Leaderboard

In arguments, I have noticed a sort of algorithmic pattern of behavior from leftists. We've been analyzing the ideas and environmental factors associated with the modern left, but we need a deeper understanding. It has been one of my greatest intellectual challenges to unravel the most fundamental emotions and motivations of their ideology. Disclaimer: I will be broadly generalizing in my descriptions. 'Leftist' is a broad term with variability in its definitions which is used to describe millions of people who are all different. Existential Anxiety and Fear: There are a great many threats in the world, and most people are aware of more than a few of these threats. Our fear and anxiety comes from an ancient part of our mind, one equipped for immediate threats and unfamiliar situations. Human beings are in a unique position of feeling our 'primitive' fear and anxiety in response to every threat imaginable. And, we can imagine so many existential threats to our lives, and to our well-being. We can also imagine threats to our ideology and mental continuity, which is an important element in this description. You may have observed someone become absurdly upset in response to an idea. New ideas can be perceived as an existential threat; a threat that was not anticipated and is not fully understood. The idea is not just a group of words, it is a gateway to an abyss. It is an implication that one is misguided, ignorant, stupid, poorly equipped for life, and/or doomed to suffer and die. The Abdication of Personal Responsibility: It can be a great relief to reject personal responsibility. It dispels anxiety, guilt, and shame. It means not having to work harder or to improve oneself. It means not having to change or to annihilate parts of oneself in order to become better. Determinism: Perhaps determinism is rational, even scientific, but that is not the main reason the modern left favors it. The modern left favors determinism because it allows them to abdicate personal responsibility, something they value far more than scientific rationality. Scientific rationality could not be their highest value because they reject the scientific claims that conflict with their ideology. Unhappiness: Let's face it: most people are unhappy most of the time. Happiness is not a common or sustainable state. "Life is suffering." We live in an era of unprecedented affluence and luxury, but people are still unhappy. The modern left has a specific response to suffering in life. Because they abdicate personal responsibility, the modern left must blame environmental factors for their suffering. Therefore, to diminish suffering, the environment must be altered. It is the only real conclusion that can be drawn from these elements. Of course, altering the environment usually means using state power. Faith in Government: It is a common response to fear and anxiety to put faith in a 'higher power' in hopes of receiving some protection from the existential threats. Just considering potential corruption in the government is frightening. Not only that, the idea of government corruption could return the onus of responsibility to the individual. To them, government is the most powerful tool we have to alter society in order to reduce suffering and make people happier. Faith in government reduces fear and anxiety, relieves personal responsibility, and it can be used to alter society and environmental factors. Idealizing Society: Instead of idealizing potential characteristics of individuals, the modern left must idealize potential characteristics of society. This too, is caused by the abdication of personal responsibility. Because suffering and inequality cannot be the result of individual inadequacy, suffering and inequality must be caused by environmental factors. Therefore, environmental factors must be changed. They pursue utopia. With these elements in mind, the political beliefs of the modern left don't just make sense. These factors make their political beliefs inevitable.

A bit off topic, but are you a psychologist or sociologist? Adding these things together, I can't imagine a better breakdown of the Left, aside perhaps a more depth reason as to why someone would have these individual characteristics. Not all these traits are necessary for one to become a Leftist--I used to be a Communist when I was in early High School (I'll state I am 19 to give you a better idea of me)--, as I was far from deterministic (though I was highly inclined to rob others of personal responsibility, and had the awful tendency to assign to myself more responsibility than I actually had) and did not, at the time, fear anything beyond myself. My biggest preoccupation was securing a guaranteed safety net and becoming a Far Left political leader, which in itself was due to my desire for power which I wanted because I felt powerless in my own life and upbringing. I have also had a tendency to pursue "the extremes"; I was never a "moderate" Lefitst: I desired a totalitarian dictatorship with the idea it would create a long-lasting utopia and a self-correcting system. When I converted to NatSoc (arguably another form of Leftism) I went full-throttle into the conspiracy theory, at least at first. When I left the Left and joined the Right as a "blank-slate White Nationalist", I was far more skeptical of ideologies as well as my own personal susceptibility to the drama and allure of "edgy" and "utopian" dogma; in particular how easily I fell for Socialism, and when I learned of the Islamic Invasion in 2015, NatSoc. It was not until I heard from Stef that I started criticizing these ideologies in depth and more especially, criticizing myself and my motivations and why I have them. If there wasn't an internet, I'm fairly certain I'd have been easy prey for the warmongers and power-seekers, for I don't think I would have "fixed myself" without the indirect intervention of Stefpai. Rightism has its own characteristics, although I haven't tried to establish a list of general traits a Rightist might have, which are distinguished and in many ways positive compared to the Left. Easy examples being individualism and a sense of Free Will, which is important for any real personal and societal development. I'm curious as to for what purpose you have compiled this list of traits common to the Left. Is it a "Know mine enemy" sort of thing? Perhaps it's academic or purely intellectual? Is it personally important? Or are you an activist of some kind?

Without a lot to go on, I'll throw some darts and see if anything sticks. First off; how did you get an IQ test? Perhaps you really are an idiot and are being mislead to think you're intelligent. I highly doubt this because stupid people are seldom self-aware, and if you think you're a self-aware stupid person, one of those things most likely isn't true. Second: what was measured in he IQ test, exactly? I can't recall the proper names, but I know that the ability to learn new things is only a third of what is calculated in most standard tests. The other two major measures are "ability to learn a new concept based on knowledge of existing stuff, i.e., the ability to learn more of something you know a little of) and verbal acuity. If you truly aren't good at learning new things, then perhaps you compensate with the ability of being better and learning more in-depth versions of old things, or are very verbally acute. This is possible; Einstein only had an IQ of around 140-something, because he was extremely high (180+) in one area (can't recall but a quick study of his IQ may answer this specifically) and very low (like, a retarded 80) verbal acuity, or something like that. Third: You have low self-esteem, and therefore self-sabotage. Perhaps you were treated poorly by your parents, either through neglect or outright abuse. Perhaps you have/had bad peers in your circle who often put you down, thereby retarding your actual ability due to low self-regard. This is what I think is most likely, in which case I'd recommend doing some personal digging followed by therapy. Short that, call the Stefpai for an interview on the Call-in-Show, or if you're unable, describe something here and maybe we can help with anecdotes or studies.

Hello rainlead, very good summary. I might add that lefts, since they consider themselves on the "good" side, have no limits in using coercive power or even force to pursue their goals. The use of force is justified by alleged higher moral values (humanity, mother earth etc.). So there is no reason for lefts to argue with opponents, an opponents view is per definition immoral, reason for disgust, and reason for more state power. regards Andi

You have no idea how excited I am to hear from a German peer who is into FDR. I am sure there are more, but you are the first I have heard of. Do you have any particular political views, or are you only here for the self-knowledge section? Which part of Germany are you from? Your name looks polish, so I would guess... Prussia, Saxony, Brandenburg? Whatever you have experienced growing up, you should know that you are not alone, and in fact, in the decadent west we have created for ourselves, there are very many like you.

if I recall correctly, no one in this thread has disputed exploitable nuclear energy. It is the nuclear explosive capabilities that are under question. That is a good point, and I and others here surely understand that, but you are leaving out the negatives, which have been mentioned in this thread. People might not feel motivated to build anything, or make anything happen, or invest time in oneself, or anything productive that requires work, since... Everything and everyone could blow up tomorrow. I started this thread because I am always in search for what is true, and was convinced that this forum was ment for that, and it has not disappointed. I am pretty sure a thread like this would not be much possible anywhere else. If nuclear explosions is a sham, but the net result is considerably positive, (even if lots of people don't care so much about being productive anymore), do you think it is ok to keep the lie alive?