrifice that is flawed except for within strong religious communities, like the Amish. Thus, such governments tend towards authoritarianism of a secular religious form even if more rationally non-religious.

It would be best to look at HOW the different kinds of religious thinking of different political persuasions exist. There is a lot of irony in them. For instance, the religious right seems strongly 'religious' in the irrational variety yet their actual ideal as more akin to a Social Darwinianism that you'd think should belong to the Left. On the left, you'll find more rationalism based upon atheism but oddly have those who ACT more 'religious' by convention of demanding appeals to emotion and compassion, something that Nature itself does not have in a world without real gods.

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:40 pm The geopolitical Left vs. Right is generally a reflection of the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division respectively.

Hmmm...is it your view that Communists don't "believe" things...like in Dialectical Materialism, the Triumph of the Proletariat, self-actualization through praxis, the ideal of Socialism, Marxist historicism, and so on...? That's somehow different from believing something "religiously"? Or did you think they didn't "believe" anything at all? Or that they don't qualify as "Leftists"?

Or is it that you suppose that the Left don't believe "a specific religion" like, say, the United Church, the Salvation Army, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the many California cults of the '60s, the Gaia Community, the New Agers, the Buddhists, the Bahai...

I forget now...which were all those religious people: right or left? Believers or unbelievers?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:14 am

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:40 pm The geopolitical Left vs. Right is generally a reflection of the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division respectively.

Hmmm...is it your view that Communists don't "believe" things...like in Dialectical Materialism, the Triumph of the Proletariat, self-actualization through praxis, the ideal of Socialism, Marxist historicism, and so on...? That's somehow different from believing something "religiously"? Or did you think they didn't "believe" anything at all? Or that they don't qualify as "Leftists"?

Or is it that you suppose that the Left don't believe "a specific religion" like, say, the United Church, the Salvation Army, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the many California cults of the '60s, the Gaia Community, the New Agers, the Buddhists, the Bahai...

I forget now...which were all those religious people: right or left? Believers or unbelievers?

I think the logic of what is considered "believers" BY THE RIGHT is more about what I mentioned as "blind belief" versus a measured or reasoned sort of belief. The right-wing favors the "blind belief" which is a type of belief in belief itself. THAT is what I think the OP is implying. I agree that all political system ideologies HAVE some form of belief or religion associated with them. But the variety that is most hard to negotiate with is the right-wing forms because they favor anti-intellectual and dictatorial forms of belief.

Note that the business side of economics favors the ease of appealing to stupidity. When you see the word, "free" in advertising for example, they are not selling anything 'free' by conventional terms. The advertising that big business favors demonstrates how and why the 'right-wing' ideology tends to favor blind believers and gamblers. Thus the right-wing religions are intentionally designed to be absurd because they profit most by the gullibility of such thinking. Left-wing forms of religion are not intentionally deceptive and tend to be relatively more down to Earth because they appeal to critical thinking with more emphasis, ...even if this too presents problems regardless.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:50 am I think the logic of what is considered "believers" BY THE RIGHT is more about what I mentioned as "blind belief" versus a measured or reasoned sort of belief.

Well, I know for a fact that's not true, so that wouldn't help the case at all.

Now, of course in any ideology, politics or religion, there are always some blind believers around, it's true. Heck, there are blind believers in the sciences, for that matter. But if the belief system is capable of reason, then there are also likely to be people who believe by "measured, reasoned" sort of belief. And when a belief system has its own long and complicated tradition of scholarship, that is a certainty.

But the variety that is most hard to negotiate with is the right-wing forms because they favor anti-intellectual and dictatorial forms of belief.

And yet, today, the people who are rioting in the streets, campaigning for things that do not even actually serve a strategic purpose for themselves, beating up dissenters and demanding declarations of orthodoxy are on the Left. Moreover, historically, the Left has been more tyrannical and exponentially more homicidal than any "rightist" religious group has ever managed to be.

How do you reconcile that?

The advertising that big business favors...

Actually, modern advertising techniques were taken to their present practices by Leftist propaganda techniques. For example, the "Big Lie" concept is now fundamental to all advertising -- and you know who invented that, don't you?

Left-wing forms of religion are not intentionally deceptive and tend to be relatively more down to Earth because they appeal to critical thinking with more emphasis...

Well, I think this is so obviously untrue you can't possibly believe it. As I say, Leftist propaganda has far outstripped anything from the right, and today there's no question that Leftism is up to their elbows in propaganda.

I don' think this thesis is well thought out at all. It seems more an expression of self-unawareness on the left, and gratuitous contempt and information for the right...not itself a product of critical reflection, I would have to say. The evidence to the contrary is clearly on hand today, and overwhelming. After all, it isn't the right or the religious that are collapsing economies, creating dictatorships, bullying dissenters, shutting down all debate, kneeling obsequiously to ideologues and sloganeers, sacking business, denying and erasing history, debasing the language, promoting actual racist social policies, or burning cities.

How "critical" and reflective is all of that, really?

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:39 am Are you saying something like it’s the religious right believers v the secular left non-believers? Please tell me more—I’m intrigued.

Yes, but the reality is the other way around - the left is owned/operated by the "belief"-based ideology of Islam
perpetuating the "believer vs. unbeliever" division, hence the take-down culture reflecting the Islamic sentiment
of destroying the West from within. The point of the OP is to highlight that the geopolitical divide merely reflects
the global war being fought (ie. "believer vs. unbeliever") as it has been (ongoing) for 1400+ years. In/of Islam,
there are always two "halves" of the planet: House of Islam and House of War. All non-Muslim nations are considered
House of War, thus the default state against them is one of war, hence what is happening to the West is warfare
instigated/sanctioned by the (controlled/blackmailed) Democrats, however blamed profusely on the Right.

If one can see deep enough, one will see that the Left (ie. Islam) has an underlying pathology
of blaming/scapegoating their own nature/behavior/crimes onto 'the other side' such to have
any/all gullible sheeple "believers" blame/attack the political Right for what the political Left is guilty of.
This is a rinse/repeat process and has been for a very, very long time as it involves
people who worship a single book and single male central figure idol.

The problem with "belief" is: it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true
incl. a false accusation such to pin the crimes of one (guilty) onto another (innocent).
All it takes is an angry "believing" witch mob to "bring justice" and that is how they fight their wars.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:55 am Religion is within all political ideologies but differ on what types they are.

The general right-wing is anti-democratic, meaning that they don't want a government OF the general population to determine lawmaking. They favor a system that doesn't limit the powers of individuals to gain unlimited wealth with a 'right' to pass on their benefits to those they alone choose. The initial reasoning comes from those IN POWER who do not want to lose it and are thus wanting to CONSERVE the benefits they have. Lawmaking that appeals to the masses though competes to equalize the playing field but requires taking away the fortunes of those with inherited wealth...

What is interesting to me is this actually describes the life-wing here,
the same serves to attest to the effectiveness of the deception(s) employed.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:14 am
Hmmm...is it your view that Communists don't "believe" things...like in Dialectical Materialism, the Triumph of the Proletariat, self-actualization through praxis, the ideal of Socialism, Marxist historicism, and so on...? That's somehow different from believing something "religiously"? Or did you think they didn't "believe" anything at all? Or that they don't qualify as "Leftists"?

Or is it that you suppose that the Left don't believe "a specific religion" like, say, the United Church, the Salvation Army, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the many California cults of the '60s, the Gaia Community, the New Agers, the Buddhists, the Bahai...

I forget now...which were all those religious people: right or left? Believers or unbelievers?

The left is rooted in backwards "belief"-based ideologies that are rooted in patriarchy, however
their entire global jihad has been to effectively scapegoat all of their own problems onto the right, as
the "belief"-based ideology concerned relies on accusing others of what they are themselves guilty of
such to wash their own hands of the crime they religiously have others take the fall for (it is sick).

On the whole, I do not see any need/reason to bring any 'isms' outside of Nazism in, as
it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others and/or others
are inferior to themselves, thus in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation
all Nazis are pinned to the side of the "believers" who have an ideal "belief"-based 'state'
in mind (end justifies the means mindset). This is rooted in Islam: the 'state' of "no more unbelief".
This is ultimately what the real "Deep State" globalist agenda is, however they are rather masterful at hiding it.

Expect silencing/suppressing/harassing/slandering etc. if/when anyone indicates
the root of Nazism is Islam viz. "believer vs. unbeliever" and Hitler was merely
a puppet for the Muslim Brotherhood (responsible for the genocides).
They are extremely effective at hiding behind others.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:50 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:14 am

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:40 pm The geopolitical Left vs. Right is generally a reflection of the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division respectively.

Hmmm...is it your view that Communists don't "believe" things...like in Dialectical Materialism, the Triumph of the Proletariat, self-actualization through praxis, the ideal of Socialism, Marxist historicism, and so on...? That's somehow different from believing something "religiously"? Or did you think they didn't "believe" anything at all? Or that they don't qualify as "Leftists"?

Or is it that you suppose that the Left don't believe "a specific religion" like, say, the United Church, the Salvation Army, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the many California cults of the '60s, the Gaia Community, the New Agers, the Buddhists, the Bahai...

I forget now...which were all those religious people: right or left? Believers or unbelievers?

I think the logic of what is considered "believers" BY THE RIGHT is more about what I mentioned as "blind belief" versus a measured or reasoned sort of belief. The right-wing favors the "blind belief" which is a type of belief in belief itself. THAT is what I think the OP is implying. I agree that all political system ideologies HAVE some form of belief or religion associated with them. But the variety that is most hard to negotiate with is the right-wing forms because they favor anti-intellectual and dictatorial forms of belief.

Note that the business side of economics favors the ease of appealing to stupidity. When you see the word, "free" in advertising for example, they are not selling anything 'free' by conventional terms. The advertising that big business favors demonstrates how and why the 'right-wing' ideology tends to favor blind believers and gamblers. Thus the right-wing religions are intentionally designed to be absurd because they profit most by the gullibility of such thinking. Left-wing forms of religion are not intentionally deceptive and tend to be relatively more down to Earth because they appeal to critical thinking with more emphasis, ...even if this too presents problems regardless.

180-degree inversion

The biggest failure of Western philosophy is not having clarified the nature of the relation
between knowledge and belief. Whereas modern-day philosophy holds:

All knowing is belief (?), but not all belief is knowing.

The latter is certainly correct, however the former is absurd.
All knowledge must negate all belief-based ignorance(s).

In other words,

the presence of knowledge implies the absence of belief, and
the presence of belief implies the absence of knowledge.

which clarifies the absurdity thus:

All knowing is by way of consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.

wherein a method of trial/testing/falsifying all belief(s) not necessarily true
indefinitely approaches any possible state of all-knowing, god-or-no-god.

Western philosophy itself (without even need of help from science) could have made a strong counter-position to any/all "belief"-based ideologies incl. theology simply by resolutely clarifying the nature of the relationship between belief and knowledge as "night and day" respectively. Instead, philosophy has them conflated, as if to say all light is dark. The absurdity unfortunately underlies the general failure of philosophy as a whole.

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:40 pm The geopolitical Left vs. Right is generally a reflection of the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division respectively.
By understanding the nature of the latter, the dynamics of the former may be understood at any given time.

There is not a single division on this planet that does not ultimately concern the over-arching "believer vs. unbeliever" division.
That is: all apparent divisions are ultimately motivated directly/indirectly by the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division.

Note: it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others and/or others are inferior to themselves,
thus in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" division, all supremacists (ie. Nazis) are invariably pinned
to the side of the "believers". The same is true for "believing" evil is good / satan is god, regardless of what they are,
as it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true in any circumstance.

Follows: all Nazis are "believers", but not all "believers" are Nazis.

Turn the other cheek, respect your neighbours. Jesus, a palestinian freedom fighter, offered free health care, to the seek and help for the needy , and a bunch of other things that the American right would not like.
Nonetheless the very deating heart of the American gun wanking right are devout born again dildos.
I don't think Jesus would have approved of the KKK, but there is no doubt where the KKK's relsious and political affiliations lie.
This just goes to show what a croc religion is.

nothing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:14 am
Hmmm...is it your view that Communists don't "believe" things...like in Dialectical Materialism, the Triumph of the Proletariat, self-actualization through praxis, the ideal of Socialism, Marxist historicism, and so on...? That's somehow different from believing something "religiously"? Or did you think they didn't "believe" anything at all? Or that they don't qualify as "Leftists"?

Or is it that you suppose that the Left don't believe "a specific religion" like, say, the United Church, the Salvation Army, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the many California cults of the '60s, the Gaia Community, the New Agers, the Buddhists, the Bahai...

I forget now...which were all those religious people: right or left? Believers or unbelievers?

The left is rooted in backwards "belief"-based ideologies that are rooted in patriarchy,

"Patriarchy"? You're still channeling that old Feminist meme?

There never was such a thing, actually. History was mostly horrible and brutal for everybody. Children died young. The women died in childbirth, and the men died at wars, in foreign countries, or in the coal mines. Nobody was winning, actually.

however their entire global jihad has been to effectively scapegoat all of their own problems onto the right, as
the "belief"-based ideology concerned relies on accusing others of what they are themselves guilty of
such to wash their own hands of the crime they religiously have others take the fall for (it is sick).

That's actually quite correct. The Left is very prone to project, in the Freudian sense, their own motives onto the Right. But I don't really see much of a Right today, I have to say. The radical Right -- say, the racist set -- actually have almost no public credibility, no political parties or voices, and not much of a place at all in the media. It seems to me that today's "jihad" is the extreme Left against the Centrists and moderate Left.

We're seeing this graphically today. BLM, Antifa, and so on, are requiring all their followers to bow the knee to insane ideas, and to grovel in the streets; and they devour any so-called "ally" who fails to come up to the shrill extremes of their rantings. Witness the obsequious, totally-Leftist mayor of Minneapolis being abused and ejected from his own streets for not kneeling long enough and saying all the right words to the pleasure of his BLM overlords. https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politi ... rally.html

On the whole, I do not see any need/reason to bring any 'isms' outside of Nazism

Well, Nazism is Leftism. It always has been..."national socialism."

I think the logic of what is considered "believers" BY THE RIGHT is more about what I mentioned as "blind belief" versus a measured or reasoned sort of belief.

I don't know if this is true at all of the extreme Right. They're so few and so scattered these days that you can hardly find them to find out.

I agree that all political system ideologies HAVE some form of belief or religion associated with them. But the variety that is most hard to negotiate with is the right-wing forms because they favor anti-intellectual and dictatorial forms of belief.

Actually, the hardest to reason with, historically, have been the Leftists...especially the Socialists. And they've been far-and-away the most homicidal group in history, killing over 100 million in the last century alone.

The right never even came close to that. Even if you put all the previous centuries together.

Statistically, Leftism is the excess to worry about. The Right, especially the extreme Right, is effectively dead, at least as a credible political entity, and certainly by way of numbers in the West.

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:40 pm The geopolitical Left vs. Right is generally a reflection of the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division respectively.

I reject your premise above, yes it is true per lately, but not historically.

in the long view there have been millions of Atheist Conservatives (Frum for one) as well as millions of liberal believers.


just because today the Religious Reich has taken over what it means to be "constervative" as - Social - not economic - does not undo a century of historical fact!!!!!!!!!!!

there were. social conservative econ liberals - and vice versa for a century prior to today.

sir.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:40 pm faith in the perfection of the state is more deadly

-Imp

bullshit, i reject nillism. i strive for a better state than what we have, as a representative of the people

have to repeal Citizens United first though to get to that.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:53 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:40 pm faith in the perfection of the state is more deadly than faith in the perfection of the deity yet both bring perfect death to errant believers...

-Imp

I think you’re on to something. Please say more.

hes not on to anything except nihilism - which is only ?misry love company" and offers no solution nor faith in a functional representational governnet.

instead - only - burn it all down!!!!!!!!!!!

result is death and anarchy.

no solution there.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:39 am

nothing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:40 pm The geopolitical Left vs. Right is generally a reflection of the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division respectively.
By understanding the nature of the latter, the dynamics of the former may be understood at any given time.

There is not a single division on this planet that does not ultimately concern the over-arching "believer vs. unbeliever" division.
That is: all apparent divisions are ultimately motivated directly/indirectly by the religious "believer vs. unbeliever" division.

Note: it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others and/or others are inferior to themselves,
thus in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" division, all supremacists (ie. Nazis) are invariably pinned
to the side of the "believers". The same is true for "believing" evil is good / satan is god, regardless of what they are,
as it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true in any circumstance.

Follows: all Nazis are "believers", but not all "believers" are Nazis.

Are you saying something like it’s the religious right believers v the secular left non-believers? Please tell me more—I’m intrigued.

thats what he is saying, and its apt currently, but not over the span of history.