The Nazi's socialist?

[Morphic Tide]

So how's that going to accomplish the goal? Given that the aforementioned baptize-in-shit approach didn't actually work reliably. Or Mao's actual mass killings. Or the Holocaust, even. Gulags, re-education camps, mass propaganda, it's all actually quite ineffective at changing culture, so what proposal do you have to more effectively deal with "reactionaries" than anyone else in history to actually change the primary culture?

If you aren't going to destroy the art, the writings, the holy books, how are you actually going to keep any of the ideas gone? When you've "won", what is it that keeps the very next generation from having a serious movement spring up around all the "wrong" ideas simply to be contrary? What is rare is deemed valuable, and a position rendered extinct by grand measures will be quite the draw simply because it is different.

So unless you have vicious oppression of all related viewpoints indefinitely, you can't keep the views gone without obliterating their works. Because if the works can be viewed, they can be acquired for the sake of contrarian movements, thus resurrecting the viewpoints, and they did run the vast majority of history, so unlike other contrarian movements they aren't necessarily a transient matter of spite.

Because they did work in the past, so they can't be said to be simply impossible like we can get away with your views because of the constant spectacular failure to be trusted with even attempting a transition, as contrasted against the far more gradual advent of Capitalism and representative governance that proved itself one piece at a time to be better than what came before, until the practical miracle of the United States of America came along and firmly showed the world that yes, all that shit together makes a working society.

 

[ShieldWife]

I just want to say that I respect your homeschooling efforts enormously. I owe everything to the appreciation for history and reality my homeschooling upbringing brought me. There was no more enriching experience than being allowed to study from the Great Books, and get my hands on Gibbon at the age of eleven. As a teenager I was instead reading Suetonius in a Café as a teenager when my hometown was going through a major meth wave after all the sawmills closed and they were selling meth out of the backs of cars in the school parking lot. I can't say I'm exactly what my parents wanted me to be, but I never lost my ability to think myself or my commitment to avoid being a social parasite. Keep up the good work and never doubt it's the right course.

Thank you! I just remembered you wanted me to make a more detailed post/thread about homeschooling. I was going to do that but I forgot until just now.

You should really reflect on that statement
Because it wasn't a strategy we came up with. It was something we adopted as reactionaries (See: RJ Rushdooney) came up with in about the outline which was expanded upon and first executed in the 1960's under the banner of Dominionism. It's held several names over the decades with Christian Reconstructionism being the most recent. See: New Apostolic Movement

R. J. Rushdoony - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A key figure within the movement who catapulted it to the public forefront was Pat Robertson. After his failed 1988 run in which he won only 4 states the 7 mountain strategy was modified so that Christians would seek to take over local Republican politics. The 'Silent Majority' was used as the backbone of the movement allowing Christians to organize on a local level. The initial push was for the taking over of local School boards as they are the least contested and most overlooked of political offices. This would then allow the candidates to get their feet wet before moving up while at the same time giving them a strangle hold on the local education policies. It remained effective by and large up through about 2014 after the backlash of the kitzmiller v dover trial. As of 2018 there has been a slight resurgence but they are finding it difficult to regain lost ground even with physical control of the school boards they regained.

The left were well on their way to controlling the education system by the 1960's which in in why the so called "reactionaries" were reacting. The left had Hollywood and media long before that, though they had to be a bit more subtle about exerting their influence. What is often called the religious right did have to organize politically, in large part because they were a large segment of society that were dramatically underrepresented in politics and institutional power structures in relation to their population. I wouldn't say that they came to dominate Republican politics, but they gained something closer to fair representation. Currently there is a struggle for nationalist conservatives to do the same thing, to gain some measure of representation in politics after having been shut out for decades.

Again of course you are wrong but that is not a surprise. You look at something which is going on and then tell yourself a story without bothering to look into the history. Homeschooling within the US has been a primarily Christian reactionary endeavor primarily centered around Young Earth Creationism and was a response to it's growing rejection. Hunter Avallone was homeschooled by reactionary parents. Having known many individuals who were homeschooled and it leaves them unprepared to interact with the larger world.

I have close relations with numerous home schooling families and while some are creationists, that is not they major motivation for homeschooling. You described their reasons for homeschooling perfectly when you described your plan to poison their children's minds through school and entertainment. When go off on a diatribe about how you're going to subtly turn children against their parents with leftist control of school and mass media, then you can't say that conservative parents are dumb for wanting to avoid being victims of your dastardly schemes.

Leftists who hate home schooling always talk about the horrors of home schooling and yet they never present any kind of data to support their claims. The reason why is because the data shows that homeschooling gets superior results. Obviously, some homeschooled kids end up with problems just as some public schooled kids do, but the data suggests that behavior they are better and academically they do better. Objective data supports homeschooling, so the authoritarians who want to control other people's children justify their opposite with vague, emotional, and/or unfalsifiable claims about socialization, radicalization, or lack of preparation for the world - what ever those things even mean.

I suspect that my kids will in fact be a bit unfamiliar with certain aspects of popular culture. Then again I don't see conformity to an immoral society to be a benefit.

The final retreat of the reactionary is to manufacture isolated and isolated communities with which to indoctrinate their children in unchallenged environments as they are aware that they are incapable of winning on the battlefield of ideas.

Reactionaries are retreating because authoritarian leftists control education along with other societal institutions and we want to avoid having our children brainwashed by them. We want, essentially, to be left alone. You want to force everybody to be indoctrinated in your ideology, by gunpoint if necessary. It's the left that want unchallenged environments, they are the ones who try to silence all dissent, who don people and get YouTUbe channels censored, who attack right wingers trying to have marches or protests, who want to stop parents from passing their values on to their own children.

If you were interested in competing on the battlefield of ideas, you wouldn't be trying to indoctrinate other people's kids. You wouldn't want to censor dissenting ideas.

As I stated previously the primary strategy is to create a no win situation. Homeschooling plays into this.

From my previous post

You keep denying you aren't an authoritarian but everything you say just oozes authoritarianism. You're thinking of kids who have gone to public school, watched TV, and had peers who did the same thing for their entire lives rebelling against their parents; not kids who haven't been subjected to that kind of brainwashing. Though at this point I assume that you admit that the left controls both the educational institutions of the USA along with most of the entertainment and media corporations.

As reactionary ideology becomes less relevant to the wider world it will go seek first to create small pockets of refuge and continuing to shirk it will go extinct. This is exactly my goal.

Your goal is to indoctrinate other people's kids and the growing homeschooling movement along with the tendency for conservative parents to have larger families gives us the chance to thwart your despicable totalitarian plans of our kids.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Also, a large group of the "unaffiliated" claim to believe in God, so I guess they have to go too?

See you reactionaries cannot help but lie even if you are to cowardice to explicitly lie and so seek to lie by implication. ", so I guess they have to go too?" Go where? The people are not going anywhere but hopefully into the ground at the ripe old age of 110. The epistemological and meta-physical non-sense on the other hand, ya that can go away as it already is with the None's.

I don't like Islamic culture, as that seems to be what you're referring to, and I absolutely want to keep it out of Western nations - something that leftists seem to think is as evil as can be. But with regard to practicing those cultures in their own nations - that isn't any of my business.

Then I was wrong and you are a monstrous human being. Though I do rather suspect you are lying (it is really hard for me to accept someone is genuinely monstrous though it does happen). Call it naive optimism on my part. I would rather believe someone doesn't understand the implications of what they are saying/claim to believe until I have overwhelming evidence they are a monster. The belief that it is alright for bad evil shit to happen to others so long as you don't have to see hear or think of it is a monstrous belief. The belief that it is acceptable to endorse monstrous practices because they are a part of another culture is LibShit at best or an excuse not to have your own culture subjected to the same analysis and deconstruction.
It is not enough to keep those practices out it is vital to oppose them as the evil which they are. Evil prevails because the good do nothing and all that. Additionally cultures interplay and interact and there will be memetic shift. This is not optional. What is optional is the direction of memetic shift and the choice about which way we want the meme to shift in which places. The great thing about the American Ideal is it's willingness and eagerness to adopt positive aspects of other cultures as its own. This should not change. Additionally it should export positive cultural values.
As to the leftist and western nations. Again you fail to understand let alone grok the simple and basic strategy. The left wants to keep out and works to keep out barbaric islamic practices. A task made difficult by western religious reactionaries who seek to preserve religious exemption laws. Yet something which for the most part leftist have managed to have successes at for the most part. What ends up happening is that Muslim populations integrate and over time liberalize within one to two generations. This liberalization then exports back to their home nation through osmosis. This is not to say that I approve of the LibShits and Conservitards doing everything in their power to prevent an aggressive approach to the necessary tactics.
In terms of Leftist thinking that "the west" is as evil evil as something can be. Nice strawman it burns quite nicely. The position of the left is not that western nations are as evil as they can possibly be, it is rather a nuanced view that on the whole western nations are preferable to non-western nations. However granting that there is still much improvement within western nations which needs to be achieved. I can recognize that the US is at the moment the most preferable country to live in, without thinking that it has reached perfection and being willing to recognize the flaws which exist within it.
The reactionary response to pointing out flaws within the US is to pearl clutch and feign outrage that one should dare besmirch such perfection by saying it is imperfect. And that to want to improve upon the flaws is to despise and hate America.

Bullshit.

How am I the authoritarian when you want to use either state power or capitalistic power (your entertainment industry control) to turn kids against their parents and I just want to leave other cultures alone to do their own thing?

Excellent malformed question and quite the frame job to boot. I actually must applaud your skill at artful deception. So lets break it down one at a time.

How am I the authoritarian

Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
While you dislike the state you worship government and authority, and you despise personal freedom while attempting to claim that you very much care about personal freedom. You are of course lying. This is nothing more than a facade intended to mask your true beliefs, aims, and objectives behind what you really want. What you want is to limit personal freedom by implementing BITE (Behavior control, Information Control, Thought Control, and Emotional Control). It is a common tactic among destructive cults and I suggest that you actually look up the BITE model before commenting or you will make yourself look extremely stupid. The general principle you wish to implement is to limit individual freedom while at the same time expanding institutional control.

when you want to use either state power or capitalistic power (your entertainment industry control) to turn kids against their parents

Entertainment is just one of the Seven Pillars and while I recognize that it is one of the most important of the 7 the other six should not be underestimated or ignored. That out of the way I love how reactionaries stand on their head and tell me that I am upside down. Using state power to ensure equal treatment and to oppose intolerance is not authoritarian. As much as you would like to paint it as such. It's a recognition of the tolerance paradox. A tolerant society which tolerates the intolerant will become intolerant. The one thing a tolerant society must not tolerate is intolerance, Just as it was true when Epictitus said "the only thing a rational man cannot tolerate is the irrational" the same general principle applies to tolerant societies.
And again the same is true of personal freedom you may do with yourself as you please. You may not do with others as you please. Jacking the 7 mountains out from under the religious reactionaries who are an intolerant group, to promote Enlightenment values of Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality (ie tolerance and personal freedom) is by only the most warped and twisted mind "authoritarian". Here is the catch and this is what makes me laugh. You know your position is weak which is why you whine and moan and bitch and attempt to paint yourself as a victim. It's only by lies you can perpetuate your ideology. Your ideas are incapable of standing up to scrutiny and cannot withstand the battleground of ideas. Facts do not care about your feelings and so your feelings don't care about the facts.

, at the expense of personal freedom.

of everything you said this is by far the most laughable. You don't even know what personal freedom means. Instead you give it lip service while the whole time you undermine it. Personal freedom means just that. Personal freedom means that the "right to swing your fist stops at my nose" as the common saying goes. The general principle which we can extract from this is the principle of autonomy of the individual. Attempts at Information control are a violation of autonomy. Attempts at thought control are violations of autonomy. Attempts at Emotional control are violations of autonomy.

But lets nail the big one. Attempts at behavior control are violations of autonomy. Knowing how reactionaries love to twist things lets be clear about what behavior control is and is not. This is in prediction of an attempt to obfuscate the term behavior control so far that it becomes meaningless. The key feature of behavior control is "Promote dependence and obedience", this is in contrast to promoting independence and autonomy. Thus for example preventing a child from running out in front of a car is not in and of itself behavior control. Preventing a child from running out in front of a care "because I said so" is behavior control. Preventing a child from running out in front of a car "because getting hit by a car can hurt or kill you" is not behavior control. The primary factor in determination is the question of which values are being promoted. The child a semi-autonomous individual must learn to navigate the world. Which principles then should the child learn in navigating the world dependence and obedience to authority, or independence and autonomy of action with an understanding of the consequences of ones actions.

That you wish to live in an authoritarian structure is of no mind. To each their own. If you wish however to force others either by legal means or by restricting knowledge of another way then we have a problem. Then it is appropriate for others to step in and to remove abusive control. At the moment that authority is invested in the state as much as I dislike that it is the current fact of the matter. Until such time as the state is able to be eliminated it is therefore appropriate and necessary to use the tools which are available. To be clear if you are raising your children such that your way is one of but many ways they may choose to live their life then that is an expression of personal freedom. If however you are raising your children such that your way is the only right proper and true way and that they are obliged to follow it by virtue of accident of birth. Well then that is not personal freedom. That is personal freedom for you and fuck the rest which is not personal freedom at all.

I understand. Though I think that there is a misconception that there is a neutral way to raise and influence children. There isn't. Sending them to school and then to a university, having them watch Hollywood shows and movies all day, and otherwise subjecting them to leftist propaganda isn't a free or neutral education. Someone is going to influence kids as they grow and I'd rather my kids be influenced by me than Dirtbagleft or his more well connected allies.

And I guess we have our answer as to which it is you are doing. And you are correct there isn't really any neutrality when it comes to autonomy and independence vs obedience and dependence. It would be impossible let alone impractical and schizophrenic create an education system which promotes both. I personally advocate for the values of independence and autonomy. The fact that you think you can hide them away from leftist influence though is rather cute. What makes this position so comical is that you don't understand that sending them to public school actually has a greater chance of making them good little reactionaries. As a side demonstration it is easier to convince a home schooled individual of the truth of evolution than it is someone who went to public school. This is because an individual who goes to public school and is raised in an anti-evolution household is psychologically prepared to buffer themselves against any information which conflicts with their belief in a way that a home schooled individual is not. The principle holds.

You could filter out what they watch and listen too, I just fear for what I have seen personally with friends of mine as they grow up. Especially Homeschooled kids I know. I hope they turn out great

When a child is raised in a highly controlled environment and then gains a even a modicum of freedom they tend to go wild for a bit. The more restrictive the environment the more wild they are likely to go to the point of long term harm. My personal philosophy is that parents are not there to prevent children from making mistakes but rather are there to provide a safe environment for children to make as many mistakes as possible as safe as possible. As safe as possible means with reduced consequences for their actions. The only time a parent should outright prevent a mistake from occurring is if it either endangers the life of a child or someone else, or if it the consequences would have a severe long lasting negative consequence.
Ideally parents create an open environment where children and youths feel open to discuss anything and everything and to talk through what it is they intend to do with the parent acting as a sounding board.
What @ShieldWife fails to consider is that creating a highly controlled environment does exactly the opposite and creates a situation in which the offspring in question simply get better had hiding what they are doing giving the parent zero actual input.
The arms race between parents who seek to control absolutely what their children do and what information they have access to and children seeking to overcome the obstetrical has been going on forever. And it's almost always the children who win. The consequence which the rest of us usually have to clean up is the blowback effect.

This is not advocating for a complete hands off policy and for a complete lack of hard limits. Rather that the hard limits should be few in number and should be reduced as the offspring ages. In addition by limiting "No you may not do this" to only the most serious things that phrase becomes elevated in the offspring mind and becomes an indication of severe danger if they so choose to ignore the admonition. The problem with the term no is that familiarity breeds contempt. A severe limit on experience with no will more often than not cause the child to pause if nothing other than shock at a rarely herd term. In loo of hard no's parents should use softer no's, "I don't think that is a good idea right now", "That's not really an option at the moment". Here is a list of 20 soft no's 20 Ways to Say No to Kids Without Using the Word "No" - A Fine Parent

My kids are no less free than most. In some ways they are much more free because they aren't subjected the hours and hours of soul draining school. They're just protected from the exact kind of negative influence that Dirtbagleft is advocating in this thread.

says the authoritarian. I do agree with you on one thing. The way schooling is done needs a serious overhaul. It's unacceptable that we are using a more than hundred year old education system that was intended to turn out factory workers and foot soldiers.

Plus all of the non-believers whose culture, lifestyle, or secular beliefs need to be eliminated to create the socialist utopia. That's just in the USA too. Workers of the world need to unite after all, there are billions of undesirables that will need to be dealt with.

So I am not exactly sure what socialism has to do with the elimination of toxic and destructive cultures. I held this belief for decades before I was a socialist and it hasn't really changed. Cultures which do not promote autonomy and independence should be destroyed. They should be destroyed using non-lethal means.

Yeah, that's pretty horrific. There is no nice way to go about eliminating religion and culture.

No it's not horrific, and yes there is a nice way. Allowing them to go extinct by engineering an environment in which they cannot thrive is nice. No re-education (which no matter how wrong they are I oppose). No imprisonment save they violate someones personal freedom, nothing but a shining Las Vegas just over the bridge, a din of debauchery and sin to tempt away the youth. A beacon of Liberty just outside the RLDS compound so to speak.

 

[ShieldWife]

Your posts are insufferable even when they are properly formatted. When they are not, then it’s honestly not worth it to even try. Edit that post and get the formatting right.

 

[Navarro]

ok doing the math on all of the people D-bag says needs to go.

In the united states 70.6% of the population is christian, 1.9% jewish, .09% muslum, .07% hindu, .07% buddist

22.8% of the population is unafilated these are the people who get to live in D-bags america.

so that puts his body count if he ever gets power at aroun 240 million people.....

world war 2 by the way is estimated to have murdered 37 million people, so if we tried to ennact D-bags plans it would mathmatically be around 6 times worse then world war two thats if it just involved america. Or we could you know not do socialism and avoid that.

Fundamentally though if he wants to have his anarchtopia actually work he's going to have to reduce the population to 150 or so. Because above that limit, psychological science has demonstrated humans cannot have full empathy for each other. A collectivist society above that size will not be able to co-operatively function. I pointed it out directly to him and he's completely ignored me ...

 

[Deleted member]

@DirtbagLeft some of us actually believe that morality and liberty are concepts worth upholding even if things we don't like happen in other parts of the world. If that makes me a monstrous human being then, I am actually enormously proud to be bestowed that title by you, and I thank you for it. You are proposing genocide on a massive scale, and your own cult programming tactics in the service of making humanity an optimised biological computer in which spirit, emotion and liberty are ground up in the service of your "rationalism", and you call it freedom with the arrogance that only a left-wing intellectual can muster. Throughout this thread you have done nothing except convince those reading it that you would be as bad as Stalin if you were given any kind of power.

 

[Scottty]

Late to the debate, and I skipped to the end. This whole topic seems to be a matter of definition - whether what the Nazis actually said and did "makes them" Socialist or not. It all depends on how broadly or narrowly one defines the concept of "Socialism".

I would rather believe someone doesn't understand the implications of what they are saying/claim to believe until I have overwhelming evidence they are a monster. The belief that it is alright for bad evil shit to happen to others so long as you don't have to see hear or think of it is a monstrous belief.

There is a huge difference between saying "I'm okay with what those people do" and saying "what those people do is none of my business". Why are you so eager to call other people monstrous?

 

[Navarro]

I have to say it, but he's sounding like a colonialist talking about the need to civilize the savages with extreme firepower - and I thought we were the ones mired in previous centuries? Tell me, what good did following the obligation to "uplift" primitive societies because of their immoral cultural/governmental practices do the US in Iraq?

 

[DirtbagLeft]

So how's that going to accomplish the goal? Given that the aforementioned baptize-in-shit approach didn't actually work reliably. Or Mao's actual mass killings. Or the Holocaust, even. Gulags, re-education camps, mass propaganda, it's all actually quite ineffective at changing culture, so what proposal do you have to more effectively deal with "reactionaries" than anyone else in history to actually change the primary culture?

So unfortunately your sort doesn't do nuance very well. The gulf in both the philosophical and practical difference between Right and Left socialists is so vast as to be two solar systems on opposite ends of the Cosmos. A Right Socialist and Left Socialist in a discussion.

If you aren't going to destroy the art, the writings, the holy books, how are you actually going to keep any of the ideas gone? When you've "won", what is it that keeps the very next generation from having a serious movement spring up around all the "wrong" ideas simply to be contrary? What is rare is deemed valuable, and a position rendered extinct by grand measures will be quite the draw simply because it is different.

A few things here. First let's understand that what we are talking about is independent of socialism (but not leftism). This part of the conversation has nothing to do with socialism whatsoever and conflating the two is counterproductive. Lets say we have a world without socialism at all but we do have a world where reactionary religions and cultures are gone. Big red button we now live in a neo-liberal world. Now to answer your question its rather simple. Although the odd movement might arise they will by nature of what they are cannibalistic societies which require purity testing to function.
By way of a real world example take Heathenry. Hethenry are a new religious movement which attempts to reconstruct the Germanic Pagan religion and elements of Germanic Pagan culture using almost exactly the same model you put forward. I say almost exactly the same because there are key differences which do matter. First outside of a fringe element Heathenry is an inclusive project (we will get to the exception). Second Heathenry does not seek to return to a previous cultural condition but rather to adopt specific elements and aspects into their current culture. They do so using texts and art which are for the most part widely available.
But I think what you are referring to is something along the lines of the self styled Asatru Movement. Hethenry exists as a fringe, and Asatru Movement is the fringe of that fringe. It's exclusive and seeks to implement what they see as a "return" to a germanopagan culture. What makes them such an excellent example is that they are doing exactly what you are proposing and the fact that they are a reactionary group only emphasizes their usefulness as an example. They are a small movement who only get smaller over time. This is because while the leaders desire growth they also desire high amounts of control. As the groups grow they inevitably split due to power struggles and the group canalizes. As time goes on they wither to nothing.
The texts the art etc will all continue to exist. But they will become culturally irrelevant and the more time which passes the more irrelevant the artifacts become to the larger society. They become important for historical purposes but have no hand within the greater culture. When pockets of reactionary culture do pop up they will be permitted to exist so long as they do not violate either autonomy or step too far outside ethical considerations (rape/murder/human sacrifice/ violation of bodily autonomy). If they do violate autonomy then they will be immediately shutdown and hard.

So unless you have vicious oppression of all related viewpoints indefinitely, you can't keep the views gone without obliterating their works. Because if the works can be viewed, they can be acquired for the sake of contrarian movements, thus resurrecting the viewpoints, and they did run the vast majority of history, so unlike other contrarian movements they aren't necessarily a transient matter of spite.

That is both idiotic and historically falsifiable. Once a culture has shifted towards progress it is extremely difficult to re-establish the old order. The more time which passes the more difficult as the totems of the old order loose their magic and influence.

Once the inclusive narrative takes hold as your kind are coming to discover it is very difficult to dislodge. You should have made a greater effort at removing Star Trek from television in the past. Now its deep in the culture and others have built on it. In the same way once inclusiveness has been reached it won't just be abandoned but will continue to be a driving narrative. And the Tolerance Paradox remains. It will be buried deep into the culture to not tolerate the intolerant thus those who are intolerant will face social consequences.

Because they did work in the past, so they can't be said to be simply impossible like we can get away with your views because of the constant spectacular failure to be trusted with even attempting a transition, as contrasted against the far more gradual advent of Capitalism and representative governance that proved itself one piece at a time to be better than what came before, until the practical miracle of the United States of America came along and firmly showed the world that yes, all that shit together makes a working society.

The reason they didn't work in the past was because Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, etc all did exactly the thing one does not do if they wish to achieve the death of a particular culture. Adults and children share the trait that if you tell them they cannot have something then they want it. Instead you do not forbid it directly but you forbid it indirectly the more indirect the better, and never ever actually admit that it is forbidden.

Seriously study memetics.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

Late to the debate, and I skipped to the end. This whole topic seems to be a matter of definition - whether what the Nazis actually said and did "makes them" Socialist or not. It all depends on how broadly or narrowly one defines the concept of "Socialism".

sort of. I mean you are much closer than almost anyone else. If you look at what Hitler did and what Stalin did and you look at the concept of socialism before them then what you see is two individuals who made themselves socialists by redefining the term. I reject that as much as I would reject a Sethian Satanist who says "I believe Jesus existed and that he died and rose from the dead, and I believe Yahweh exists. Therefore I am a Christian". The primary difference is that the Sethian Satanist has a much more legitimate claim to the term they would be claiming.

There is a huge difference between saying "I'm okay with what those people do" and saying "what those people do is none of my business". Why are you so eager to call other people monstrous?

That's a Bernie or Bust argument and I reject it for the same reason. I will let pass the fact that you have not followed the conversation and jumped in at the end. While I am "quick" to call people many things there are other things which I am slow to call people. As I indicated I don't actually think she is monstrous I think she is lying. What she is saying she believes even being a lie is a monstrous thing to say and she would be a moral monster if she actually believed that shit.
To be aware that a rape takes place very day three houses down at 3pm and to do absolutely nothing about it makes the person who does not act a monster just as culpably for the rape as the individual physically carrying out the action. To say "I don't care about rape so long as it doesn't happen in my house" and that it is "None of my business if someone is raping people so long as I don't see it". Well fuck anyone who is so hideous as to actually believe that is a morally permissible stance.

 

[Scottty]

By way of a real world example take Heathenry. Hethenry are a new religious movement which attempts to reconstruct the Germanic Pagan religion and elements of Germanic Pagan culture using almost exactly the same model you put forward. I say almost exactly the same because there are key differences which do matter. First outside of a fringe element Heathenry is an inclusive project (we will get to the exception). Second Heathenry does not seek to return to a previous cultural condition but rather to adopt specific elements and aspects into their current culture. They do so using texts and art which are for the most part widely available.

That seems to be an over-specific re-definition. In normal English usage, heathen is simply a catch-all term for all of the non-Abrahamic religions. Ditto the word pagan - from a Latin word meaning a country-dweller. Contextually, "pagan" came to mean something like "ignorant rural bumpkin who hasn't gotten the memo that everyone is supposed to be Christian now".

Someone from a Christianized culture who deliberately rejects Christianity, and tries to reconstruct some long-extinct set of religious practices either seriously or as a LARP, needs a different, and more specific term.

 

[Scottty]

To be aware that a rape takes place very day three houses down at 3pm and to do absolutely nothing about it makes the person who does not act a monster just as culpably for the rape as the individual physically carrying out the action. To say "I don't care about rape so long as it doesn't happen in my house" and that it is "None of my business if someone is raping people so long as I don't see it". Well fuck anyone who is so hideous as to actually believe that is a morally permissible stance.

What about four houses down? What about on the other side of town? What about in another town a thousand km away?
And what are you asking people to do about it? Inform the police? But what if they're corrupt as heck and won't give a hoot?
Shall we form a vigilante group and go kill rapists ourselves? How do we know for sure we'll get the right people?

See, if you say they are wrong to do nothing, then you are implying that there is something that they should be doing. Don't go blaming ordinary people for everything bad that happens anywhere in the world unless you are willing to own the conclusions that type of reasoning leads to.

 

[Navarro]

What about four houses down? What about on the other side of town? What about in another town a thousand km away?
And what are you asking people to do about it? Inform the police? But what if they're corrupt as heck and won't give a hoot?
Shall we form a vigilante group and go kill rapists ourselves? How do we know for sure we'll get the right people?

See, if you say they are wrong to do nothing, then you are implying that there is something that they should be doing. Don't go blaming ordinary people for everything bad that happens anywhere in the world unless you are willing to own the conclusions that type of reasoning leads to.

Clearly we must invade foreign countries to enlighten them towards Glorious Socialism (and nab their gold, oil and other natural resources while we're at it).

 

[Scottty]

Clearly we must invade foreign countries to enlighten them towards Glorious Socialism (and nab their gold and oil while we're at it).

No Comrade, we must redistribute the gold and the oil. To describe it as their gold and oil is to affirm the idea of private ownership. Gold and oil should all be collectively owned by all of humanity!

 

[Navarro]

No Comrade, we must redistribute the gold and the oil. To describe it as their gold and oil is to affirm the idea of private ownership. Gold and oil should all be collectively owned by all of humanity!

Most of it's going to us, right, comrade? I'm sure we politburo members have the most need for it, and as they say, "To Each According To His Need" ...

(/s of course)

 

[Navarro]

It is telling that the only "left socialist" movements are those which aren't in power, or which were prevented from doing so historically (even as recently as Bolivia, where Morales' attempt to become de facto President for life saw him ousted by popular protests). As soon as they take over they all seem to turn into "right socialist" movements. Hmm ...

 

[Morphic Tide]

You may not do with others as you please.

How do you square that with the position of "I'm taking my family, with agreement of all adults, out of Leftist society" being a grave sin? You do not get to do with others as you please, so you also don't get to shove people in a group and force that group to follow a particular view, nor do you get to go in to another group and demand they change to hold your views.

What is the actual fundamental functional difference between the "reactionaries" homeschooling their children and you demanding actively working to demolish aspects of a culture on another damn continent? You need to be coherent in your views, and you have stated nothing that actually clarifies an underlying reasoning that your forced cultural conversion is okay, yet people just refusing to participate in it is not.

But I think what you are referring to is something along the lines of the self styled Asatru Movement.

What's to say the revival movement has to be exclusive? Liberation Theology exists, and the current mainstream understanding of Christianity takes the notion that humans were created by a higher power that holds them to a universal standard as justification of universal rights. Why would it have to be the outright reactionary religious views returning trying to backtrack to the 1950s, instead of those who just use religion as the groundwork of much the same ethics of interference you say you support and decide that the ceaseless drive to force compliance with those ethics is a violation of them?

Most of modern-day Satanism is pretty much the latter, alongside a lot of other countercultures, at least in the US, taking an extremely contrarian set of beliefs to arrive at the mainstream code of ethics, that being individual liberties, with a few points inverted. In the real-life examples, debauchery being presented as a good, in your case, presenting the argument that minimizing the ability to choose wrong is itself an infringement on autonomy.

Once a culture has shifted towards progress it is extremely difficult to re-establish the old order.

Soviet bloc shows otherwise, and we are currently living through a rerun of the previous century in many regards courtesy of Capitalism managing to reboot the Gilded Age, except even more asshole-driven and wealth-worshiping because now the entertainers get to be big role models when they were considered worse than whores the last 20's and the rich are at the point of actually bribing countries into submission.

Much the same happened after the fall of Rome, as well, with the general peasantry returning to their communal behaviors once the big, central government taxing them and imposing laws shattered, and once more returned to it in the Americas when the necessary liberties and land returned (Amish, Quakers, most of the midwest for at least a century, etc.). In the absence of population concentration and governmental pressure, people have pretty much always returned to ultra-traditionalist community-focused living. Because that's what just works and comes naturally when you have a small population without outside interference.

In similar conditions, populations will take on similar patterns of behavior. The details of beliefs will usually persist, but the way of life will converge quickly. The more particular the base of knowledge needed for this, the longer it takes and the more likely a divergence, but when it comes down to it, farming towns have lived overwhelmingly the same way through all the kingdoms, empires, republics, democracies and any other form of government, because few are the governments that bother meddling with them beyond getting the food.

Once the inclusive narrative takes hold as your kind are coming to discover it is very difficult to dislodge.

The issue we're having is that you think inclusivity somehow applies to the obliteration of entire categories of belief, demanding the upholding of moral standards in other societies a great distance away, and demanding that parents not be allowed to determine their children's education. Meanwhile, we look at the word "inclusivity" and actually think we should be inclusive of beliefs, provided they do not turn into wrongful action by the society they are within, and respectfully allow other societies to have different standards of wrongful action so that beliefs outside our won acceptance are not brutally oppressed, and therefor retain their autonomy.

The nature of gradual conversion under inclusivity is to reason with the other, to talk them out of it, not indoctrinate them, deny them the ability to choose "wrong". Because we don't see ourselves as perfect paragons, and therefor see ourselves as fallible, so most of us look to determine what is right by reason and work to extend this reason to as many as we can, while not actively removing the seemingly-unreasoned because they may indeed have quite valuable ideas within their worldview and we may still be wrong on some matters, and more importantly they are entitled to decide the values to teach their children.

We place limits on how those values may be taught, for the material safety of the child, but children are not given full autonomy. It is the parent's responsibility, as you say, to teach the child not to make mistakes, and part of this is them having the right to teach the child correct courses of action, which is fundamentally the persistence of the parent's beliefs.

The key thing is that autonomy includes the right to be wrong. Something you are comprehensively denying, by demanding a sweeping policy of obliteration of dissent to your ideas of what it means to be "right". My own position, at least, is liberty to enable gradual progress towards a better world, rather than a forced thrust to one kind of progress as you call for. I don't believe in an end goal that would be the best world like you, I believe in a process to improve the current one.

And if the process results in your end goal, that is fine by me, but the important matter is that the process of questioning and reasoning and having the right to speak of bad ideas to determine why they are bad and should be rejected is followed. Keep the lunatic reactionaries around to show them wrong to others, instead of elimiating them and thereby having little practical example to firmly prove the view truly wrong.

How are you not authoritarian? You are, in fact, demanding enormous control, demanding others act in accordance with your views, demand opposing views be eliminated... The nearest would be that you have some delusion that just because it's corporations doing the dirty work, it isn't actually authoritarian, because it's not a single big "government" doing the ruthless oppression. The Anarcho-capitalists at least pretend the big corporations can be out-competed, you are literally saying to deny competition to the agenda.

As most of us hold inclusivity as a good thing, we consider censorship to always be wrong, alongside forced indoctrination. And censorship is more than book-burning, it very much includes deplatforming, the practice of removing visibility of the speech rather than wholly preventing it. Indoctrination, too, is more than being locked in a select group and forced to acquiesce for companionship, it includes extremes of bias in education to leave reasoning unable to dissent, which is why we bitch about all the politically loaded material in universities. And, in this case, your plan to destroy religion.

Not all homeschoolers are locked away from dissent. That is actually quite the minority, often overlapping with the parents themselves being in much more intensive cult behaviors, as their peer groups usually include those who do it because of the abysmal state of public education for purely academic reasons, and they interact with those who are withheld for different cultural reasons. Many parents homeschool specifically to teach their children to question what they see and to reason so they don't make mistakes, because the public education system makes no appearance of doing such a thing.

---

I'll also note you dropped the thread of discussion on two-axis political categorization. If there exists non-authoritarian Right, then there must be points that define Right vs. Left separately from any question of authoritarianism, and therefor some qualifiers of authoritarianism exist perpendicular to the Left/Right divide that can be held by the Left.

Your statement of Enlightenment values being what defines "the Left" is both untrue, due to the advent of Modernism and Post-Modernism, and contradicts your opinion that Authoritarianism is always right-wing, because the Enlightenment called for philosopher-kings, because the unifying ideas were just intellectualism, the thought that it's best to reason rather than follow authority just because it's authority. It's not a rejection of authority itself in any capacity as a rule, because the Enlightenment thinkers were quite often feudal nobility, or at least employed by them.

For fuck's sake, eugenics came from Enlightenment thinking. Rather directly so, because the Enlightenment did not actually reject demographic superiority, all it did was make a call for demonstrating superiority instead of having automatic right to rule.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

What about four houses down? What about on the other side of town? What about in another town a thousand km away?
And what are you asking people to do about it? Inform the police? But what if they're corrupt as heck and won't give a hoot?
Shall we form a vigilante group and go kill rapists ourselves? How do we know for sure we'll get the right people?

See, if you say they are wrong to do nothing, then you are implying that there is something that they should be doing. Don't go blaming ordinary people for everything bad that happens anywhere in the world unless you are willing to own the conclusions that type of reasoning leads to.

Four houses down? Yes? the other side of town? yes. Another town a thousand km away. Yes. I am not saying that one must go around as some masked vigilante righting every single wrong. For starters the line isn't always as clean cut as that. There are however certain moral evils which are unambiguously wrong. Rape, genocide, and other such. Ones culpability is determined by 1) knowledge of the moral evil, 2) ones ability to act 3) the degree of the moral evil. As I have indicated not all moral evils have equal weight and the case is not always clear cut. Some moral evils the case is always clear cut. In the case of rape there are a latitude of options ranging from the weakest, making others aware of the action, to the stronger, kidnapping/helping the individual to escape their circumstance, to the most extreme Informing the police is only one option.
However your question does not reflect her position as stated. Her position as stated was not a more modest and reasonable "There are practical limits to what I am and am not capable of doing to stop various moral evils." but rather her stated position is that she thinks cultures should be preserved and that it is wrong to interfere with toxic and destructive cultures. Doing nothing will eventually lead to the spreading of the said moral evil.

With regards to rape I am less concerned with punishment of the individual than I am with ensuring that the harmed individual is removed from the situation and given treatment to be able to process and handle what has happened. Beyond this I am interested in reducing recidivism which punishment doesn't do. Justice requires not only that the wrong party be restored/compensated/treated as much as is possible but also that the offender (regardless of the crime) is prevented from harming others in the future be this through extreme measures such as removal/isolation from society or be it through treatment.

That your response was so predictable was disappointing. That you attempted to defend someone who tried to defend rape as an appropriate cultural expression is mind blowing.

It is not a complicated moral question. Should cultures which are against rape seek to interfere with and alter cultures which not only practice rape but also punish the woman for being raped? If someones answer to this question is anything other than no, they are a moral monster.

 

[DirtbagLeft]

It is telling that the only "left socialist" movements are those which aren't in power, or which were prevented from doing so historically (even as recently as Bolivia, where Morales' attempt to become de facto President for life saw him ousted by popular protests). As soon as they take over they all seem to turn into "right socialist" movements. Hmm ...

Leaving aside the fact that you are lying and that he was ousted by a military coup. Left socialism has been a political target of the most powerful governments in the world (just one such example is COINTELPRO). It's general unwillingness to accept the same tactics as right socialism means that movement towards left socialism is much more incremental. This is why most South American and other countries often times end up abandoning left socialism for right socialism. Practically speaking it is extremely difficult to bring about left socialism in non-liberal/democratic countries.
The reason they tend to turn into right socialist movements is a rather pragmatic one. Namely the fact that the US government has an institutional policy to bring down socialist movements and or countries. All one need do is spend 5 minutes looking into the activities of the US government in South America to see the truth of this.

 

[Navarro]

Leaving aside the fact that you are lying and that he was ousted by a military coup.

That he ignored the Constitutional term limits is an undeniable fact. That he committed staggering levels of election fraud has been comprehensively proven:

2019 Bolivian general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On 5 December, the full 95-page OAS report[5][6] was released along with 500 pages of corroborating details as appendices.The audit involved the work of 36 specialists and auditors of 18 nationalities including: electoral lawyers, statisticians, computer experts, specialists in documents, calligraphy, chain of custody and electoral organization. The findings included that an outside user who controlled a Linux AMI appliance with "root privileges" — conferring the ability to alter results — accessed the official vote-counting server during the counting and that in a sample of 4,692 returns from polling stations around the country, 226 showed multiple signatures by the same person for different voting booths, a violation of electoral law. On those returns, 91 per cent of votes went to MAS, approximately double the rate recorded elsewhere.[7][85] The identity of this user was later claimed to be Sergio Martínez, who subsequently fled the country.[86]

On 21 December, the Technical Mission of Electoral Experts sent by the European Union published a 67 page report made similar observations and conclusions to that of the OAS. They noted that "there were minutes with an unusually high number of null votes, blank votes and a hundred percent participation of voters in a series of polling stations" and highlighted the general failure of the TSE to declare these irregularities.[87][88]

...

On 10 March 2020, Irfan Nooruddin, Professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and author of Elections in Hard Times: Building Stronger Democracies in the 21st Century, wrote a Washington Post article to defend the analysis he performed as the head of the OAS statistical study included in their audit.[96][97] In it, he criticises the 27 February report by questioning the plausibility of the extrapolation of data and the assumption that there was no discontinuity in the data after the preliminary count was halted. He says that the "vote share for Morales's MAS party rose sharply after the preliminary count was stopped" and claims that "a sharp discontinuity around an arbitrary point such as the 95 percent threshold demands explanation" and "this last portion of the vote count, which favored Morales substantially, is not just different to earlier in the evening but also sharply different than the trend just on the other side of the 95 percent threshold". He also says that this sharp change is consistent across all six Departments still reporting at that point, the swing from CC to MAS ranging from 12.3% to 57.2% in the last 5% and that "It is this great divergence, unpredicted and unanticipated by any previous part of the election trends, that pushed Morales over the 10 percent margin to outright victory". These findings, he says, are consistent with the rest of the findings in the OAS report and also a separate analysis made by Diego Escobari, Associate Professor at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, and Gary A. Hoover, Head of Economics at University of Oklahoma which "concluded even more forcefully that the election was fraudulent."[98]

Protests in response to this started on 21 October - it was not until 9 November, three weeks later, that the army even made comments on the situation, which boiled down to saying that they would not suppress the protesters on Morales' orders. Then he was asked to resign a day later, promptly did, and fled the country two days after that.

Then in exile, our would-be El Presidente ordered his followers remaining in the country to cut off supplies of food, water, fuel and electricity to the nation's cities until they called for him to return and rule over them. So libertarian.

Left socialism has been a political target of the most powerful governments in the world (just one such example is COINTELPRO). It's general unwillingness to accept the same tactics as right socialism means that movement towards left socialism is much more incremental. This is why most South American and other countries often times end up abandoning left socialism for right socialism. Practically speaking it is extremely difficult to bring about left socialism in non-liberal/democratic countries.

I mean, socialism failed even as far back as 1607 when Jamestown tried going without private property and they all starved because no-one had an incentive to work ... in a lush environment filled with game to hunt, no less. Then when they reintroduced private property, their food problems vanished. Funny, heh? And there was certainly no USA at the time to sabotage them.

The reason they tend to turn into right socialist movements is a rather pragmatic one. Namely the fact that the US government has an institutional policy to bring down socialist movements and or countries. All one need do is spend 5 minutes looking into the activities of the US government in South America to see the truth of this.

Taking a look at socialist moments and/or countries that actually exist, I can see a helluva lotta good reasons to oppose them.