The underdog-friendly narratives of the left are emotionally appealing, till they have to define words, assign meaning to things, deal with reality, identify causes and effects.

Their vague definitions of what constitutes capitalism, justice, oppression, exploitation and privilege fail them.

Without good definitions, they lack the ideological tools necessary to analyse events and actions consistently.

Reality is something they perpetually fight against, rather than improve. In fact, nothing might seem real to them at all. It's all a conspiracy, according to them. Since they can't assign meanings adequately, everything will start to have meaning for them.

And because of the lack of skill to identify causality, they will eventually get to a point where the truth will start to become whatever they feel to be. Feel strongly enough about something, and it will become the truth, according to them.

Whether this is a postmodern thing or something else, I don't know.

But it's a sad state of affairs for a person to be in.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

reified postmodernism

+

personality cluster B

🤙

I'm not fully sure what either of those mean, but is that a description of the type of people I'm describing?

Can you elaborate a little bit?

yep.

'reified postmodernism' is the scholarly term for wokeism.

personality cluster B is a group of personality disorders that are related to each other. the Wikipedia page on it/them is not bad.

those 2 combined == bluehairs and people like them; the stereotype that is

Also, you might see a perfectly 'ordinary' person on the surface who would have insane beliefs.

yeah 💯

you can't tell by the surface except those who advertise it 🤣

it's important to treat people as individuals and not assume we know them because of superficial things.

not knowing is most intimate.

I think the less 'political' a person's life is, the more we'll be able to see his qualities as an individual come out.

Meaning, if a society's laws only concern themselves with wherever violence is actually appropriate, i.e. protection of natural rights and nothing beyond that, you'll see individuals flourish morally, spiritually and economically.

Does this make sense to you?

if you mean less government interference, particularly in education, yes. people should be left alone to live their lives and keep most of what they earn aside from what is absolutely necessary to levy as tax for roads, infrastructure, etc.

here in north america, it is past the tipping point. kids are being taught non-skills that serve to create division and bigotry meanwhile the literacy rate is appalling and they can't reason or do math or they only look at stats and not people. the average IQ is -15 of what it was for example.

another piece of the puzzle is loss of morality and demonization of spiritual life. i had to seek it on my own, my parents had no spiritual life. they just didband said what they were told to.

i think you're in India? if so, beware if and when this starts over there. it seems to appear after a country fully develops.

i spent about a month in northern India in 2014. loved it there. the people were real, life was real.

❤️🤙

I don't think it's about development though. Whatever development any country has had is because of capital accumulation and savings.

Fiat money, central banking, state production and provision of any good and service will inevitably lead society down this path.

I don't think any civilisation or society can last with a government. It will inevitably deteriorate over time due to its government.

I think it's possible for a civil/society to last with government but not with overrreaching government.

the past 40-70 years in the West have seen a degradation of education and more and more tax to feed politicians.

perhaps if there are limits set in the beginning? idk

the Internet has made things worse by far, socially especially in the West. people no longer talk face to face as they once did.

I remember when it was not like this.

idk.

The nature of a government is to eventually overreach, and remove whatever limits were set on it for some reason or the other.

The internet has been the best medium through which the truth can be spread. I owe a great deal of my personal growth to it. Just need to learn how to do filtering.

What's the left?

The origins of the terms left and right come from where people sat in the assembly after the French revolution.

Used to be defined as those in politics - the politicians, policymakers and intellectuals - who believed in classical liberal, laissez-faire ideas, i.e. natural rights, self-ownership, freedom of and to trade, property rights, etc.

Over time, egalitarian and socialist ideas have influenced people on this side. So now, it has changed into those in politics who believe that:

-the state needs to make policy that enforces equality among people, beyond just equality in front of the natural law. Examples include redistribution of wealth, socializing the means of production, affirmative action, educational reform etc.

-a 'right to' or 'freedom to' something constitutes whatever the majority, or the state, thinks it ought to be - the concept of natural rights and freedoms that exist absent a government is frowned upon by them.

-socialism, if implemented within the constraints of a democratic republic, is a superior form of organising society morally, legally, politically and economically.

To explore more:

(1) A talk by Hoppe

https://youtu.be/EO68Kvb9fD4

(2) A talk by Roderick T. Long

https://youtu.be/z31FQ1_jjlQ

(3) An article by Murray Rothbard

https://mises.org/mises-daily/left-and-right-prospects-liberty