[–] YouWontLikeThis 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

(((They))) own your film industry.

(((They))) own your TV industry

(((They))) own the presses

(((They))) own the publishing houses

And now (((they))) own the internet

(((They))) get to choose left and right.

And all you get is the right to say: Thank you.

[–] Warmoose76 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yes it really pisses me off the amount of labels people use on this website. These people are fucking retarded labeling every one as "liberal" as communists. Libertarian s are liberals too. But that's beside the point, fuck the fucking labels they are only made to make you hate and turn on each other when the real enemy is the government.

[–] xenoPsychologist 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

that sounds like communist talk!

[–] ding0bait 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Progressives have co-opted the label "liberal" and it no longer means what it meant. So we have a choice, indicate we're not the same kind of liberal progressives shield themselves with, or confuse everyone when you say you're a liberal when you know liberal and progressive are synonyms now.

Denying the reality of the situation is an option-- i guess. No one will understand you and you'll continue to feign ignorance and get into semantical debates. But in the end, all you're doing is creating unnecessary sophistry around a label.

I've come to see the political spectrum as authoritarian vs. libertarian. Of course, the issue here is that libertarian has a right-wing shading to it. But then, liberty was widely established and is part of our institutions and hierarchies and is now under attack by progressives. So in that sense, I am right-wing. I actually want to preserve our liberty and the institutions that exist to ensure liberty is not infringed upon.

Right now, the entire spectrum of dialog has shifted entirely to the left. The ground we argue on is on the Left. The Overton window has shifted so that Mao and Stalin are the Center. We need to shift things back. We can't do that with the label "liberal" nor should we. Using liberal just obfuscates where the battleground actually is and what we are fighting over.

[–] 8Ball 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Sadly most of them can't see the false dichotomy since they're too caught up in it to realize that it's even there.

[–] Phoneaccount3 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Well said.

[–] dan_k 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The left appear to like the thought of the kings fucking their children.

[–] tinyhousesbrah 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You're right that's it is more complicated than what the Television suggests.

I see it like this:

The political spectrum is real but an incomplete model of how people think.

Instead of a left to right spectrum it is a series of concentric circles (A 3D Sphere similar to a Russian Doll actually but I'm sticking with 2D for simplicity).

Most people are in the innermost circles with mild tilts to the left, right, liberal (old fashioned sense of the word) or authoritarian. This is what the Political Compass project was getting at, that there's more than 1 axis necessary to describe political affiliations.

However Political Compass itself is incomplete and not in the sense of of adding another axis or ten (because anybody can do that but it doesn't add that much more accuracy).

This a little thought to unpack but it's worth your consideration. Look at the outer layers of a concentric circle model: they include far left communists, far rightists like neoreactionaries. What distinguishes the center from the peripheral?

Popular thought has the conception that 'far' anything is extremist, which it is so (low population number), and that it is violent, which is usually/often not the case. Most communists today are not violent for instance, antifa is something of an aberrancy. Most genuine national socialists or white supremacists today aren't violent people. The exceptions are usually better explained by circumstance or survival reflexes (AB in prisons) rather than plots to overthrow the government.

What does this model of politics mean?

By definition the center is the middle of Overton's Window, by definition it is the status quo.

This must mean then that the peripheral concentric circles are a refutation of the status quo. These could be contrarians and/or have unusual political models.

This means all political change must start from the edges.

This explains why you think the Jews are behind everything in politics.

It's because they are. I just think it's not in the way you think, they're not a cohesive group, they have an exaggerated version of "Two Tribes" that we have (Asians, Muslims and Blacks don't appear to exhibit this political phenomena). The peripheral circles are the most likely to higher IQs, and all political change starts at the peripheral, and high IQ/Jews are more likely, literally, to be in those circles.

There also exist many intelligent people in politics at the Center but they are frequently disguising their true political beliefs, a feat which requires social sophistication. They also have far more complex political models than their partisans. It's the combination of these people in concert with the political theorists at the peripheral that move the Overton Window around, especially in times of crisis.

tldr; In the Concentric Circle Model of politics here really aren't that many people in 'deep politics' thinking about political theory or reading old books on politics. The people who are tend to have high IQs and since Ashkenazi Jews have high IQs and a predilection towards theoretical subjects it's not surprising they're a significant force behind every political faction.

I won't develop the point here but an important contribution of the CCM is that it suggests violent political activity isn't related to 'distance' from the center, which should actually worry us because it implies the Center can sometimes be a very dangerous place, which simply isn't allowed in the mainstream political model 'The Political Spectrum'.

[–] Samchay6 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's not left vs. right.

It's the Americans vs. Globalists.

[–] writingandsmiting [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Globe vs. Globalists. ftfy

[–] talmoridor-x 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

People vs. Jews. ftfy

[–] tinyhousesbrah 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

We call them 'Universalists', because the reversal of Universalism better explains our position i.e. that we want genuine diversity in culture, ideas, genetics. Too much similarity is a threat, I think that's why there's a tradeoff happening between globalization (the economic force, trade) and technological development because they are forms of change that sometimes oppose each other. Peter Thiel (SV venture capitalist) has a great series of videos on Youtube explaining the idea.

[–] FreeToLive 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

ITT: Faggots complaining about politics but still want the state as their master.