OF THE
TIMES
Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people will find that horrible.Horrible might be a bit strong. But, if given a choice, WOULD pick Captain Beefheart instead.
Video unavailable
This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
"Globalism represents the essentially unipolar worldview. At the level of geopolitics, it is the definition of the West over the East and other Third World countries. At the level of ideology, globalism represents liberal democracy or left-liberalism, which wants to free the individual from all ties to collective identity. It is absolute individualism that goes beyond religion, nations, ethnicities. The only thing left to the globalists of the left is to deny human identity, to defend the life forms of post-human individuals, artificial intelligence, robots, cyborgs, etc. This is not fantasy, it is a political and ideological reality of globalisation, which is the promotion of the absolute and dominant status of the individual freed from all links to collective identity. Globalism is the ideology and process in development, it is not static, but dynamic. Politically it is the organisation of the world on the unipolar model. But this pole is no longer Western, American or European.It is the pole without any relation to the ground, to the earth. That is why it is apolar unipolarity, without a pole. Antiglobalisation is everything that is against it: multipolarity, plurality of economic, cultural and social structures. It is not liberalism, but neither communism nor fascism, which no longer exist in today's world. It is not an established ideology, but it is a form opposed to globalisation. The most important question is to be in favour of globalisation and the "great reset" or to be in favour of the "great awakening".Thus two more important choices are formulated which affect the very nature of man, which separate mankind into two parts. This conflict that we observe today in the USA is not an American conflict, but a universal one. The same is happening in Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Argentina, in European and Islamic countries. Everywhere there is the network of the globalists who belong to the elite and there are also the people who are pejoratively called populists. This problem will be solved in the course of this century. To be right-wing or left-wing today means almost nothing.It is much more important to be for globalism or against it; on the side of the people or on the side of the globalist elite and the dominant financial and technological networks."
Aleksandr Dugin
The left position is fundamentally a decentralization of power, not a centralization. Decentralization by private corporations and NGOs is international fascism ( or as we politely call it, globalism).Would you consider Marxism/Leninism to be a decentralizing system? Or Maoist China?
The left position is fundamentally a decentralization of power, not a centralization.I'm not too sure about that.
Care/harm : This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. Fairness/cheating : This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. Loyalty/betrayal : This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that itโs โone for all, and all for one.The UN, the WHO and most globalist institutions are certainly (ostensibly) motivated primarily by the first module, and perhaps a little of module 2 and 6.... Modules 3, 4 & 5?, well, you decide.
โ Authority/subversion : This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
Sanctity/degradation : This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
Liberty/oppression : This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
I think we are working with two different definitions of what is left. You are describing the traits of ordianry liberals and social democrats. I wont argue that point with you, but I will say I do not consider them to be "left" in a meaningful sense.Well, yes, but in order to clear that up, I have to ask you. What would qualify someone to be left in a meaningful sense?
adipocere the problem in your examples was rooted in the authoritarian and imperialist culture and mindsetOr, some people are just lazy, selfish, narcissistic, unaware, etc.
I think someone should be economically left (anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-oligarch, anti-authoritarian and socially tolerant of what is socially healthy.There is definitely two sides to that!!! There are those on the right that are anti-war, anti-oligarch, anti-authoritarian. There are those on the left that are pro-war, leftists oligarchs pushing leftists policies (you named one), and left wing authoritarians (there is plenty there to choose from!) Its in all of our faces!
Take the topic of immigration. I do not think immigrants as individual human beings are a problem, but mass immigration is a problem. The reason for that are the conditions that force them to immigrate en masse: war, poverty, trafficking. The solution is not to punish and abuse them or block them from refuge, nor is it to allow them to flood uncontrollably into other countries. The solution is to stop blowing up their countries and destroying their economies. If you stop allowing oligarchs to destroy their lives, you stop the problem at the source. In order to stop the oligarchs you have to strip their power and wealth because their power and wealth is based on destroying the lives of masses of people.Well, Libya was destroyed by left wing interventionists, and notice the left wing slogans to justify that (responsibility to protect, equality, protect women from rapists, minorities from persecution etc) and the liberal media and left wing ''progressives'' that cheered it on!
stop blowing up their countries and destroying their economiesIn other words, mind your own business. Leftists have no idea how to do that any more than Capitalists do.
What bothers me is why it is so hard for you to see through this, except that you refuse to because it is such a cornerstone of your belief system.I have no skin in this game, so you assume incorrectly. Though, you seem to be describing your own position quite accurately. Also, you have refused to engage with the point I made above regarding moral modules as applies to the left and right. You are rigidly holding on to a viewpoint that sees the left/right in terms of economics, social position etc. However, I see it in terms of moral structures, neural chemistry etc. Unless you can make that leap, you ain't gonna get it. Jordan Peterson says, quite rightly, that hierarchical structures are hardwired in neural chemsitry. Same with economics, social structures etc, they are but reflections of neural chemistry (itself a reflection of soul, or thought, or lack thereof). Forget psychopaths and the like for now, as they don't have any of the moral matrices.
They can only be "left wing" in a paradigm that is so far right that mere words can substitute reality.The far right are the ethno nationalist type. How you can say that is beyond me.
The dems and republicans are two wings of the same bird and that bird is far right.
I think power, wealth, force, violence, authoritarianism, order, and social conformity are essentially right wing values and pursuits.Order, and to some extent, social conformity are right wing values. The rest, both are prone to it.
The left would reject those values to varying degrees. If it does not reject it, it is not left. It could be center, but it is not left.This is the sticking point.
I think what you are saying is that you feel it is psychopaths causing all the trouble, and you're differentiating them from ordinary people on a left/right moral matrix using psychological terms.No, not all the trouble. I never said that.
I don't know what else to say to you.You haven't said much. Like I said, this isn't going anywhere, so I'm out of this debate.
I am more interested in big problemsIMO, that's your problem.
globalisation...is the promotion of the absolute and dominant status of the individual freed from all links to collective identitySort of like Ayn Rand on steroids.
Comment: It seems Facebook has pegged the Boogaloos as right-wing:
Facebook bans hundreds of 'boogaloo' accounts citing- without examples- 'real-world violence' while ANTIFA linked accounts are left alone