User Controls
Why the coalition of the fringes is promoted by the US
-
2018-10-27 at 4:18 PM UTChttps://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/
Interesting, though longish article on why the coalition of the fringes - meaning all the weirdos in society - are continuously promoted by the neoliberal order, especially in foreign and hostile countries.
The article concludes that even if the fringes win, society will collapse and the normies will come back to power, same as in Russia or China.
TLDR: it's basically the same reason Marxism used to promote the peasants and the factory workers.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-27 at 5:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/
Interesting, though longish article on why the coalition of the fringes - meaning all the weirdos in society - are continuously promoted by the neoliberal order, especially in foreign and hostile countries.
The article concludes that even if the fringes win, society will collapse and the normies will come back to power, same as in Russia or China.
TLDR: it's basically the same reason Marxism used to promote the peasants and the factory workers.
srsly, read the book 'revolt against civilization'. -
2018-10-27 at 8:01 PM UTC
-
2018-10-27 at 8:10 PM UTCSTAY AWAY FROM MY ANIME AND ASPERGERS YOU FUCKING KIKES
-
2018-10-27 at 8:13 PM UTC
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.
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/bioleninism-the-first-step/
Razor sharp observation. -
2018-10-27 at 8:44 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-10-28 at 2:22 AM UTCInteresting. I don't agree with everything, but some solid points and insights:
That’s the patriarchy for you. Now I don’t want to overstress the biology part here. It’s not the fact that all men are better workers than women. In a patriarchy there’s plenty of unearned status for men. But that’s how it works: the core of society is the natural performance of men; those men will naturally build a society which benefits them as men; some men free-ride on that, some women get a bad deal. Lots of structural inertia there. But the core is real.
The sentence structure bugs me though - all sentences are extremely short, many beginning with now, but, and etc. which would work better as an extension of the last. Is English this guy's first language?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-28 at 2:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/
Interesting, though longish article on why the coalition of the fringes - meaning all the weirdos in society - are continuously promoted by the neoliberal order, especially in foreign and hostile countries.
The article concludes that even if the fringes win, society will collapse and the normies will come back to power, same as in Russia or China.
TLDR: it's basically the same reason Marxism used to promote the peasants and the factory workers.
It's difficult to muster any kind of enthuiasm for reading an article that saw the "success" of the right's marketing campaign around cultural marxism and decided to double down on "biological leninism". It honestly sounds like a joke.
Before I wade into whatever this blogpost is, let me ask, why did you need an explanation of liberal support within fringe cultures in the first place? Here's MW's definition of the term liberal:not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
Now I realize it's not uncommon to paint American leftism as authoritarian, I don't really but into that but let's put that aside. The defining qualities liberalism is openness to non-traditional cultural threads. This is even clearer when you look at term for the group we set up opposite of liberals: conservatives.
The question seems trivially answerable right there: liberal politics are the politics of brining the margins of society into the center. Of course "fringe" groups find a natural alliance there, the cultural edges of our society are, by definition, opposed to conservatism.
Now you can argue that DNC isn't really about this broad policy of cultural acceptance and is anchored on certain ideas and policies that it would hold to even at cost relegating some of our society to the fringes and refusing to include them. I'd agree with you. But by and large the "liberal" description does apply to the DNC, at least in the cultural dimension, the democrats are the party that's more culturally liberal, and marginal subcultures are their natural constituency.
So when we have to invent something like "biological leninism" to try and explain this phenomenon, like there's some kind of ideological anti-meritocratic conspiracy at work to explain this phenomenon, I can't help but wonder "why on earth is this something that required explanation in the first place?"
-
2018-10-28 at 3:11 AM UTCOnly Lanny knows in the first place, so the question is prolly Nil.
-
2018-10-28 at 3:17 AM UTCI don't really get why he used the term "biological Leninism", but the article largely talks about how using those 'fringes' of people to form an ideological core ensures loyalty as they end up owing their entire status and success to the system, how it always ends in disaster because people capable of productivity and change are concentrated outside of government, and how the cycle is exported as a geopolitical tool to weaken strong ethnic, religious or rigidly heirarchical states
-
2018-10-28 at 4:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra I don't really get why he used the term "biological Leninism", but the article largely talks about how using those 'fringes' of people to form an ideological core ensures loyalty as they end up owing their entire status and success to the system, how it always ends in disaster because people capable of productivity and change are concentrated outside of government, and how the cycle is exported as a geopolitical tool to weaken strong ethnic, religious or rigidly heirarchical states
the proper term should be biological bolshevicksm. -
2018-10-28 at 4:43 AM UTCyeah but I don't really get why he calls it 'biological' either, if anything it's just taking advantage of ideologies
-
2018-10-28 at 5:34 AM UTCbecauae it sounds cool and carries more credence ?
-
2018-10-28 at 8:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra yeah but I don't really get why he calls it 'biological' either, if anything it's just taking advantage of ideologies
It's an NRX site, they have a very sober view of what different people are capable of.
Changing your ideology won't make you any smarter, or even less lazy.
Originally posted by Lanny Of course "fringe" groups find a natural alliance there, the cultural edges of our society are, by definition, opposed to conservatism.
Why?
Why would the people who travel thousands of miles to move to the west - the likes of Captain Falcon/Anal Turing - seek to undermine and destroy it?
I have noticed that pretty much every brown person automatically starts shitting on normie whites - even while trying to fit in with them.
Why would Homosexuals and Muslims find common truck with the wealthy jedis who hate them both to ally against the normies who leave them all the fuck alone?
This phenomenon demands explanation.
Western conservatism kicks ass, and anyone who is smart and self-interested would want to protect it. -
2018-10-28 at 9:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning Why?
Why would the people who travel thousands of miles to move to the west - the likes of Captain Falcon/Anal Turing - seek to undermine and destroy it?
Where on earth did "undermining and destroying" come into the picture? Where did I say anyone wants to "undermine and destroy" the dominant culture? I simply said that people outside of the dominant culture have find a natural alignment of ideals in liberal politics.I have noticed that pretty much every brown person automatically starts shitting on normie whites - even while trying to fit in with them.
That's a nice anecdote but I don't think we have any good reason to suppose it's a general phenomenon, nor do I really see how it's relevant here.Why would Homosexuals and Muslims find common truck with the wealthy jedis who hate them both to ally against the normies who leave them all the fuck alone?
Because "the normies" don't "leave them all the fuck alone". Not historically. Even when the dominant culture isn't actively lynching people for failing to conform, it has a habit of excluding marginal communities. Hell, even today, there are all kinds of places you're not allowed to go if you don't dress or speak the right way. I'm not saying it's inherently a bad thing, as a member of the dominant culture and someone who's proud of my cultural heritage I have some sympathy for our the milder efforts at cultural conservation (specifically those that don't consider violence an acceptable means of propagating culture) but it's simply a fact that if you're far enough outside of the acceptable norms of a society you're effectively excluded from it. If you find yourself outside of said norms it's naturally in your interest to participate in the expansion of those norms, and that's what liberalism is.
-
2018-10-28 at 9:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Where on earth did "undermining and destroying" come into the picture? Where did I say anyone wants to "undermine and destroy" the dominant culture?
Nice "gotcha".
You didn't say it, you don't deny it happens.
It's debate as a form of pugilism.I simply said that people outside of the dominant culture have find a natural alignment of ideals in liberal politics.
Why?Even when the dominant culture isn't actively lynching people for failing to conform,
Lynchings were done in the same sense that Iran hangs gays.
You read up on it a little bit and you find out the hangees were gay rapists who gangraped some kid.
Lynching was just the legal system back in the day, and the people who got lynched pretty much all did some serious crime. Of course lynching became pure evil back when Leo Frank got lynched for killing Mary Phelan. -
2018-10-28 at 11:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning Nice "gotcha".
You didn't say it, you don't deny it happens.
How is that a gotcha? Basically no one supports "undermining and destroying" western culture, certainly no one who matters in US political discourse. It has nothing to do with liberalism or why fringe cultures tend to hold liberal views.Why?
You could start with that post I just made on that exact topic. Concisely: the ostensible position of liberal parties is to be inclusive of a broader range of behaviors and (sub)cultures as legally and socially acceptable. If you belong to a group that's ostensibly tolerated by your nation's liberal parties but not its conservative parties then you have an obvious interest in being politically aligned with the liberals.Lynchings were done in the same sense that Iran hangs gays.
You read up on it a little bit and you find out the hangees were gay rapists who gangraped some kid.
Have you read up on it? Would you care to cite some kind of source on that? Presumably you're defending the practice of lynching because the victims actually deserved it. So rather than finding one or a few such cases like this, which I'm sure you can turn up, are you going to try to establish that American lynchings in majority were of people who could be justifiably hanged?Lynching was just the legal system back in the day, and the people who got lynched pretty much all did some serious crime. Of course lynching became pure evil back when Leo Frank got lynched for killing Mary Phelan.
Literally the definition of "lynching" precludes it from being part of the legal system.
-
2018-10-28 at 11:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Basically no one supports "undermining and destroying" western culture, certainly no one who matters in US political discourse.
Western culture? You mean consumer based neo-liberalism?
I never said that and I don't give a shit about "western culture".
Lots of people want to undermine and destroy the family oriented, white christian culture.you're defending the practice of lynching because the victims actually deserved it.
Yes, that was generally accepted knowledge, before the media started amplifying stupid evidenceless "they didn't do nuffin" arguments to advance reconstruction after the civil war.
Which was an example of the US undermining a culture by supporting the coalition of the fringes.you going to try to establish that American lynchings in majority were of people who could be justifiably hanged?
That sounds like a lot of work - I could do so, but are you going to pay me for doing so?Literally the definition of "lynching" precludes it from being part of the legal system.
What legal system? That's like saying that trial by combat precludes it from being part of the legal system. Just because there's no leather bound books, powdered wigs, or massive salaries involved doesn't mean that a procedure isn't part of the general administration of laws and/or justice. -
2018-10-28 at 12 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning Lots of people want to undermine and destroy the family oriented, white christian culture.
Show me the politically significant liberals run on a platform of "undermining and destroying family oriented white christian culture"Yes, that was generally accepted knowledge, before the media started amplifying stupid evidenceless "they didn't do nuffin" arguments to advance reconstruction after the civil war.
Well then presumably you have evidence, if you're disparaging the standard narrative of lynching being a case of unjustified mob violence as evidenceless.That sounds like a lot of work - I could do so, but are you going to pay me for doing so?
No lol, I'm not going to pay you to support the claims that you made. Like you're going to refuse to defend you own position if I don't pay you to do so? THAT'S how you're trying to get out of this?What legal system? That's like saying that trial by combat precludes it from being part of the legal system. Just because there's no leather bound books, powdered wigs, or massive salaries involved doesn't mean that a procedure isn't part of the general administration of laws and/or justice.
No, trial by combat can be part of a legal system and has been. The meaning of the term "lynching" is that it happens outside of the legal system. What you're doing is the same as arguing that "sometimes murder is legal". It's literally just not what the word means.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-28 at 12:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Show me the politically significant liberals run on a platform of "undermining and destroying family oriented white christian culture"
First show me the conservative who runs on a platform of giving subsidies to all his donors.
You don't typically make distasteful parts of your agenda your platform.
This is dishonest manipulation of language by you, and to be honest I expect a better class of dishonesty.No, trial by combat can be part of a legal system and has been. The meaning of the term "lynching" is that it happens outside of the legal system.
I don't understand. I think you're just unbearable eurocentric and chauvinist.
"Violence against criminals is only legal if it's done by some guy with an ermine cloak".
One place that lynchings still occur is in the slums of Africa, are you saying that when Africans lynch some guy for stealing or rape that the lynchee is probably innocent? That lynching isn't part of the local legal system?
And if that is not legal, if some 90 IQ Bantu (the village scholar) pulls on a robe and bangs a gavel then it suddenly is?
