I used to consider myself "left wing" because the idea of "progress" seemed grandiose to me. After being a member of a left wing party for about a year, the final straw broke. I can no longer stand any form of leftism whatsoever. "Right wing" ideology may be stupid, but it's the lesser of two evils.
Why is "leftism" bad? Well we should begin by placing "leftists" into two broad camps:
- FIRST CAMP -
-FEMININE LEFTISTS: These leftists tend to be women, younger, LGBT, or cucked low T males.
They have no principles except for the following:
-Man bad. Woman good. Everything associated with maleness is bad (unless it is controlled by female) and everything associated with females is good. Of course, "leftists" cannot define what is good or bad since they reject morality, so the whole thing is circular. Men are violent and intrusive. Women are superior and have the moral high ground always.
-Whoever is the most pathetic is the most correct. The world would be better with a matriarchy, but we can't implement it because that would require initiative and competence. Every decision about who has the moral ground comes from victimhood. Israel vs Palestine? Palestinians are victims and therefore correct. Russia vs Ukraine? Big country bad, small country good. Even though geopolitically, these contradict each other. Everything is framed as masculine vs feminine where feminine is pathetic and weak (good) and masculine as strong and overbearing (bad). They simply support whatever camp seems weaker. However, incels do not get the same treatment since that would violate the first principle (Man bad. Woman good)
In addition, "feminine leftists" reject all normalcy in any form on the surface level, but hold their own personal views on normalcy at the same time (Cognitive dissonance). For example, transgenderism is totally OK because normalcy does not exist but when men fail to hold up their half of the gender roles, this abnormality is not forgiven. Leftists also operate entirely on vibes which become moot without some semblance of "normalcy".
Also, their beliefs are contradictory. They claim that the innovations to the productive forces lead to social change, yet resist innovation to productive forces (ie. data centers, AI and such) under the pretense that it is being rolled out by millionaires. What happened to "We will hang them by the rope they sell us" (paraphrase).
-SECOND CAMP-
-MASCULINE LEFTISTS: This type embraces a kind of leftism which ultimately becomes right wing over time (Stalinism). These groups are male dominated and few in number due to McCarthyism and governments trying to promote stability indirectly. Unfortunately, this type isn't much better than the first type. They claim to promote "democratic centralism" in which decisions are made democratically but once a decision is made conformity is required. In practice, this becomes 95% centralism and little democracy. These groups read and understand Marx for the most part, but like Marx they fail to commit to any principles. They claim "women hold up half the sky" but in practice are patriarchal (see modern China). When they start to embrace femininity, they collapse.
No matter the "type" of leftists, they will always try to split off and create their own "party" thinking they will "do it right this time" only to rediscover the same issues over and over again. No matter the strategy, it ultimately either fails or becomes right wing (Stalinism) and centralist. The "leftists" have to reconcile decentralism and social cohesion. They claim to value both but in practice social cohesion requires centralism.
The second group can only maintain itself through rigid conformity and screening against "nihilism". They double down on blaming "capitalism" for everything under the sun so people do not revert to the default mode of thinking "nihilism". Over time, it becomes more religious in nature and the so called "materialists" become more and more "idealist" (violating their own principles) in order to screen for "true believers" of the religion.
Also, the second camp is at a huge disadvantage because the first camp is the loudest and most useless. The second camp is more like daddy and the first camp are like annoying screaming kids who won't STFU and get out of the way. When the second camp goes soft and embraces the first, they lose because it's self defeating. When the second camp decides to say fuck the first camp, they become too isolated and fringe since there are not enough people in the second camp anyway. The second camp ends up in a constant tension between catering to the dumbest, least competent people in order to stay relevant and becoming too fringe and "right wing"
Why is "leftism" bad? Well we should begin by placing "leftists" into two broad camps:
- FIRST CAMP -
-FEMININE LEFTISTS: These leftists tend to be women, younger, LGBT, or cucked low T males.
They have no principles except for the following:
-Man bad. Woman good. Everything associated with maleness is bad (unless it is controlled by female) and everything associated with females is good. Of course, "leftists" cannot define what is good or bad since they reject morality, so the whole thing is circular. Men are violent and intrusive. Women are superior and have the moral high ground always.
-Whoever is the most pathetic is the most correct. The world would be better with a matriarchy, but we can't implement it because that would require initiative and competence. Every decision about who has the moral ground comes from victimhood. Israel vs Palestine? Palestinians are victims and therefore correct. Russia vs Ukraine? Big country bad, small country good. Even though geopolitically, these contradict each other. Everything is framed as masculine vs feminine where feminine is pathetic and weak (good) and masculine as strong and overbearing (bad). They simply support whatever camp seems weaker. However, incels do not get the same treatment since that would violate the first principle (Man bad. Woman good)
In addition, "feminine leftists" reject all normalcy in any form on the surface level, but hold their own personal views on normalcy at the same time (Cognitive dissonance). For example, transgenderism is totally OK because normalcy does not exist but when men fail to hold up their half of the gender roles, this abnormality is not forgiven. Leftists also operate entirely on vibes which become moot without some semblance of "normalcy".
Also, their beliefs are contradictory. They claim that the innovations to the productive forces lead to social change, yet resist innovation to productive forces (ie. data centers, AI and such) under the pretense that it is being rolled out by millionaires. What happened to "We will hang them by the rope they sell us" (paraphrase).
-SECOND CAMP-
-MASCULINE LEFTISTS: This type embraces a kind of leftism which ultimately becomes right wing over time (Stalinism). These groups are male dominated and few in number due to McCarthyism and governments trying to promote stability indirectly. Unfortunately, this type isn't much better than the first type. They claim to promote "democratic centralism" in which decisions are made democratically but once a decision is made conformity is required. In practice, this becomes 95% centralism and little democracy. These groups read and understand Marx for the most part, but like Marx they fail to commit to any principles. They claim "women hold up half the sky" but in practice are patriarchal (see modern China). When they start to embrace femininity, they collapse.
No matter the "type" of leftists, they will always try to split off and create their own "party" thinking they will "do it right this time" only to rediscover the same issues over and over again. No matter the strategy, it ultimately either fails or becomes right wing (Stalinism) and centralist. The "leftists" have to reconcile decentralism and social cohesion. They claim to value both but in practice social cohesion requires centralism.
The second group can only maintain itself through rigid conformity and screening against "nihilism". They double down on blaming "capitalism" for everything under the sun so people do not revert to the default mode of thinking "nihilism". Over time, it becomes more religious in nature and the so called "materialists" become more and more "idealist" (violating their own principles) in order to screen for "true believers" of the religion.
Also, the second camp is at a huge disadvantage because the first camp is the loudest and most useless. The second camp is more like daddy and the first camp are like annoying screaming kids who won't STFU and get out of the way. When the second camp goes soft and embraces the first, they lose because it's self defeating. When the second camp decides to say fuck the first camp, they become too isolated and fringe since there are not enough people in the second camp anyway. The second camp ends up in a constant tension between catering to the dumbest, least competent people in order to stay relevant and becoming too fringe and "right wing"
