What got the West so entrenched in the Left-Right dichotomy in the first place. How can I transcend it?

What got the West so entrenched in the Left-Right dichotomy in the first place. How can I transcend it?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

By passing through the slaughterhouse and out the other side

>How can I transcend it?
Think for yourself and decide where you stand on each issue based on the knowledge you can acquire and your own moral compass.

Move to the cayman islands and become a citizen, live off trading stocks and forex.

Jews.

This.

Jews trying to convince people that power should be consolidated and controlled by a minority that will equally distribute resources to all.

It's fucking bullshit, and a clear example of what lead ze Germans to start making human sized ovens.

The problem is that without discipline, young people and idiots will gladly support giving up their freedom for "free" shit, because they're to fucking naive to realize that the "free" shit IS shit.

why /pol/ why here

Check this out. What the fuck am I fucking reading? This nigger believes in a Judeo-Marxist conspiracy which attempts to destroy the white race.

But he did not mention whites at all...

delete this

Vote Trump

What?

Stop asking questions

Well, the actual construct came from 18th century France. If you're asking why humans like to categorize things into extremes, I'm not sure. A fair bet, I think, would be evolution. Rapidly assigning new phenomena to one of two groups allows physically weak beings to gain mastery of their surroundings.

Thanks for reminding me friend

Attention whores and 50s propagandists are filthy liars whats new?
Noone here really believes the soapshit either.
Doesnt change a fact we killed a lot of people by purpose in those camps and if you have the autistic vigor to disprove it you are free to come to germany and trace up back the names of those deported who are engraved on copper plates in the streets all over our cities.

>Actually being this unironically cucked
You think if you lick enough Jew feet everyone will like you?

>tfw no QT jewish GF to be dominated by and lick feet

When discussing the role of government it makes sense to have a "big government vs small government" line to put suggestions on.

Its been corrupted by pop culture into what it is today, but the idea is still how many rules we should have enforced on us by the state.

Why do you want to transcend it?

>young people and idiots will gladly support giving up their freedom for "free" shit
Except that the most obscene infringements of freedom in modern times haven't been in the name of "free shit" [oh no, you may have to pay more tax!] but in the name of "muh terrirsts!"

Britain, a country with a fucking terrorist factory as an integral part of her territory, has a fetish for dystopian surveillance powers because now the terrorists don't speak with a cheery accent and imbibe Guinness and don't attack half as often. Indeed, if anything the worst governments for civil liberties have been those with more centrist inclinations.

Nah, I simply dont like passive aggressive bitching about the holocaust when it has nothing to do with the thread.
Or elusive "shhht... Im in the know!" bullshit.
Besides that, my stance that 50s propagandists are filthy liars would actually still be considered rightwinged here.

Besides that, I reffered to victims in general, not jews. So please stop projecting.

*Besides that i should be vary of repetitions in my sentences more.

>What got the West so entrenched in the Left-Right dichotomy in the first place
The French Revolution. The senate organized itself in a hemicircle (which then became the political global standard) with the jacobins (radical republicans) sitting at the far left, the moderates in the middle and the royalists at the far right. The meaning of left and right changed overtime (by today's standards the jacobins would be moderate-right) but that's where the left-right dichotomy started.

Even today the left-right dichotomy is fucking retarded in its inherrent contradiction, this is why the horseshoe theory is around: extreme "right" and extreme left are almost the same. Personally I'd argue for an alternative, less internally contradictory definition for the left-right dichotomy: the right emphasizes the state as a neccessary evil (or in the extreme right not neccessary at all) whereas the left considers the state an essential existence. So communism would be far left, national-socialism, a bit less far left and the far right would not be nazis but anarchists. Sadly this more logical spectrum won't catch on anytime soon.

However, the most important thing is that the left-right dichotomy was from the very start a construct. American bipartisanism (and French bipartisanism as it is developing before our very eyes) creates the illusion that there is only one "left"option and one "right" option. Left and right are constructs to describe the ideas of a party or individual.

>if anything the worst governments for civil liberties have been those with more centrist inclinations.
Lol. You think Britain and America's infringements upon human rights stack up against theocratic dictators and socialist banana republics? Are you retarded?

I didn't know theocratic dictators and socialist banana republics held free and fair elections that coerced electors into backing them with promises of free things.

Context is very important. It should have been perfectly clear that I was referring to liberal-democratic first world countries from the context of the post I was replying to.

>communism would be far left
Communism's end goal is a stateless society. Whether it's implementable or not is dubious, but irrelevant.

[Although we run into some issues since even though the end goal of Marxist communism is the elimination of the state [i.e. extreme far right], it also views the state as completely necessary to eventually reach this goal [i.e. extreme far left.] in the same way it views capitalism as a completely necessary evolutionary step. i.e. they view the state as unnecessary, but not necessarily immediately.]

Both the left and the right are the beginning and end of an ouroboros.

Western Thinking has always dealt with absolutes and apparently chosing the """"""""""""middle ground""""""""""= being a pussy.

Its pretty backwards desu.

How exactly does "state decides every aspect o life" and "there is no state" end in an ouroboros?

I like that you quoted it.

Apparently any 3rd opinion on a matter actually lies in the middle of a linear spectrum and is just a lukewarm belief.

>always
The terms were created during the French Revolution cucklord. Stop speaking in broad terms about shit you hardly understand.

Retard, it's the exact opposite, have you ever even had a political talk with a Westerner?

The right-left dichotomy exists so that every party can claim to be the center because "center=compromise" and compromise is "good" and "reasonable" while anything not center is extremist. Don't make stupid assumptions based on your limited knowledge of how people act.

The multiple political groups must form coalitions to support or oppose bills, in return they support/oppose bills other members of the coalition want/dislike. All but the most extreme groups end up coalescing into 2 opposing camps which then put out propaganda to get people to adopt the views of the coalition as a whole.

There might be some psychology behind it as well.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

>We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala.

Apparently conservatives are more easily posterior peeved while liberals are oversocial and naive which makes sense.

Is naive really the right word for it? I think it's a bit of a non sequiter to make a value judgement like that based on neurological differences. Oversocial and touchy seem apt because they seem closer to actual behaviors as descriptions. But naive is a bit nebulous.

Not him. Perhaps you hit a point in which the state is so all-consuming that the only effective way to operate it is indistinguishable from there being no state at all, just a group of autonomous individuals monitoring one another and influencing one another via social pressures etc.

Idea mostly inspired by a dystopian view of social networks.

>We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex
Yes yes, liberals (in the American) sense are more intelligent. This must also mean that the aboriginals of Australia, who have the lowest average intelligence of all humans, must be incredibly right wing whereas the Japanese, their average IQ higher than that of America and most European countries, must be extremely left wing and accepting of outsiders. Strange, reality shows the opposite: abbos want government handouts, while the Japanese are debatably the most xenophobic nation in the world. Shinzo Abe even refused to have Japan take in a significant number of refugees because it would taint Japan's homogenous nature. That isn't exactly liberal, now is it?!

It is almost as if there are circumstances that are being left out of the discussion to push a narrative. Such circumstances as:
1. The lowly educated are living the "multicultural dream" firsthand, whereas the middle and upper class observe from a safe distance. Geert Wilders, admittedly not exactly one of my heroes, did have a good point on this: the entire refugee crisis is a bunch of people in big houses telling people in small houses that they have enough room to house others.
2. Liberalism (in the American sense) has become the default assumption. The middle and upper classes simply cannot afford being nationalistic, scientifically racist etc. because it would ruin them. Think of James Watson whose carreer was ruined because he implied blacks aren't as intelligent as whites based on his study of the human genome, or nobel laureate Tim Hunt whose carreer was ruined because he MADE A JOKE about women in the sciences (and ended that joke with saying we need, NEED women in the sciences), or Matt Taylor who was brought to tears on public television for insults over a shirt he wore... a shirt a WOMAN gave him mind you.

Compare Japan, where being a racist is the norm.

maybe

Subjective observations are rarely accurate, but the differences are too stark to ignore.

Increased gray matter in 1 region of the brain doesn't necessarily mean more intelligence. You would be looking for increased gray matter in a region like the neo-cortex.

It is obvious liberals are not right about everything, but modern technology allows people to fly and trade all over the world and it will likely continue to be like this into the distant future, so conservatives too have to ask themselves some questions.

>so conservatives too have to ask themselves some questions.
The first question being how the world being interconnected and unfettered mass-migration relate to eachother.

Japan manages quite well, and the only pro-immigration argument you hear concerning Japan is the fact that the Japanese aren't reproducing. The problem is that the Japanese are not sustaining themselves, not "the current year".

>Liberalism (in the American sense) has become the default assumption
There's something that has to be said for this, because we're dealing with two different things here.

Liberal social views, and other liberal policies which are primarily economic.

The latter have almost entirely been neutered by globalism while the former are emphasised more to make up for it, and there exist reasonable numbers of people who support one or the other but not both.

Wrapping globalism in the clothes of internationalism to sell it to the left wing was the greatest coup by the upper classes in human history.

Was there a time in history where the world was as dominantly liberal as it is today?

What a ridiculous question, think about what you said

>the french revolution
>the industrial revolution
>the bolshevik revolution
>the collapse of the ussr
>the sovet's intellectual dead-hand

"liberal" is a meaningless word, like "conservative". try again.

That means nothing if the political system will not allow you to bring the change you want.

/pol/ is actively ruining Veeky Forums by derailing practically any thread into "muh hitler" or "muh inferior black race".

Im sick of their SJW bullshit.

>abbos want government handouts
I don't think that voting for a left-wing political party because you believe they'll give you handouts is the same thing as actually being left-wing. Liberals (in the American sense) often vote for left-wing parties because left-wing ideology appeals to them, not necessarily for handouts.
Do abbos vote for left-wing parties because they're really concerned about the treatment of women, racial minorities (that aren't them) and trans* people in the workplace?

You go Third Position mah nigga

Royalists and Jacobins of the Estates General.
You can't transcend it as you would think of it.
They take any quality and put them on either side of the wall.
For them there is no Middle ground.

Gas 6 million Jews and starve 30 million slavs, call yourself a centrist.

Amerishit detected
Left or right isn't a matter of size of government. Rightists can want a big government, just as leftists can want to have NO government.
But you guys always distort political phrases and in turn reinforce your american exceptionalism.

>Even today the left-right dichotomy is fucking retarded in its inherrent contradiction, this is why the horseshoe theory is around
Only if you use the propagandized version of the term. Using it to describe positions relative to the status quo is still entirely useful.

it all goes back to the first tree. In Eden God walked beside man, man and God were one. When man ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, he saw duality of all things. He was pulled out of unity and into disunity. The disunity of "good" and "bad", of man and woman, and even of left and right. Our 2000+ years of dualism have enshrined opposites in us. We seek them out and find them even if they don't exist.

What is left, and what is right, then?

It amazes me no one has taken a poly sci class in this thread. There are two separate axis. For the y axis, left and right deal with economic control. The left pushing towards cooperation, the right pushing for individualism. If need be, one can think socialism versus capitalism, but that's not all encompassing. The x axis relates to state power. The fact of the matter is two view points need to be represented. The more 'important' of the two, left and right, deal with economic organization. Perpendicular to that is how much control does a government have. The problem with this format is at the edges of the map, the equation essentially breaks down.

>Except that the most obscene infringements of freedom in modern times haven't been in the name of "free shit"

Really?

Then explain the Soviet union, and every communist shithole nation that adopted the same centralized concepts.

They lure idiots to their cause with "free shit", like "free education, healthcare, and housing" in order to gain power for themselves. The "free shit" is simply the carrot, and once the idiots take a bite, they use the stick to keep them in line.

The most heinous crimes committed against fellow citizens have been conducted by centralized governments, and the most heinous of all have been conducted by centralized governments that follow leftist ideologies, like communism.

Do you which group of people have been involved in attempting to propagate communism most often in the west? The fucking Jews, that's who...

...

>Then explain the Soviet union, and every communist shithole nation that adopted the same centralized concepts.
Find me a democratically elected one and i'll get back to you.

>Western Thinking has always dealt with absolutes


Bullshit.

The east has been dominated by tyrannical, dictatorial, governments throughout their recorded history, and that sure isn't indicative of anything other than condoning absolutes.

>Compare Japan, where being a racist is the norm.

According to the Soviet model, their leaders WERE "democratically" elected....by the party.

>their leaders WERE "democratically" elected....by the party.
i.e. weren't democratically elected at all.

Furthermore, whether the eastern bloc or Japan falls into "Western Thinking" is debatable as fuck.

>Liberal

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and legal equality."

Guess what genius, in the second post the contextual usage of the term was defined.
>liberals (in the American) sense

And in the case of the last post, he could quite possibly have been asking in the sense you defined.

Take your image macro and depart for Reddit by sundown.

>contextual usage
I'm not a /pol/fag, but "cuck" could be a compliment depending on "contextual usage".

The redefining of the word "liberal" is a result of the Left-Right false dichotomy, and it's absolutely criminal. Republicans who claim to admire the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington say "liberalism is a mental disease" when the founding fathers of the US were self-described liberals! The only reason the definition changed is so that there is no mainstream term for one who supports a limited government based upon Enlightenment ideas. With this new definition, Americans will never ponder such an idea for government.

The left-right dichotomy will always exist as long as we define if as either change versus stasis or equality versus inequality.

The problem is conflating those two axes.

>"cuck" could be a compliment depending on "contextual usage".
Not really. It's at best a neutral statement of fact.

And indeed, there is a very important contextual difference between "You are literally cuckolded by the state. The legal entity of the state is currently having sexual intercourse with your wife" and "I am using cuckolding as an example of the relationship you envision between yourself and the state, where you finance everything [your wife] but someone else [BIG, BLACK,] gets to have sex with her/reap the benefits of that finance."

In general, I'm not at all in favour of the general redefinition of the word "Liberal", but it's already happened and it makes for much simpler shorthand to say "The generally used US meaning of the term..." than to try and articulate more clearly "The democrats, greens, their supporters and those who are in favour of their policies, along with some members of the republican party with stances closer to the democratic average on given issues."

>Inigo: You are using Bonetti's defense against me, uh?
>Man In Black: I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain.
>Inigo: Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro.
>Man In Black: Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro, don't you? Jumps down.
>Inigo: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa, which I have!
Do you know what this means?

>There's nothing more attractive than a girl in a Drumpf hat

Reddit pls