Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:26 pm
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. :shock:

How do you reconcile that?
do you oppose rioting in the streets carte blanch? - even if it were President Billary? (God forbid, hate that phony bitch myself)?

do you not think the Police lack professionalism, and kill more blacks than they would need to if they were more proffessional.

do you not think the police are over militarized?

do you not value Lincoln vs ex parte? (posse comitatus).


------

what is your view of the role of the police (and their job training - and the thin blue line (were pussy good cops stay silent and allow thugs to rule - and so are no better than the bad cops by the end of the day).

and their militarization on the homeland soil? is Detroit Faluja? - i don't think it is, though Detroit has too much crime, cops equate the two towns - do you?

do you affirm the concept of "protect and serve" - i do, or "seize and occupy" which these last 20 yr cops seem to value - the latte over the former.

any cop with the latter mindset needs to be FIRED, and any with the former mindset i SUPPORT............unless/until they play pussy via the blue line and enable the bad cop - then fuck em.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc-0Yp ... PTpSQ5uo-Q
gaffo
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

gaffo wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:26 pm
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. :shock:

How do you reconcile that?
do you oppose rioting in the streets carte blanch? - even if it were President Billary? (God forbid, hate that phony bitch myself)?

do you not think the Police lack professionalism, and kill more blacks than they would need to if they were more proffessional.

do you not think the police are over militarized?

do you not value Lincoln vs ex parte? (posse comitatus).


------

what is your view of the role of the police (and their job training - and the thin blue line (were pussy good cops stay silent and allow thugs to rule - and so are no better than the bad cops by the end of the day).

and their militarization on the homeland soil? is Detroit Faluja? - i don't think it is, though Detroit has too much crime, cops equate the two towns - do you?

do you affirm the concept of "protect and serve" - i do, or "seize and occupy" which these last 20 yr cops seem to value - the latte over the former.

any cop with the latter mindset needs to be FIRED, and any with the former mindset i SUPPORT............unless/until they play pussy via the blue line and enable the bad cop - then fuck em.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc-0Yp ... PTpSQ5uo-Q
remov fucking qualified immunity while we are at it!!!!!!! - put the cop's pension on the line! before he can hid behind the city;s coffers for plugging the perp illegally.
gaffo
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm
Well, Nazism is Leftism. It always has been..."national socialism."

don't give me that shit, you know better, knowing Hitler's mind/history.

he was a corporatist second, racist first. and rightwing.

as you know full well.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm
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.
their num are small, but vocal since charlestville.

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm
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.
per Stalin 1930's yes.

not to forget Pol Pot of course.

- but the rightiest have a high body count too, from Hitler to Edi Amin/etc.........

the body counts are not link to politics, but character of those in power that use the former for their stated reasons.

of course the real reason is tied to their character and not their politics.


Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm The right never even came close to that.
see above, will include Pinochet and Franco per the "Right" two that come to my drunk mind right now - would include others - who was the leader in Ruwanda after the plane crash via coup in 93?..............etc.........

there are 10's of names on both the right and left that were murderuous thugs - no need to blaime the "left" here.




Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm 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.
dissagree, both are a threat equally, esp when American pol system seems to be in collapse and dissfunctional.
Impenitent
Posts: 3338
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Impenitent »

gaffo wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:40 pm
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.
and he loved big brother

I see the utopia of dead leftists

-Imp
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by nothing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm "Patriarchy"? :shock: 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.
Abrahamic theology is characteristically patriarchal: Judaism/Christianity/Islam
and this has been (and is) overwhelmingly underlying the social/political fabric
of major superpowers.

The problem is unchanged: "belief", as the fundamental claims being made
about these books (Torah/bible and Qur'an) are so far removed from the reality
that the reality has become a persistent combative "us vs.them" mentality
rooted in the same: "believer vs. unbeliever".
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm It seems to me that today's "jihad" is the extreme Left against the Centrists and moderate Left.
This is a reflection of the internal war(s) within Islam re: progressive and orthodox Islam.

Ultimately if humanity realized that the "believers" in/of Islam are the real-world book-worshiping "Jews"
who worship a single book and divide the world in two, the entire "it's the Jews!" conspiracy theory would vanish
for being seen as it is: another "scapegoat" such to draw attention away from the real "Jews". Unfortunately,
this 1400-year deception of the problem being "Jews" is the underlying illness of Muhammad and Islam
for not knowing who the real book-worshiping "Jews" are - themselves, hence their need to create
a fictitious enemy "Jews".

Hitler did not find the real "Jews" until the very end, realizing he was both allied with them (Muslim Brotherhood)
and has been strategically used by them to commit mass genocide(s) against... no, not "Jews"... non-Muslims, as
the same is happening today: kill the "unbelievers". It is the same globalist motive - Islam must dominate the planet
because the Qur'an is, according to the "believer", the most "supreme" document on the face of the planet,
the real root of "supremacism" as it is scapegoated onto any/all others.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm 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
ANTIFA is owned/operated by the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the same inversion:
accuse the other side of what Islam is themselves guilty of. This underlies the pathology
of Islam, and how/why Islam is, as China (correctly) stated, a mental illness.
The "believers" can not account for their own actions, they pathologically
scapegoat/blame others for what they are themselves guilty of.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm Well, Nazism is Leftism. It always has been..."national socialism."
Leftism collects into the ideology of Islam.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm 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.
The Left/Right dichotomy can be seen as a "false dichotomy" if/when the real root of the real division is known.
The root of this (same) division has existed for even longer than Islam viz. Christianity "believer vs. unbeliever"
which similarly employed a male central figure "mercy upon mankind" idol for the masses. Both Christianity
and Islam are products of the idolatrous Patriarchy (as mentioned earlier) relating to Abrahamism and the entire
catastrophe it has brought to the world on large. The threat it poses today is still as great as any in the past.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm Statistically, Leftism is the excess to worry about.
In time more and more people will see the correlation between Leftist and Islamic extremist destruction.
The left is extreme because Islam is extreme - the latter underlying the former.

The only ones who will deny this are the Nazis themselves - those who protect/defend the abusive ideology of Islam
which continues to divide the world based on "believer vs. unbeliever" thus ever-at-war with the "unbeliever".

The only relevant point here is: it takes a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior to others
and/or others are inferior to themselves, thus in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" dichotomy,
all Nazis are pinned to the side of the "believers". This is how/why the division made by Islam
can be seen as the root of Nazism/supremacism - it takes a "believer" in the first place.

If/when philosophy clarifies the nature of the relationship between 'knowledge' and 'belief' as being antithetical:
the presence of one implies the absence of the other (and vice versa), only then can anything be done about
establishing a mandate to try/test/falsify all belief(s) which would invariably lead to the discovery that
what the "believers" of this planet so religiously "believe"... is actually not true.
Last edited by nothing on Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:08 pm, edited 4 times in total.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by nothing »

Just to clarify:
gaffo wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:45 pm
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.
No it is not. It is important not to confuse them.

LEFT = "BELIEVER" and backed by the ideological House of Islam viz. "BELIEVERS"
RIGHT = "UNBELIEVER" and is the rest of the world labelled as "UNBELIEVERS" by "BELIEVERS"
___________________________________________________________________
viz. 'identity politics' begins/ends with the believer/unbeliever 'label' thus
Nazism begins/ends with the same "us vs. them" mentality.

Islam religiously divides the world in two:
House of Islam (the "believers") (= Left)
House of War (the "unbelievers") (= Right)

Left vs. Right is Believer vs. Unbeliever respectively, and...

gaffo wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:37 pm
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.
...it has been this way for 1400 years. Islam has waged the same war against all "unbelievers" since the inception of Islam
and this is precisely what we are seeing emerge on the planet: a globalist (Islamic) attempt to subdue everyone
such to make "Islam" the only solution. This is why they must manufacture the problems for which Islam will "solve":
the problem with the genders, for example. This problem is caused by the House of Islam raping/killing "unbelieving" women
(as per Islamic jihad) such to have a practical need to "replace" women in the societies with... "women" and
if you question it, they will either try to lock you up or kill you. The disappearance of women on this planet
is directly related to the conduct of the House of Islam re: using "unbelieving" women as sex slaves.
This is the "Deep State" which houses underground human trafficking networks servicing non-Muslim leaders
and people of power. Hillary/Bill Clinton were the Western "front" for access to these networks, thus
the House of Islam wants POTUS Trump removed/gone as they did not expect Trump to win the election.
They wanted their "goyim" Clinton such to begin the genocide of Americans (still planned and in motion) as
this is to coincide the with genocide of many "unbelievers" all over the world. This is how Islam works:
they attack in unison multiple people at once. They can not do this if the U.S. is not in their control.

Joe Biden is a "goyim" for the House of Islam, hence their need to get him in.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by nothing »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:19 pm 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.
Jesus is a male central figure "mercy upon mankind" idol.
Muhammad is a male central figure "mercy upon mankind" idol.
Both Jesus and Muhammad are idols worshiped (unknowingly) by idol worshipers
as each respective empire utilizes the same underlying construct: ideal man(-worship).
This is actually the basis of Nazism: to worship a male central figure orator warlord (ie. Islam).

This is why "Palestinians" spill blood over ridicule of their male central figure idol Muhammad: they worship him as an idol.
They are not conscious of this because they do not have the capacity to account for their own actions/state, thus accuse all others
of the very same worshiping of idols and man-made books/laws which they are themselves guilty of doing.
If "Palestinians" did not worship any ideal man, they would not spill blood over ridicule of any such (dead) ideal man, as
neither is it possible to actually insult a dead man nor bear a witness of one (being 1400-years dead).

The Islamic shahada, as well as the Christian testimony of faith,
are both false witness testimonies contrary to even the ten commandments
thus neither any Christian nor Muslim have anything to do with an "Abrahamic" god
for one can not even become a Christian/Muslim without violating the laws
of the very god they claim to worship (!)

Having said, the ABC's of good and evil are a good follow-up:

A believes B is evil.
B believes A is evil.
A&B annihilate.
C knows neither knew from which tree they ate.

{to know all (thus) not to believe} approaches all-knowing (god-or-no-god), whereas
{to believe all (thus) not to know} approaches all-belief-based ignorance(s)
causing/sustaining/impeding on the cessation of all forms of human suffering
of human origin.

The "believers" know not from which tree they even eat, for being "believers"
instead of knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and ultimately if
not to believe, as what they "believe" is certainly not actually true.

Thus the problem persists: "believer vs. unbeliever" as reflected in the geopolitical "left vs. right" respectively
wherein it takes a "believer" to "believer" themselves superior to others / others inferior to themselves
thus all Nazis are pinned to the side of the "believers", hence Nazism is pinned.

What underlies all of this is the Muhammadans being the real book-worshiping "Jews"
who divide/destroy the world while projecting their own crimes onto "Jews" thus
the real belief-based "conspiracy theory" is there being "Jews" who are not
the Muhammadans themselves. "Jews" are the scapegoat of the Muhammadan, as
the Muhammadans rely on scapegoats such to hide their own crimes against humanity.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:26 pm
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.
The degree of belief is 'extreme' by the types of religions there. If you disagree, then tell me which party do you honestly think any cult would prefer? Take polygomous type cults, for instance. Do you think that they'd want the liberal ideal of a system that pokes around in their business?

Given the left is 'liberated' by democratic appeal focused on individual rights but without force by some religiously strict beliefs about what ALL people share, do you think the Evangelical promoters of one STRICT 'god' by one SPECIFIC religion's standard would be most served WITH an actual system that regularly checks into their affairs as the left-wing holds? Note that the key meaning of 'democrat' means a government elected BY the people's majority vote. On the right, the 'Republic' concept means to have a system that authoritatively rules from a Philosopher-King's perspective: only FOR the people. The U.S. combines the two and thus has these extremes at odds.

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. :shock:

How do you reconcile that?
Mob psychology is not party specific. The tactics that the left use are protesting against the prevailing standards, whether the ideals are from the left or the right; the tactics on the right are intentionally directed by an authoritative and limited SUBSET of the whole who favors crowds as PEP ralleys that foster belief in the authorities ... and with the added feature that such leaders are divine-like (ie ...cult-like)

I also do not like the abuses where they exist on the left. The accountable abuses (one's not done by right-wing agitators who intrinsically believe in embedding themselves as though among the protesting left) done by the crowds on left-wing issues are always about demanding INCLUSION, whether they are mistaken or not; the right-wing 'protests' are about DISCLUSION, ...the belief that one must conform to some unique belief. The tactics of the left and right borrow from one another as well when they see the powers of authority in contemporary control are of the opposing side.

I CAN get real deep with this if you push me enough. I am well aware of the social psychological tactics that political extremes use on either side. But the left generally has actual generosity for WHAT they are protesting, even where potentially flawed; the right INTENTIONALLY uses deceptive tactics in the strong belief that ANY-MEANS-TO-THE-DESIRED-ENDS. The right BELIEVES in promoting specific religious beliefs that demand faith in its leaders by utilizing the ultimate escape plans for any accountability: "Nature/God commands my actions, ....so if you disagree, take it up with God....I am only its servant". Where the left-wing authority CAN command unfairly, they ultimately believe that PEOPLE are accountable to PEOPLE when elected, not invisible beings that you can nor cannot disprove (ie be 'accountable')
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?
No, the left-wing tactics are relatively 'weak' because they ARE often sincere about ALL people but think that they're SPECIFIC issues need INCLUSION (again, whether correct or not). The right-wing ideals ARE the business models that believe that SPECIAL people ARE themselves, uniquely, as capitalistic (oportunistic) trolls who believe money and power should permit them to GOVERN from without concern to the 'demos' (as in anti-Democratic) and fuck the rest: all that matters is finding whatever means it takes, however absurd, to 'sell' to the people the lowest quality standards for the highest profit.

The 'free market' idea is not 'free' by the people but 'free RULE' by those with money and power alone. They can only maintain such favor for UNLIMITED wealth if they can enhance stupidity by the masses in hopes that they cannot be rationally skeptical of their ideal of having the rich BE the only ones with power. The ideal of the right is to have no people-run government, but a system whereby those born without power are expected to SERVE the rich AS OUR "government".
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? :shock:
Really?

Which style of government utilizes Machivellian tactics as their methods with the strictest standards? I see you picked from the title: "Big Lies" by Joe Conason that actually discusses how the RIGHT-WING governments utilize propaganda, NOT as propaganda about the left.

The reason the left has taken up today's interest in ANY propaganda methods is because the right is successfully stealing the economy successfully by such right-wing tactics. I and many disagree with this. Note, for instance, the group/movement on the left, "Black Lives Matter". What the left normally means by this PRIOR to utilizing such tactics was "Black Lives Matter TOO". I agree that there still exists the absurdity of those thinking that it SHOULD be about Black people only. BUT, ....and note carefully,....this is a RIGHT-WING belief if those particular protestors interpret this to overthrow all non-Black concerns out the window.

Politics is cyclic precisely because no actual ideal is favored by NATURE itself. It could care less if we were run by a cruel dictator or a benevolent one. It could care less if sacrifice of 100 for only one person matters or 1 person for a hundred. The tactics on the left believe in 'emotional compassion' that accepts MORE variety of people with differing views so that no ONE view could overrule; the right believes in USING 'emotional appeal' but by fear mongering and literal lying.

The 'down-to-earth' style of speaking by the right through those like Trump are NOT about what he says as 'honest' but to the fact that he cannot HIDE his lying but carries on as though it doesn't matter when he is in power for HAVING such power. He uses a 'dumb' character as though he is so stupid as not to fear but IS intentional in his approach. This is Machiavellian. He, like many of those commanding from the party leaders their, FAKE being religious and why their apparent claims of beliefs don't match compassionate type religions. Left-wing governments foster "politeness" (an etiquette with the root of the term, "politics", as meaning 'politel-like'.) Right-wing government foster individual charisma and 'hero' worship of its leaders.

Governments that initially attempt to go Communist have the flaw of turning 'right' when their original role was to be a 'speaker' as in 'speaker of a house', who referees, steals the power as a Right-wing Dictator by faking that they are by and for the people. This flaw though is still fitting to the fact that Nature itself lacks any ideal system because they all become abusive when in power too long and with some form of 'inheritance' of control rather than BY the people. [Note that such governments that often fall this way, call themselves, "Republics", not "Communists"!]
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Scott Mayers »

By the way, note that the meaning of "right" in politics was intended to indicate both the direction favored by the Judeo-Christian God as who should rule the Earth AND its presumptive correctness that ignores people's (the 'demos') opinion for the belief that the masses ARE dumb and should be treated as such because the 'right' are orthodox believers in their SUPERIORITY. Since 'superiority' itself begins with the normal way children default to in selfish considerations, the 'right' believe in IMPOSING FACTS about moral superiority and thus why the extremes of religiosity exist there predominantly. Anyone 'left' out of this 'right' are what and how these labels originated in intentional meaning. That the 'right' wingers feel cursed if they cannot represent this 'right-hand-of-God' belief, indicates why they demanded special favor to sit on the literal 'right' of the King or speaker literally. The 'left' had no such fanatic concern of being 'righteously superior', ...even as the label itself is/was perjorative.
gaffo
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 4:55 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.
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.
well thought out post and i concur!

so in summation.

Republicans are "saved by Faith"/Saulists.

and

Democrats are "faith without works is dead"/Jamesists.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:26 pm
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. :shock:

How do you reconcile that?
do you oppose rioting in the streets carte blanch?
In this case, it's totally useless for its self-declared purposes. Will the absurdity in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Dallas...and so on, actually prevent one death or injustice? Will it reform the political system? Or will it just devastate poor, urban communities and businesses, and leave them poorer and more messed up when it's all over?

The answer's pretty obvious.
do you not think the Police lack professionalism, and kill more blacks than they would need to if they were more proffessional.
The statistics simply do not bear that impression out. It's not true.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

nothing wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm "Patriarchy"? :shock: 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.
Abrahamic theology is characteristically patriarchal...
If you regard that as true, so? Being "matriarchal" certainly doesn't make something more true. What's the point?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm It seems to me that today's "jihad" is the extreme Left against the Centrists and moderate Left.
This is a reflection of the internal war(s) within Islam re: progressive and orthodox Islam.
No, the Left. The Left's not Islam.

Radical Neo-Marxists are now starting to destroy not just centrists but even mild leftists. As below.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm 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
ANTIFA is owned/operated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Umm...no, I think that's a highly implausible theory, given that most of that bratty group is composed of middle-class whites.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 pm Well, Nazism is Leftism. It always has been..."national socialism."
Leftism collects into the ideology of Islam.
So...your idea is that Neo-Marxists and Anarchists are Islamists? You'll need to show evidence for that, for sure.
The root of this (same) division has existed for even longer than Islam viz. Christianity "believer vs. unbeliever"
That's an uninformative distinction. It begs the question, "Believe WHAT?" :shock:

You could argue, for example, that an anti-science loony was an "unbeliever," and a scientist was a "believer" in the scientific method. What does saying either really tell you? Not a thing. "Believer/unbeliever" leaves untouched the question of whether or not the "belief" in view is warranted, rational or sane.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:44 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:26 pm
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.
The degree of belief is 'extreme' by the types of religions there.
Can you "believe too extremely" in something that's absolutely true? :shock: Of course not. It's not the intensity of the belief that makes the difference, far less whether or not one is a "believer" or an "unbeliever" -- its whether or not the "belief" in question is warranted, rational or true.

Nobody ever got hurt by believing the truth too much.
If you disagree, then tell me which party do you honestly think any cult would prefer?
To exploit, you mean? Whichever one was most sure it couldn't be fooled.
Given the left is 'liberated' by democratic appeal focused on individual rights

No, that's not "given" at all. That's actually incorrect. The Left is collectivist, not individualistic, and campaigns for "group rights" over and against those of the individual.
Note that the key meaning of 'democrat' means a government elected BY the people's majority vote.
Small "d"? Yes. Large "D" Democrat? No.

The Democrat party in the US has been the party of slavery and state-rights, and then later, of segregation as well. They were the "grey" to the Republic's "blue." Every single slave-owner in America, and all the segregationist governors that turned fire-hoses on protestors and blocked school integration or integrated bussing were Democrats.
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. :shock:

How do you reconcile that?
Mob psychology is not party specific.

No, in theory it's not; but it is right now. The "Right" isn't doing any of it, apparently. It's all Leftists.
I CAN get real deep with this if you push me enough.
Sure, let's do that. What have you got?
No, the left-wing tactics are relatively 'weak' because they ARE often sincere...
"Sincerity" is not at all relevant. Nazi stormtroopers were very "sincere." I doubt they were "weak."
...about ALL people but think that they're SPECIFIC issues need INCLUSION (again, whether correct or not).
Well, I suggest "inclusion" is often no more than a publically-smiling code-word for "collectivized," meaning "bullied into the mob." We see that in abundance in the US right now. So I think the Leftist professions of "sincerity" about "inclusion" aren't worth the gas emitter by the rioters.
The 'free market' idea is not 'free' by the people but 'free RULE' by those with money and power alone.
Then how come the "big government" idea is a cause of the Left, not of the Right? The people right now campaigning for more massive government interference in the lives of private citizens are certainly on the Left today. If "rule" were the goal of the Libertarian Right, they certainly are going about it in a strange way. And why are big business people like Bezos and Soros, or the rich in Hollywood, or the heads of big tech in Frisco backing the Left now? That would seem strange, if what you're suggesting were true.

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? :shock:
Really? [/quote]
Yes, really.
Which style of government utilizes Machivellian tactics as their methods with the strictest standards?
The Left.
I see you picked from the title: "Big Lies" by Joe Conason
No, I was totally unaware of the book until now.

The term "the Big Lie" actually comes from Adolph Hitler. Conason must have borrowed it from there.
I agree that there still exists the absurdity of those thinking that it SHOULD be about Black people only. BUT, ....and note carefully,....this is a RIGHT-WING belief if those particular protestors interpret this to overthrow all non-Black concerns out the window.
I'm sure the leaders and followers of BLM would be vastly entertained to know you regard them as "Right-wing." I can't imagine what they'd make of such a claim.

But in fact, we know who the originators of BLM are: they are three black, lesbian Neo-Marxists, Garza, Tometi and Cullors. And they're quite frank about their Leftism.
The 'down-to-earth' style of speaking by the right through those like Trump...
I think it's a hard case to make that Trump is "rightist." He was apparently a Democrat voter and contributor for most of his life, switching more recently. He seems more to me like a kind of media-chameleon, who changes his skin in order to "make the deal," whatever it is. But I don't know what the man's real convictions are today...I would tend to think he's operating strategically, rather than ideologically...but I can't be sure of that.

Maybe he's a sincere person today. But he's had an odd career.
Governments that initially attempt to go Communist have the flaw of turning 'right'
I think you're supposing that "Right" means dictatorial. And Leftist regimes certainly do have a tendency to go that way -- in fact, universally. But "Right" also means "Libertarian," or "free enterprise," or "individualistic," or even "Randian." So you'd need to drill down on what you really mean there.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by nothing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am If you regard that as true, so? Being "matriarchal" certainly doesn't make something more true. What's the point?
I don't "regard" it as true, I acknowledge it as true because it is true.

Abrahamism is firmly rooted in patriarchy, thus implies the problem:
men who depreciate women. This is embedded in/of Islam, as
the male central figure idol of Islam was a polygamist misogynist
(also: pedophile, genocidal warlord) who saw women only as either
slaves to men, or currency such to use/sell for purposes of jihad against "unbelievers".

There is only one division: "believer vs. unbeliever" and this is reflected
in/of the Left vs. Right respectively (as it always has), hence...
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am No, the Left. The Left's not Islam.
...yes, it is. It always has been, to the same degree Muhammadans have always divided the world
on the basis of "believer vs. unbeliever" because it is the same division. The rest is noise meant
to distract people from the real underlying problems as they relate to Islam being the root
of Nazism. Dividing the world into two and systemically persecuting/killing "unbelievers"
is exactly what Islam does. The whole purpose is to collapse the entire West and make Islam
the only "solution".

If it takes a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior to others and/or others are inferior to themselves,
on what side must all Nazis/supremacists be pinned on in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation?

Only the "believers", hence the root of Nazism is in/of the Left (Islam).
The global censorship of the Right by the Left is the same as
the abuse of "unbelievers" by the hands of the "believers".
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am Radical Neo-Marxists are now starting to destroy not just centrists but even mild leftists. As below.
I don't know exactly who you are referring to as "radical neo-marxists",
I do not play the 'ism' game outside of the important ones (ie. Nazism),
which is strictly a "belief"-based condition (of supremacy).

This condition underlies Islam, hence "believers".
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am Umm...no, I think that's a highly implausible theory, given that most of that bratty group is composed of middle-class whites.
"Whites"? Are you as racist as the House of Islam is?
They have an active jihad against "white people", too.

Supremacism is not a racial problem, it is an ideological one.
Referring to people as "whites" is nothing but racist.

A human being is not defined by/as the color of their skin.
Islam is not even a race, yet they try to accuse those
who know Islam is a problem rather than a solution
as being "racist". This is the abusive nature of Islam.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am So...your idea is that Neo-Marxists and Anarchists are Islamists? You'll need to show evidence for that, for sure.
It is the other way around: the House of Islam manufactures these groups
for the purposes of using non-Muslims to fight their jihad against the West.
The non-Muslims don't know this because they simply "believe"
they are doing the right thing, just the like "believers" in/of Islam.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am That's an uninformative distinction. It begs the question, "Believe WHAT?"
The particular belief itself doesn't matter.
The problem is belief ITSELF. This is easy to see.

All knowledge must negate all belief-based ignorance(s), thus
knowing all (ie. who, what, where, why, when, how and ultimately: if)
NOT to "believe" must approach any possible all-knowing 'state',
god-or-no-god.

One may
know all, (thus) not to believe, or
believe all, (thus) not to know
wherein it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true.

This is how why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is wholly "belief"-based
and people who eat from it (ie. be "believers") never actually know from which tree
they are even eating. It doesn't matter what good and evil are (or are not):
it would take a "believer" to "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am You could argue, for example, that an anti-science loony was an "unbeliever," and a scientist was a "believer" in the scientific method. What does saying either really tell you? Not a thing. "Believer/unbeliever" leaves untouched the question of whether or not the "belief" in view is warranted, rational or sane.
The scientific method is not "belief"-based - it is rooted in falsification: to falsify a premise(s) ie. a negation of "belief" (and/or assumption).
Endeavoring to know all: not to believe is the same endeavor - to avoid the adoption of assumptions/premises "known" to be false.
This is how/why knowledge and belief are antithetical: all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum.
Belief has nothing to do with knowledge until one knows a particular belief(s) is not necessarily true.
They will know who/what/where/why/when/how etc. as all of this implies having underwent a conscious inquiry
which is what any science is: a faculty of inquiry, hence the word 'conscience' is one's own faculty.

"Belief" is not a conscious process, it is unconscious stagnation.
Trying/testing/falsifying any/all "belief" is certainly a conscious process
undertaken by a faculty of inquiry, individual and/or otherwise.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

nothing wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am If you regard that as true, so? Being "matriarchal" certainly doesn't make something more true. What's the point?
I don't "regard" it as true, I acknowledge it as true because it is true.
What's the point?
men who depreciate women.
And women deprecate men. What's the point?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am No, the Left. The Left's not Islam.
...yes, it is.
You need some help on that, I see. https://time.com/5673239/left-right-politics-origins/
"believer vs. unbeliever" because it is the same division.

It's not. Stalinists were "believers" in Communism (Leftist), and Libertarians (Rightist) are "unbelievers" in the same things. But Marxists (Leftists) are "non-believers" in free trade, and Capitalists (Rightists) are "believers" in it.

Unbelief and belief vary with the issue in question...they don't attach to "Left" and "Right."
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am Radical Neo-Marxists are now starting to destroy not just centrists but even mild leftists. As below.
I don't know exactly who you are referring to as "radical neo-marxists", [/quote]
Right now, they are the leaders of Leftists ideological groups like ANTIFA and BLM, as well as far too many academics in the Humanities. There are fewer in Business and the STEM fields, which attach more firmly to reality and data than the Humanities do, which have become seriously poisoned by Marxist ideology, and today teach very little deserving of the term "education." The Western press is also clearly heavily infected, but generally more stupidly and sometimes more strategically and politically than earnestly, it would seem.
I do not play the 'ism' game outside of the important ones (ie. Nazism),
Nazism WAS important. It's not now. But Nazism was always Left. It was "national socialism," not "national free-enterprise individualism."
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am Umm...no, I think that's a highly implausible theory, given that most of that bratty group is composed of middle-class whites.
"Whites"? Are you as racist as the House of Islam is?
Islam's not on the Right-Left political spectrum. They're their own thing.
Referring to people as "whites" is nothing but racist.
I would say it is. But since "Black Lives" are supposed to "Matter" to the Neo-Marxist Left, what group do you suppose they are excluding, in particular? To whom are the "black lives" supposed to "matter" more than they allegedly do?
A human being is not defined by/as the color of their skin.
Agreed. But Leftists think they are. They also think things like "culture," "gender," and "sexuality" divide people into collectives that have to be accorded special attention.

But they don't. It's enough for somebody to be a human being. Everything else is secondary, and far less important.

Someone should tell the Left that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am So...your idea is that Neo-Marxists and Anarchists are Islamists? You'll need to show evidence for that, for sure.
It is the other way around: the House of Islam manufactures these groups
Proof, please?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am That's an uninformative distinction. It begs the question, "Believe WHAT?"
The particular belief itself doesn't matter.
Yes, it does. See my example at the start of this message. Many more such examples are possible, too. Very clearly, the particulars of the alleged "belief" are ALL that matter.

Don't you "believe" that? Then you're a "believer." And, according to your scheme, that would make you a "Rightist" and then what...at "Nazi"? :shock:
All knowledge must negate all belief-based ignorance(s)...it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true.
Oh, I see...you think "belief" means the opposite of "knowledge."

It doesn't. That's just incorrect.

Science is inductive. And inductive knowledge is inevitably only ever produced by a "belief" called a "hypothesis," which the experimenter does not already know to be true (for if she did, why do the experiment? :shock: ). And it is always concluded by some "belief," called a "finding," because the sum of all experiments has never been completed for even one scientific question. Something must always be "believed" at the end, even if it's sometimes no more than the "belief" that the original hypothesis is wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:16 am You could argue, for example, that an anti-science loony was an "unbeliever," and a scientist was a "believer" in the scientific method. What does saying either really tell you? Not a thing. "Believer/unbeliever" leaves untouched the question of whether or not the "belief" in view is warranted, rational or sane.
The scientific method is not "belief"-based
Actually, it is. I'm afraid you just have a strange definition of "belief," that doesn't stand up.

Or do you not personally believe in science?
"Belief" is not a conscious process,
Sure it is. Don't you "believe" things?

Whether or not you "believe" them on evidence and reasons or not is a different question.
Post Reply