[Mekorig]

Lately i have seem more red and faggot groups trying to get the pedophiles into the mainstream with the same arguments they used for faggots. "It is what i am" "it is natural" "I was born this way". And i think this is intertwined with the basic red ideology. A Spiegel Online article (a semi-long read) talks about the 68´s commies, and how they abused kids to support the revolution.

Quote:

The Sexual Revolution and Children

How the Left Took Things Too Far

Germany's left has its own tales of abuse. One of the goals of the German 1968 movement was the sexual liberation of children. For some, this meant overcoming all sexual inhibitions, creating a climate in which even pedophilia was considered progressive.

Source: Spiegel.de

[Captainstabbin]

[Foolsgo1d]

First the British politics thread with that video posted and now this movement, which to be fair was first predicted on here by Roosh I believe?

If society doesn't start crushing these people then we truly are sick and should hope something ends it.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I'm not interested in what happened in Germany in 1968.

I am very interested in what happened to Catholic boys (and girls to a lesser degree) in America during the last century. If you want to discuss child molestation en masse, this is where you need to start.

The entire religion was run by closeted gays and lesbians who were sexually dysfunctional and took that out on the kids either thought sexual abuse or out-and-out abuse.

Once Americans woke up to this, they stopped going to Catholic services. So what did the church leaders do? They started lobbying to bring in illegals, so they could keep their attendance up and keep the money rolling in.

People complain about Muslims? Catholics were America's original Muslims: A group of backward and sexually-maladjusted people whose ignorance was only exceeded by their propensity for violence (i.e. the fighting Irish and the criminal Italians).

In 1924, congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act to ban all sorts of immigrants from coming to the country, notably Southern Italians. They should have done this sooner to keep the Catholics from achieving the amount of influence they did in this country. America was founded by Protestants and no one should be looking to the Pope or any Catholic church elder for any direction, ever.

In the Catholic way of thinking, criminals like the idiot in "Dead Man Walking" are saints in disguise, while the average, hard-working man is somehow evil because he minds his own business and doesn't feel the need to "save" everything in sight. If this sounds like liberalism and leftist thought, you've got that right.

The entire left-right divide in America is largely a split between the Catholic way of thinking (let's save everyone and bankrupt ourselves so we can be martyrs) and the Protestant way of thinking (work ethic). Fewer Catholics would have meant less liberalism.

You know how we say "game saves lives?" Well, let's also start to say "Catholicism ruins lives." I was born into a Catholic family, so I'm saying this from someone who was forced to drink the Kool-Aid.

When liberals speak about "consent," they have a point -- but that point is best applied to religion. I contend it should be illegal to raise a kid in any religion because they can't consent to its bullshit principles the adults make them believe.

Religion should be like voting; only those over 18 should be allowed to participate.

[Easy_C]

If that's what you actually think about the Catholic church you're falling for the ((())) frame hook line and sinker.

In more ways than one. You're parroting a lot of ((())) propaganda that was historically used to attack Catholics. Quite to the contrary of your assessment the entire basis of Protestantism as outlined by Martin Luther was that there is no objective truth and only your own feelings determine what is right and wrong. Sound Familiar?

Look back at the 90s. There was a massive internal battle over the American church with leftists (led by Cardinal Mahoney of San Francisco) on one side and an array of traditionalists (Like Mother Angelica and Father Rutledge) on the other.

You know why you don't hear about most of those prominent leftists in the US church anymore? Just "coincidentally" they were the same ones involved in covering up child abuse.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(07-15-2018 11:02 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  

If that's what you actually think about the Catholic church you're falling for the ((())) frame hook line and sinker.

In more ways than one. You're parroting a lot of ((())) propaganda that was historically used to attack Catholics. Quite to the contrary of your assessment the entire basis of Protestantism as outlined by Martin Luther was that there is no objective truth and only your own feelings determine what is right and wrong. Sound Familiar?

Look back at the 90s. There was a massive internal battle over the American church with leftists (led by Cardinal Mahoney of San Francisco) on one side and an array of traditionalists (Like Mother Angelica and Father Rutledge) on the other.

You know why you don't hear about most of those prominent leftists in the US church anymore? Just "coincidentally" they were the same ones involved in covering up child abuse.

The media might have been enthusiastic to report about what went on in the Catholic church because they wanted to bring Catholics down a peg. I'll grant you that.

But the problem with your reasoning is that the church really was guilty of those accusations -- and more.

This kind of logic reminds me of my old Italian aunts. They claimed the government singled out the Mafia because back in the old days, the Establishment was made up of WASPS who looked down on Italians. Maybe so, but they left out one important fact: The Mafia really was involved in those crimes -- and more.

[Easy_C]

Yeah. It wasn't "the church". It was a band of militant LEFTISTS within the church that were involved. Very few (if any, there's none that I'm aware) of the conservative, traditionalist church leaders were. The entire thing was a result of leftist church leaders who who were pro-gay.

The real lesson is that this is why you shouldn't ever allow subversive people into your organization.


But hey... Classic bait and switch tactic. The same rhetoric is used to attack "The Church" for which trials when most were orchestrated by Protestants and the most recent ones in Salem were instigated by me connectes with the British Royal Society and the Puritans, a sect that rejects the new Testament and believed migrating to they states was re-enacting the Biblical exodus......which kinda by definition makes them NOT Christian.

Notice that's a common tactic that the deep state even now uses against Trump: do some shady shit and pin it on someone else.

Your reasoning is equivalent to saying RVF is a racketeering organization because someone here "really was" guilty of that kind of thing (which is actually true).

[Easy_C]

Here's one of the individuals in question. The most important actually because he was more or less the leader of the "liberal church".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...7145e73746


Mahoney was a radical leftist. He actively worked against traditional church values and openly worked to advance Marxism, being cited for "progress in the areas of immigration and social justice".

This guy going down is the reason you don't hear much about "liberal catholics" these days.

[debeguiled]

IIRC, molestation in the Catholic church was at about the same rate as molestation in the general population, and far far lower than rates of molestation in public schools, and was being used as a way of breaking up influence of the church on the general population.

I grew up in the church, in the SF Bay Area no less, and met a lot of priests, many of whom were obedient Irish boys who ended up alcoholic priests, and many of them traditionally masculine dudes, with only a couple of obvious limp wristers. If a supposed lavender mafia existed anywhere, it would be there, and while it is undoubtedly true that some seminaries and some monasteries were under gay influence, it is pretty inaccurate to say that the whole church was gaying it up all the time.

DOBA,

I think you are exaggerating, and a much better approach would be to take the church to task either for the fact that their track record wasn't better than the general population or go after them for the years long cover up of the abuse.

I think it was the cover up for the sake of the reputation of the church that was the real sin in all this business.

Pedos are crafty, and can sneak into organizations, and you cannot change them, only catch them. Churches will have no immunity to this.

However when outwardly good men start hiding the sins of their organizations to protect their own status, you really do have a rot that will spread out and affect everything.

Especially Christianity, and especially Catholicism with its sacrament of confession. These people were violating one of their own sacred tenets, and that is as bad as it gets.

There is no need to craft a narrative of an entirely gay controlled church losing members because of its gayness.

The truth is bad enough.

[Easy_C]

And all of the things you want me to "take them to task for" were carried out almost entirely by the same group of leftists in the church. Ones that I have here and elsewhere called out by name. The lead individual for the cover-up was Mahoney.

You're blaming the institution as a whole for the actions of an insurgent group.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(07-16-2018 11:39 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

IIRC, molestation in the Catholic church was at about the same rate as molestation in the general population, and far far lower than rates of molestation in public schools, and was being used as a way of breaking up influence of the church on the general population.

I grew up in the church, in the SF Bay Area no less, and met a lot of priests, many of whom were obedient Irish boys who ended up alcoholic priests, and many of them traditionally masculine dudes, with only a couple of obvious limp wristers. If a supposed lavender mafia existed anywhere, it would be there, and while it is undoubtedly true that some seminaries and some monasteries were under gay influence, it is pretty inaccurate to say that the whole church was gaying it up all the time.

DOBA,

I think you are exaggerating, and a much better approach would be to take the church to task either for the fact that their track record wasn't better than the general population or go after them for the years long cover up of the abuse.

I think it was the cover up for the sake of the reputation of the church that was the real sin in all this business.

Pedos are crafty, and can sneak into organizations, and you cannot change them, only catch them. Churches will have no immunity to this.

However when outwardly good men start hiding the sins of their organizations to protect their own status, you really do have a rot that will spread out and affect everything.

Especially Christianity, and especially Catholicism with its sacrament of confession. These people were violating one of their own sacred tenets, and that is as bad as it gets.

There is no need to craft a narrative of an entirely gay controlled church losing members because of its gayness.

The truth is bad enough.

"IIRC, molestation in the Catholic church was at about the same rate as molestation in the general population, and far far lower than rates of molestation in public schools, and was being used as a way of breaking up influence of the church on the general population."

I've read otherwise and recall this being propaganda to save the church.

According to a 2010 Guardian article, 4 percent of priests and deacons had been accused of sexually abusing someone under 18 as opposed to 0.4 percent in the general population. That's ten times the rate.

The article notes that the church's molestation rate might be the same as other professions per se (as opposed to the populace), so I'll give you that. But then, we already knew "educators" were sleazy.

Another point the article makes is that what made the Catholic church scandal unique is that it was boys being molested as opposed to girls, who are more likely the victim of sexual abuse.

This, IMO, is why it got so much publicity. Most grown men are accused of molesting girls, so it was a man-bites-dog story for the media when priests sexually abused boys.

***

I do not respect ANY authority other than the one that comes with the badge or the one that comes with the gavel.

Everything else, IMO, is made up. That goes especially for those who don robes, collars, or yarmulkes and expect us to bow and scrape because they of their little costume.

These costumes are an easy way for authoritative individuals to get power over others by claiming they know some kind of "truth" (there is no "truth") or are in touch with God more than you or me (which is crap).

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken

[debeguiled]

(07-17-2018 01:01 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I do not respect ANY authority other than the one that comes with the badge or the one that comes with the gavel.

Everything else, IMO, is made up. That goes especially for those who don robes, collars, or yarmulkes and expect us to bow and scrape because they of their little costume.

These costumes are an easy way for authoritative individuals to get power over others by claiming they know some kind of "truth" (there is no "truth") or are in touch with God more than you or me (which is crap).

You put more faith in badges and gavels than Roman collars?

I guess we all have our own irrational beliefs.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(07-17-2018 10:10 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(07-17-2018 01:01 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I do not respect ANY authority other than the one that comes with the badge or the one that comes with the gavel.

Everything else, IMO, is made up. That goes especially for those who don robes, collars, or yarmulkes and expect us to bow and scrape because they of their little costume.

These costumes are an easy way for authoritative individuals to get power over others by claiming they know some kind of "truth" (there is no "truth") or are in touch with God more than you or me (which is crap).

You put more faith in badges and gavels than Roman collars?

I guess we all have our own irrational beliefs.

I didn't say "faith." I said "the only authority I respect."

Why did I say this? Because the folks with the badges and the gavels have the actual power to lock you up. That's the real power. Going to hell might be imaginary but jail is very real.

[BlueMark]

@DOBA I get what you are trying to say. But what you're describing isn't what I'd call respect. Maybe there's a more accurate word for it, I can't think of one.

Would you still respect them if they had no legal or physical power over you? If not, how is this kind of respect any different from the "respect" that you'd give to a dangerous animal or a waterfall or cliff?

Not necessarily saying you are guilty of this, but I've always found this mindset to be very naive: rejecting religious authority while giving a blank check of recognition to every other kind of authority in modern society: political figures, lawyers, teachers/professors, journalists, the list goes on.

IME it is rare to find someone who is consistent in evaluating and accepting or rejecting both religious and secular authority.

Back to the original topic, I believe there was some other thread on this forum about the pedophilia going on in Hollywood. You know, those who have influence over the entire population through the media and entertainment industry. Even if the whole Catholic church is complicit in covering up the crimes of a few people, they only have direct influence over at most a quarter of the US population.

[redpillage]

Originally posted by Ghost on Gab, not sure how to embed it here:

Quote:

This is a reminder of what Democrats, Socialists and Liberals will force upon your children if they're elected in 2018.

Is this what you want the future of America to be?

The sexualization of children?

[infowarrior1]

Quote:

The theory of democracy was that rich people, with the leisure to educate themselves about public policy, and a financial interest in the government of the nation, would run for individual office, represent their constituency, be reelected if they did their job well, replaced if they didn’t. But laws are passed by majority vote. Soon somebody realized that getting a majority vote was very profitable; so the money was in finding a way to reliably organize half the parliament. So we got political parties.

A political party is a very different beast from an individual politician. A political party has no use for rich people. Well their money is welcome: but rich people tend to not be very loyal. They can afford to have a personality. As a political leader, politicians are your employees. You don’t need staff who’s very skilled or competent. They just need to be loyal, obedient, and have some ability to get elected. It helps if they can talk. Look good on TV. But that’s about it.

You want people who are loyal, who will vote what you want them to vote. As Roissy would tell you, a man, or a woman, is only as loyal as his options. So the ideal politician is the man who doesn’t have anything else going on for him. Someone for whom being a politician is the best thing that ever happened to him. Somebody who positively known that if he ever leaves the party his status would drop. Marco Rubio, say. He’ll play ball. He better.

Any system ruled by political parties will always move to the left. Their business model is based on getting low status people to work for them. Obviously they must give them something in exchange. And they must motivate voters to vote for them. Their promise is simple: You, low status people, help us out, vote for us, obey our commands, and we will give you high status. Don’t vote for us, disobey us, let the right win, and you will remain low status.

Once the left wins, which it always does, because they are better organized, better able to form majorities in comparison to rich pricks who have no good reason to coordinate. High status people have been in the losing side in politics for 300 years. So what? They’re still rich. Life is good. Yeah taxes are higher. And women are incomparably more annoying. But they put out better now, so there’s that. Anyway, who cares. The Son also Rises.

The left always wins. But once they win they become higher status. Come on, they got power. They try, very hard, to convince everyone that they’re not really in power. No, the forces of reaction are lurking everywhere! We must keep on the struggle! 80% of the Left’s energy is in producing propaganda about how the Right really runs everything. When the Left had 90% tax rates, they still talked as if they were in Charles Dickens world. After 60 years of feminism, affirmative action, and Jews in all resorts of power the Left of 2017 is obsessed with “systemic racism”, “toxic masculinity” and “anti-semitism”. Right.

But of course the Left has been in power for 200 years now. Once they got power, they got enjoyed their hardly fought high status. Naturally they lost discipline, until a party further Left appeared, and then won. And so on and so forth. Cthulhu always swims left. That’s where power is.

First they captured the electoral system. Arguably it’s the easier one. But power is not only in parliament. Separation of powers is, or at least was, real. A Parliament can pass a law. The Executive could delay or outright ignore its execution. A judge could find or make up some flaw in the law and block it. It is of no use to have a legislative majority, having the ability to pass laws at will, if you can’t effectively put them into practice. Power is absolute power or it is no power at all.

But where there’s a will, there’s a way. And there is always someone with a will to power. Eventually the Left found a way.

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/...irst-step/


Part 2:

Quote:

Socialism refined liberal politics, the same way that double-entry bookkeeping refined business accounting. The base of electoral politics was to promise high status to low status people. Marx, starting this tradition where semi-assimilated Jews don’t quite the latent hypocrisy of the host society, didn’t quite get the joke of liberal egalitarianism, and just took it to its logical conclusion. You’re not supposed to do that, kids. You’re supposed to get the joke. But he didn’t. Liberty and Equality? Ok, let’s abolish private property then. Hey wait a little there. Are you serious? Abolish private property?

Quote:

A political party can get away with lying; a political movement, i.e. a vague and embryonic version of a political party, can get away with murder. They don’t need to deliver on anything. They don’t have to be reasonable. They don’t even have to make sense. They just need to be able to recruit committed people. And guess what, being unreasonable gets you more loyal followers than being reasonable. Why? Again, because reasonable, well-adjusted, normal people just have a wider range of options available for them. They don’t need to commit to some crazy plan. They can just get a job and live a normal life. For an unreasonable, maladjusted, weird person, your options in life are much more limited. Joining a crazy political party which proposes the abolition of the very thing that makes society possible is, very likely, the best shot they’ll ever get at achieving high status in their lives. So yeah, why not. Communism!

Again, there’s many versions of unreasonable and maladjusted. Some people are genuinely just not very good at dealing with capitalist society. Born like that, to no fault of their own. Writers, journalists, middling lawyers. Rivers of ink have been spilled writing about how intellectuals are always overwhelmingly leftist. Which is odd given that communism didn’t turn out to be very nice to intellectuals. But capitalism gives high status to precisely the opposite kind of person, the merchant, and intellectuals hate that. They are natural socialists. Very eager socialists.

An easy heuristic would to see the natural constituency of any political movement as the people who, in the grand zero-sum game of human social status, would rise in status if that political movement were to gain power. But it’s not quite like that, if anything because you just can’t know what’s going to happen. Early socialists had no idea what was going to happen if socialism take power. They said they knew, but nobody knows the future. Uncertainty is the constant in human life. Any claims to the contrary are bullshit, or in scientific speech, signaling.

What is real is the present. And so the natural constituency of any dissenting political movement are the people who actually, very actually, in this very present, are losing out in the grand zero-sum game of human social status. These people are pissed and resentful, and they will do what they can to mess with society as it presently works. For good reason. Life is quite short, and you only get one. Nobody wants to lose out in status. The consequences of that are pretty bad. Losing out in the pecking order means, in general zoological terms, access to worst-quality mates, or no mates at all. So you bet all those intellectuals were pissed, and wanting to jump in to whatever movement promised them they would crush capitalism and those evil fat cats. Even if it took away everything that’s good in life in the process. Who cares, that only made the process more engaging.

Again, the perception of losing out is subjective. Some people just are unreasonable and maladjusted and are not content unless they have absolute power and a harem with two thousand women. Political movements tend to house a disproportionate amount of those, alongside people who are really losing out to no fault of their own. A lot of people are losing out due to bad choices they did earlier in life, say, studied puppetry instead of something useful. So they are losing out, and it’s their own fault, but they can’t do anything about it either, and so they join up the ranks of the opposition.

The point here is not who forms the ranks of the opposition. The point here is that in a democracy the opposition has an actual shot at grabbing power. They have the freedom to do so. They are encouraged to do so. And so any smart political agent is going to find a way to organize these people. The same way any smart commercial agent is going to find a way to make money. There is always someone. An evolutionary process will produce it.

And the resentful will win, because upward mobility is a very strong motivator. Hope really does trump fear. People with a shot at gaining status are always going to outcompete people who are just trying to keep what they have. They are plenty of pathways, but the writing is in the wall. In a “free society”, the politics will always move to the left. Always.

Quote:

the leftist ratchet isn’t a particular set of people. It’s a memeplex with a life of its own. A virus evolved to concentrate power, adopting ideas that help in the project, and discarding those that not. Economic socialism, organizing the poor wasn’t working out in the West anymore. But the principle is sound; they just needed to find whoever was low status then. And there is always someone, status is zero sum. There’s always someone on top, someone on the bottom. Even in egalitarian societies. Socialism had really pressured Western society into becoming a quite egalitarian and pleasant society by 1960. But even in the best of worlds, there’s always low status people. Even if you re-engineer society so that there’s complete equality of opportunity, even if you run a revolution and you dissolve every existing hierarchy and start anew. There will always be low status people.

Because there’s always biology. Some people are tall, some people are short. Some look good, some are pretty ugly. Some are thin and some are fat. Some are pleasant some are annoying. Some are cool and some are awkward. Some are smart and some are dumb. Some make good choices some make bad choices. Some are law-abiding and some are criminally inclined. The latter of each pair is going to be low status anywhere on earth. Even in Soviet Communism under commander Trotsky. Some people just suck. That’s the way genes work.

And so thankfully for Leftism, even after achieving affluence, even after the working class disappeared as a thing, there was still plenty of material to work with to advance the cause of complete control. And so Leftist groups started agitating status for people of African descent. For Jews. For single women. For drug junkies. For sluts. For fat people. For homos. For lesbians. For aggressive Muslims. For the disabled. For the retarded. For the mentally insane. For the trannies. All people who are were low status in Western society. And who would be low status in any society. Because they suck. They just aren’t very productive. For no fault of their own. Some people are born tall, some short. Some smart, some dumb. Some empathic, some psychopathic. Some content with their lot, some greedy with powerlust. That’s how it is.

And so the Long March through the Institutions that Gramsci first envisioned as a way of having the Italian Communist Party do what Lenin had done, ended up producing a different kind of Leninist system, one distributed and informal, instead of Lenin’s unified and formal, and one which morphed into promotion of the dregs of society qua dregs of society, instead of promotion of Marx’s idea of the wrongly oppressed proletariat. Marx was not a good man, but at least he tried to dress his ideas in a way that made sense. Das Kapital took some real work to write. But that was just some contingent accident of his time. Leftism doesn’t need to make sense. It just needs to get the job done.

Or at least marginally. Because the very fact that we have Biological Leninism as the organizing principle of all centers of power in the West, and that it keeps getting worse all the time, is because it’s not quite getting the job done. The job is concentration of power. It’s achieving absolute control. What Lenin did. What once Lenin did that, or more precisely Stalin did that, the ideological content of the Left stabilized. Cthulhu stopped swimming left. But here in the Atlantic Cthulhu has been swimming for centuries, getting crazier every day. Because there’s no one to stop him. We have a Cathedral, yes, an informal distributed Leninist party, ensuring very efficiently that only their people get in positions of power and influence. But there is no Stalin. No Xi Jinping. Not even a lousy Putin even.

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/...oleninism/

[infowarrior1]

(07-25-2018 07:59 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

Quote:

The theory of democracy was that rich people, with the leisure to educate themselves about public policy, and a financial interest in the government of the nation, would run for individual office, represent their constituency, be reelected if they did their job well, replaced if they didn’t. But laws are passed by majority vote. Soon somebody realized that getting a majority vote was very profitable; so the money was in finding a way to reliably organize half the parliament. So we got political parties.

A political party is a very different beast from an individual politician. A political party has no use for rich people. Well their money is welcome: but rich people tend to not be very loyal. They can afford to have a personality. As a political leader, politicians are your employees. You don’t need staff who’s very skilled or competent. They just need to be loyal, obedient, and have some ability to get elected. It helps if they can talk. Look good on TV. But that’s about it.

You want people who are loyal, who will vote what you want them to vote. As Roissy would tell you, a man, or a woman, is only as loyal as his options. So the ideal politician is the man who doesn’t have anything else going on for him. Someone for whom being a politician is the best thing that ever happened to him. Somebody who positively known that if he ever leaves the party his status would drop. Marco Rubio, say. He’ll play ball. He better.

Any system ruled by political parties will always move to the left. Their business model is based on getting low status people to work for them. Obviously they must give them something in exchange. And they must motivate voters to vote for them. Their promise is simple: You, low status people, help us out, vote for us, obey our commands, and we will give you high status. Don’t vote for us, disobey us, let the right win, and you will remain low status.

Once the left wins, which it always does, because they are better organized, better able to form majorities in comparison to rich pricks who have no good reason to coordinate. High status people have been in the losing side in politics for 300 years. So what? They’re still rich. Life is good. Yeah taxes are higher. And women are incomparably more annoying. But they put out better now, so there’s that. Anyway, who cares. The Son also Rises.

The left always wins. But once they win they become higher status. Come on, they got power. They try, very hard, to convince everyone that they’re not really in power. No, the forces of reaction are lurking everywhere! We must keep on the struggle! 80% of the Left’s energy is in producing propaganda about how the Right really runs everything. When the Left had 90% tax rates, they still talked as if they were in Charles Dickens world. After 60 years of feminism, affirmative action, and Jews in all resorts of power the Left of 2017 is obsessed with “systemic racism”, “toxic masculinity” and “anti-semitism”. Right.

But of course the Left has been in power for 200 years now. Once they got power, they got enjoyed their hardly fought high status. Naturally they lost discipline, until a party further Left appeared, and then won. And so on and so forth. Cthulhu always swims left. That’s where power is.

First they captured the electoral system. Arguably it’s the easier one. But power is not only in parliament. Separation of powers is, or at least was, real. A Parliament can pass a law. The Executive could delay or outright ignore its execution. A judge could find or make up some flaw in the law and block it. It is of no use to have a legislative majority, having the ability to pass laws at will, if you can’t effectively put them into practice. Power is absolute power or it is no power at all.

But where there’s a will, there’s a way. And there is always someone with a will to power. Eventually the Left found a way.

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/...irst-step/


Part 2:

Quote:

Socialism refined liberal politics, the same way that double-entry bookkeeping refined business accounting. The base of electoral politics was to promise high status to low status people. Marx, starting this tradition where semi-assimilated Jews don’t quite the latent hypocrisy of the host society, didn’t quite get the joke of liberal egalitarianism, and just took it to its logical conclusion. You’re not supposed to do that, kids. You’re supposed to get the joke. But he didn’t. Liberty and Equality? Ok, let’s abolish private property then. Hey wait a little there. Are you serious? Abolish private property?

Quote:

A political party can get away with lying; a political movement, i.e. a vague and embryonic version of a political party, can get away with murder. They don’t need to deliver on anything. They don’t have to be reasonable. They don’t even have to make sense. They just need to be able to recruit committed people. And guess what, being unreasonable gets you more loyal followers than being reasonable. Why? Again, because reasonable, well-adjusted, normal people just have a wider range of options available for them. They don’t need to commit to some crazy plan. They can just get a job and live a normal life. For an unreasonable, maladjusted, weird person, your options in life are much more limited. Joining a crazy political party which proposes the abolition of the very thing that makes society possible is, very likely, the best shot they’ll ever get at achieving high status in their lives. So yeah, why not. Communism!

Again, there’s many versions of unreasonable and maladjusted. Some people are genuinely just not very good at dealing with capitalist society. Born like that, to no fault of their own. Writers, journalists, middling lawyers. Rivers of ink have been spilled writing about how intellectuals are always overwhelmingly leftist. Which is odd given that communism didn’t turn out to be very nice to intellectuals. But capitalism gives high status to precisely the opposite kind of person, the merchant, and intellectuals hate that. They are natural socialists. Very eager socialists.

An easy heuristic would to see the natural constituency of any political movement as the people who, in the grand zero-sum game of human social status, would rise in status if that political movement were to gain power. But it’s not quite like that, if anything because you just can’t know what’s going to happen. Early socialists had no idea what was going to happen if socialism take power. They said they knew, but nobody knows the future. Uncertainty is the constant in human life. Any claims to the contrary are bullshit, or in scientific speech, signaling.

What is real is the present. And so the natural constituency of any dissenting political movement are the people who actually, very actually, in this very present, are losing out in the grand zero-sum game of human social status. These people are pissed and resentful, and they will do what they can to mess with society as it presently works. For good reason. Life is quite short, and you only get one. Nobody wants to lose out in status. The consequences of that are pretty bad. Losing out in the pecking order means, in general zoological terms, access to worst-quality mates, or no mates at all. So you bet all those intellectuals were pissed, and wanting to jump in to whatever movement promised them they would crush capitalism and those evil fat cats. Even if it took away everything that’s good in life in the process. Who cares, that only made the process more engaging.

Again, the perception of losing out is subjective. Some people just are unreasonable and maladjusted and are not content unless they have absolute power and a harem with two thousand women. Political movements tend to house a disproportionate amount of those, alongside people who are really losing out to no fault of their own. A lot of people are losing out due to bad choices they did earlier in life, say, studied puppetry instead of something useful. So they are losing out, and it’s their own fault, but they can’t do anything about it either, and so they join up the ranks of the opposition.

The point here is not who forms the ranks of the opposition. The point here is that in a democracy the opposition has an actual shot at grabbing power. They have the freedom to do so. They are encouraged to do so. And so any smart political agent is going to find a way to organize these people. The same way any smart commercial agent is going to find a way to make money. There is always someone. An evolutionary process will produce it.

And the resentful will win, because upward mobility is a very strong motivator. Hope really does trump fear. People with a shot at gaining status are always going to outcompete people who are just trying to keep what they have. They are plenty of pathways, but the writing is in the wall. In a “free society”, the politics will always move to the left. Always.

Quote:

the leftist ratchet isn’t a particular set of people. It’s a memeplex with a life of its own. A virus evolved to concentrate power, adopting ideas that help in the project, and discarding those that not. Economic socialism, organizing the poor wasn’t working out in the West anymore. But the principle is sound; they just needed to find whoever was low status then. And there is always someone, status is zero sum. There’s always someone on top, someone on the bottom. Even in egalitarian societies. Socialism had really pressured Western society into becoming a quite egalitarian and pleasant society by 1960. But even in the best of worlds, there’s always low status people. Even if you re-engineer society so that there’s complete equality of opportunity, even if you run a revolution and you dissolve every existing hierarchy and start anew. There will always be low status people.

Because there’s always biology. Some people are tall, some people are short. Some look good, some are pretty ugly. Some are thin and some are fat. Some are pleasant some are annoying. Some are cool and some are awkward. Some are smart and some are dumb. Some make good choices some make bad choices. Some are law-abiding and some are criminally inclined. The latter of each pair is going to be low status anywhere on earth. Even in Soviet Communism under commander Trotsky. Some people just suck. That’s the way genes work.

And so thankfully for Leftism, even after achieving affluence, even after the working class disappeared as a thing, there was still plenty of material to work with to advance the cause of complete control. And so Leftist groups started agitating status for people of African descent. For Jews. For single women. For drug junkies. For sluts. For fat people. For homos. For lesbians. For aggressive Muslims. For the disabled. For the retarded. For the mentally insane. For the trannies. All people who are were low status in Western society. And who would be low status in any society. Because they suck. They just aren’t very productive. For no fault of their own. Some people are born tall, some short. Some smart, some dumb. Some empathic, some psychopathic. Some content with their lot, some greedy with powerlust. That’s how it is.

And so the Long March through the Institutions that Gramsci first envisioned as a way of having the Italian Communist Party do what Lenin had done, ended up producing a different kind of Leninist system, one distributed and informal, instead of Lenin’s unified and formal, and one which morphed into promotion of the dregs of society qua dregs of society, instead of promotion of Marx’s idea of the wrongly oppressed proletariat. Marx was not a good man, but at least he tried to dress his ideas in a way that made sense. Das Kapital took some real work to write. But that was just some contingent accident of his time. Leftism doesn’t need to make sense. It just needs to get the job done.

Or at least marginally. Because the very fact that we have Biological Leninism as the organizing principle of all centers of power in the West, and that it keeps getting worse all the time, is because it’s not quite getting the job done. The job is concentration of power. It’s achieving absolute control. What Lenin did. What once Lenin did that, or more precisely Stalin did that, the ideological content of the Left stabilized. Cthulhu stopped swimming left. But here in the Atlantic Cthulhu has been swimming for centuries, getting crazier every day. Because there’s no one to stop him. We have a Cathedral, yes, an informal distributed Leninist party, ensuring very efficiently that only their people get in positions of power and influence. But there is no Stalin. No Xi Jinping. Not even a lousy Putin even.

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/...oleninism/

Why do you think the left coalition included women,gays,trans and this latest victim group? Even down to the dregs of society?. Because one reason is that they will be completely loyal to the end because there is nothing else going for them or that their very lives are owed to this group.