Op, November 22, 1963 opened the war that was and is, a battle of, "the right," against, the left.

The right, is conservatism, conservatism is keeping the old, in politics the oldest systems are religion and monarchy, top town hierarchical systems. Where the masses are oppressed for the benefit of the few at the top.

The left as the enemy of the right is that "left," or liberal that believes each individual has certain inalienable rights, etd, and that would include a voice in the governance and economic system, and

that would result in a more equitable system and of course that is what, "the right," seeks with voter suppression and labor suppression.

Saying they are both the same is just crazy psycho babble propaganda for the already confused.

Opposition to the murder of JFK and 9/11 are all mixed up in the general anti-democratic republic libertarians, now calling themselves nationalists so seeing posts and comments against those events does not mean the post is by a liberal.

What is currently identified and labeled, Democratic, liberal, "the left," in the U.S.A. is a false identify created by conservative propagandists who also label everything as welfare handouts.

U.S. political liberals are not anti-war, calling a system welfare is hilarious because in fact all fortunes are stripped from the backs of the poor and out of pockets of the middle class.

Our welfare class is listed on the Forbes 400 richest Americans list. If by welfare you mean supported by the tax money.

an example being, Our U.S. based corporations are allowed tax free income on off-shore profits, but do receive the protection for their investments and profits from our very expensive global military operation, including protecting the internet and intelligence costs.

That is a huge tax dependent welfare progrdam.

Another is what is called, E. I. T. C.,

Where the tax payer subsidizes the lowest paying employers, using tax money to subsidize the pay instead of increasing the minimum wage, and how the tax subsidized wage also frees the corporation from paying their wage based share of Social Security tax which of course reduces the worker's retirement income.

I wondered if you understood that what I meant is that JFK, 9/11 and other examplse are used by the anti-government crowd who's attacks are:

Your government this and is why you should hate all governments.

Versus

Actual people who are questioning the official story about them.

Yes, if there are secrets we are the intended victims.

I haven't been able to find a single justification for a government by the to have secrets from those people.

The principle is different but in practice it's generally the same. The "hidden hand" really running the show gives an appearance of playing them off against each other and throws a few bones to the proles now and again. Power in the world is centralizing and Most of everything is owned by a shrinking number of players. You're looking through a magnifier when it should be a wide angle lens..

Can't people that are actually good put together secret 3 letter organizations and start working to be as powerful as these dark hearted humans terrorizing the world?

No nations? What do you mean by that? England France Spain and Portugal were their own countries way before 1700 unless I don't understand.

I see. So you would define the modern nation state as needing a constitution? Or are you touching on the idea of citizenship? I'm still a bit lost on the difference between an empire and a nation state other than the dynastic principle involved.

I feel like the biggest difference for the subjects is whether or not they understand the nature of their enslavement. The strings of control has become nearly invisible

just wanted to say you think very clearly and your writing is good.

Right? That's why I had to probe for more sweet knowledge nuggets

It'll only get worse with time if they can keep the suppression of info.

I think that's why they are beating down the doors to get rid of net neutrality. They want to be able to (legally) control the flow of information- like dams control the flow of water. A lot of info got to toowidean audience these past 2 years, and i think some people feel like it 'changed the course of history', and they aim to prevent that from ever repeating.

There has been no left-wing government in the United States. It's only had right-wing and milder right-wing governance.

Define left and right.

Trying to distill these ideas while pecking on my phone while binging Stranger Things...

Leftism is a tendency towards the belief that the bounty of the Earth is the common possession/inheritance of humanity and that the goal of society should be the development of its members in order to contribute to the betterment of society/humanity.

The basis of Right-wing thought (Rightism sounds weird) is that society tends towards decadence. Therefore, the ideal society or government is one that defends the principles of society from deviating from a historical ideal.

https://youtu.be/-MzxC8Mqupw < Excellent definition.

John Birch Society, eh?

There it is, "THIS INFORMATION DOESN'T MATTER!"

You are unbelievably biased.

You know that the position of the John Birch Society was that the American Civil Rights Movement was orchestrated by Communists to the end of destroying America, right? Please permit me to feel that particular position alone makes them repugnant. Anyone who claims to love liberty but doesn't want it for all people is in reality advocating for privilege.

I mean even Ayn Rand thought the John Birchers were silly.

I mean, its a pretty discredited set of beliefs.

Bullshit spectrum the corporate media implies:

https://i.imgur.com/kwb0zXJ.png

Vast majority of both parties are EXTREME right and EXTREME authoritarian.

Real U.S. spectrum:

https://i.imgur.com/1peIWYG.png

As Noam Chomsky said,

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

Hence the lib vs con scam:

http://i.imgur.com/hdh0EEf.jpg

Dem vs Repub scam:

http://i.imgur.com/jLNnO7O.jpg

And what the elite want to achieve (NWO):

https://i.imgur.com/bNz2DHP.jpg

Lib vs con is just corporate marketting, think of it like this: if you identify as a "proud liberal/conservative" but you're sick of lying corrupt Democrat/Republican politicians, at the end of the day you'll still come crawling back because you identify as a "lib or con" and so you continue the Dem/Repub corporate duopoly even though you already know they're both corrupt as hell.

Conservativism and Liberalism are rebrandings of the same NEOliberal/NEOconservative corrupt model of politician.

NEOliberal = deregulating markets to increase corporate control (screwing the worker for corporate benefit hence globalism reducing worker wages worldwide)

NEOconservative = warmonger foreign policy (not just for profit but other reasons too).

"Liberal" is a vague term in itself: to cause liberty, but for who? Corporations and central bankers? Or the people?

Left wing = personal freedom (more socialistic) Right wing = economic freedom (more capitalist)

The elites are not merely capitalists, they are EXTREME capitalists, cronyists and corporatists.

Left wing used to mean capitalism back in the French Revolution when people were fighting to overthrow feudalism (royalty, nobility, warlords, peasants type oppressive hierarchy).

Capitalism aimed to de-centralize the power of the elites and it did to some extent but the elites have caught up (and more sociopath elites formed too) and hence we have corporations oppressing the people for the benefit of the elites. Sort of like a new feudalism structure. Capitalism didn't deliver on its promises because it was not regulated well enough.

Capitalism was a reaction to feudalism, and socialism is a reaction to capitalism.

Left/right was coined in the French Revolution, where those against the King (status quo) sat to his left (left wing) and those on his side were right wing.

So now left wing ("the peoples' side") is now socialistic and right wing (on the king/status quo's side) is capitalistic.

However, Bernie Sanders' policies are of social democracy (mixed economics) and is slightly left of center, he does not intend to remove capitalism, only make it work for as many people as possible through social programs and removing undeserving corporate welfare.

I don't want to remove capitalism either until it's necessary....for now, increasing the socialism-capitalism ratio can save capitalism from self destructing as it tends to do.

Anti-establishment IMO means the region on the spectrum that is the moderate libertarian (balanced/fairly minimalist gov) forms of center left, centrist and slightly right. Beyond that tends to be corporate shill NEOliberal candidates.

Remember left wing doesn't mean anti-business nor does it mean "state control" either. You can have a left wing businessman obeying the law, treating his employees well, paying taxes, and wanting the tax payer to get better value (e.g. socialized single payer universal healthcare rather than extremely privatized crony capitalist Obamacare which gives big pharma and insurance company middle men huge profits at our expensive).

Small/medium businesses that are ethical, are one of us. But corporations and billionaires are a different animal and usually are unethical/corrupt and too powerful (centralized power).

Now if we want to talk about social issues: "SJWs", feminists, racists, etc. these are not left and right wing things. These are ideas of social engineering pushed by the establishment.

I'm center left and a fan of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, but I'm in no way an SJW or feminist (corrupt biased ideology).

Identity politics (stereotypes) play into divide and conquer as well as marketting a loyal fan base for the Dems and Repubs.

Real social justice is not the same as SJW garbage.

Your words read like someone rolling down a hill covered in half understood ideaologies. I don't know how else to phrase it or correct it. There are people for whatever reason who genuinely wish for high degrees of socialism and communism. Call it whatever you want on whatever spectrum, seems like nobody can agree on what the spectrum is.

The "SJW" idea is cultural marxism, communism, identity politics. Were all different, and we differ even more so based on plenty of other things, but it's completely normal to view yourself as part of a nationality and race.

While my lifestyle is moderate, I would support socialism, communism and anarchism and any form of anticorporate, antifascist revolution.

That said, I don't think electing an individual or even a large number of radical politicians into office would suddenly change in the American way of life.

I don't think electing a radical for whatever political office is going to flip a switch and create a brand new system. Short of a violent or spontaneous revolution, incremental change is the most anyone can hope for.

I always vote for the most progressive liberal candidate, usually the one on the Green Party. In my view of the Presidency, the most moderate (status quo) candidate almost always loses and the party for change wins. That's why Hillary keeps losing, and it's why Bernie would have won.

Barf

That's the real U.S. spectrum, but people listen to the corporate media's fake definitions of left and right. The corporate media want people to believe "liberals and Democrats" are left wing or centrist and that "conservatives and Republicans" are moderate right but it's all bullshit, the vast majority of politicians in each party are corporate extremists and authoritarians and warmongers.

I do understand the ideologies fairly well, I was just trying to be brief so people can understand my message without losing focus on a wall of text.

Higher degrees of socialism and even anarcho-communism aren't bad necessarily. It's authoritarianism of any type that we want to avoid (and extreme economic positions too that favor a certain small group of people over the majority).

"National communism"/Stalinism/Maoism/Leninism was not real communism but an extreme authoritarian totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship where the means of production were controlled by beurocrats who profitted as much as they wanted and redistributed whatever they chose to give to the peasants.

On the other hand, real communism (anarcho-communism) is a stateless society (exact opposite of dictatorship state) so it's supposed to be anarchistic rather than authoritarian. And in anarcho-communism, the workers themselves control the means of production rather than beurocrats. Some strains of anarcho-communism don't want private property (like people profitting from buying/selling houses when there's a housing crisis and people need affordable homes) but do respect "personal property" (like you actually own your own house and can buy a second one for yourself if you need to).

https://i.imgur.com/ptbVcN6.png

IMO corrupt individuals were never going to allow true communism because it destroys the elitist hierarchy structure (workers being independent of the elites). You can't just jump from extreme authoritarian to anarchistic so I think the Russian revolution was rigged from the start to fail. They were so astronomically far away from real communism.

Anarcho-communism and other anarchistic ideologies aim to democratize economics (workers have more say, less likely to be oppressed and reduction in extreme accumulation of wealth -- I think most anarcho-communists don't care if it's classless or not, as long as there's no extreme rich like multi billionaires and no extreme poor like homeless/poverty/struggling) so the psycho elite would never allow it just as they wouldn't allow full socialism, democratic socialism or even just social democracy mixed economics. Lenin told the truth when he said they only achieved state capitalism and Stalin lied when he said communism was reached (although I don't trust either of these authoritarians).

I'm not an anarcho-communist myself, but the distinction should be made between them. I do respect the anarchistic ideologies but prefer to be more moderate and see what works well without jumping to anything significantly different, as well as agreeing with as many people as possible in order to make sure we move forward democratically.

Apparently some parts of Spain managed anarchism by themselves, workers managing themselves and using work per hour vouchers instead of normal money, until the false "communists" (Stalin like state capitalist dictator) stopped it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw

Left libertarianism is what I advocate for with a balance between economic freedom and personal freedom (so like centrist or center left, or slightly right). I prefer center left democratic socialism to social democracy but Bernie/FDR centrist/social democracy policies are still good (except FDR's war stuff, hence he was more authoritarian than Bernie https://i.imgur.com/SiLgCJx.png). Bernie also wanted to stop the NSA spying powers.

Anyway, what do you mean by "cultural marxism"?

And by identity politics, I was under the impression that it meant stereotypes making you choose a party or causing divide and conquer because of those stereotypes. E.g. "feminist commie lefties and gun nut low IQ righties" and that type of nonsense that attempts to create a new, false criteria of what left and right actually mean.

And when it comes to political correctness, I see it as both a distraction and scapegoat (even though it's not entirely incorrect, it has a small point but massively overblown).

What I mean is some people are making a big deal out of it. It's only the way some people talk, it's not an actual policy and so establishment politicians can use this to get votes "vote me because I'm not politically correct" lol. It also serves as a scapegoat because people get so absorbed into PC stuff and forget real physical issues (real tangible policies) like stuff to do with poverty, education, health, etc. Political correctness gone mad (i.e. extreme political correctness) is like the brainwashed SJWs. But ANTI-political correctness is like the opposite extreme like racists, insensitive people, people who jump to conclusions, etc.

E.g. if you ask "who mostly runs the world?"

SJW/EXTREME-PC: "it's the white male patriarchy you shitlord!" (false, hypocritical, insensitive, over-emotional, establishment narrative)

ANTI-PC: "ITS DA JOOOS" (sweeping generalization thus not technically correct, insensitive, divisive)

Normal non-brainwashed person just using common sense: "the elite central bankers, corporations, wallstreet, which may include satanic Jews, political zionists and satanic catholics and Jesuits of the corrupt Vatican....something along those lines, no one knows for certain exactly" (technically correct, sensitive, not divisive at all, no generalizations, no hypocrisy, no extreme emotions).

This is common sense stuff but now politicians have tried to over-complicate it. So I view both ANTI-PC and EXTREME-PC as two shilly forces aimed at divide and conquer and confusing people. Social issues do NOT affect the elites hence I get annoyed when there's protests that do nothing. Not saying social issues aren't important, but if we ignore economic issues, the elites maintain control. "Let's protest about racism, DON'T BE RACIST, YOU RACISTS!!!" (does absolutely NOTHING). "Let's protest against the Federal Reserve as a private entity, we need to NATIONALIZE IT! Remove the power of the elite debt based banking system and Rothschild toilet paper money!" (Might actually cause a big change if enough people understand the message and follow.)

I do agree that we're all equal but also all different (I don't follow that SJW crap about gender being 100% a social construct, what a load of crap) and of course nationality and race do exist but I don't let it define me per se. Like there's a difference between nationalism ("I want what's best for my fellow countrymen") and extreme nationalism "IMA wave this flag, f*ck the other shithole countries!!".

Globalism is also naturally extreme because of the risk of the elites turning the planet into a NWO one world government dictatorship.

I don't know what SJWs have been telling you lol.

You make me hate the "center left" now too.

Why lol? It's not even full socialism.

My first post on Reddit so please be patient.......

This was best laid out (in my humble opinion) by W. Cleon Skousen in The Five Thousand Year Leap: 28 Great Ideas That Changed the World. ISBN 0-9815596-6-2

“Part I: The Founders’ Monumental Task

What is Left? What is Right?

What Is Left? What Is Right? It is extremely unfortunate that the writers on political philosophy today have undertaken to measure various issues in terms of political parties instead of political power. No doubt the American Founding Fathers would have considered this modern measuring stick most objectionable, even meaningless.

Today, as we mentioned, it is popular in the classroom as well as the press to refer to "Communism on the left," and "Fascism on the right." People and parties are often called "Leftist," or "Rightist." The public do not really understand what they are talking about.

These terms actually refer to the manner in which the various parties are seated in the parliaments of Europe. The radical revolutionaries (usually the Communists) occupy the far left and the military dictatorships (such as the Fascists) are on the far right. Other parties are located in between.

Measuring people and issues in terms of political parties has turned out to be philosophically fallacious if not totally misleading. This is because the platforms or positions of political parties are often superficial and structured on shifting sand. The platform of a political party of one generation can hardly be recognized by the next. Furthermore, Communism and Fascism turned out to be different names for approximately the same thing ~ the police state. They are not opposite extremes but, for all practical purposes, are virtually identical.

The American Founding Fathers Used a More Accurate Yardstick

Government is defined in the dictionary as "a system of ruling or controlling," and therefore the American Founders measured political systems in terms of the amount of coercive power or systematic control which a particular system of government exercises over its people. In other words, the yardstick is not political parties, but political power.

Using this type of yardstick, the American Founders considered the two extremes to be anarchy on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. At the one extreme of anarchy there is no government, no law, no systematic control and no governmental power, while at the other extreme there is too much control, too much political oppression, too much government. Or, as the Founders called it, "tyranny."

The object of the Founders was to discover the "balanced center" between these two extremes. They recognized that under the chaotic confusion of anarchy there is "no law," whereas at the other extreme the law is totally dominated by the ruling power and is therefore "Ruler's Law." What they wanted to establish was a system of "People's Law," where the government is kept under the control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people.”

I want to add emphasis to one sentence in the above excerpt.... “They are not opposite extremes but, for all practical purposes, are virtually identical.” Skousen wrote this in the 70’s and I believe this is what we are still seeing right now in America.

Nice first post

This is not about 'The Founders', this is just the political and social philosophy which was being discussed at the time. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes covered all this this 100 years before anyone even thought of having a United States.

The mythologising of American political figures is ridiculous. They're treated like deities, which I find rather dangerous.

I think it’s applicable to the question asked - right vs left defined. The reality is it’s a magicians trick (if politicians were magicians) to distract us. They are waving something shiny with their left hand while they stab us in the back with the right hand.

There’s no difference between the two main political parties. It’s a poorly orchestrated charade and I think we the people follow along with giving them what they want quite nicely.

I absolutely agree. I just get a bit disturbed by the way politics is so 'religious' in America. The men who founded the country are treated like deities by so many. They were just men. It's all part of that same distraction.

Since FDR passed.

I would posit that FDR realized that without a bandaid that the existing order would crumble. He was very much a member of American aristocracy and a natural defender of it. Some of America's financial elite railed against the New Deal but in the long run the improvements to the US's infrastructure opened markets that were meager or non-existent.

He was also trying to stave off a very active communist/socialist movement that was in reaction to the depression.

Might as well say there has never been a left wing government in the world. Left wing isn't even real. Seriously what the fuck are you talking about?

Why don't you learn to participate in civil discourse like grownups?

There's no debating someone that believes there is no left in america. Like I said, why not just say left doesn't exist. What the fuck are you talking about, man? Sorry if you get offended by cuss words, but that doesn't mean I'm not being civil. I didn't personally attack you.

Defend your comment or get off your high horse.

There's nothing wrong with cursing when it's appropriate.

I'm pretty sure I have neither said nor intimated that there is no Left in the US.

Why don't you make a counter assertion and see if maybe my conception of what a left-wing government might be and if it is in line with what your definition is?

I even laid down my definition of Leftism in another response in this thread if that helps.

Yeah that does help. My apologies, I didn't see that you had defined it. Just a bunch of conspiracy nuts talking like there isn't a single individual in government and its all completely controlled.

Okay let get into this then. Because I describe the same as left thinks people can not be tasked with the responsibility of life thus more government is needed to help the little guy, where as right is about take fucking responsibility for your life thus small government.

Leftism is a tendency towards the belief that the bounty of the Earth is the common possession

This doesn't sound left. They want to limit our effect on the earth. This one seems pretty right wing. Where is this called left in the world. Can you give and example?

goal of society should be the development of its members in order to contribute to the betterment

This part seems super left. Exactly what I described.

Right-wing thought is that society tends towards decadence.

Negative. That's not how I would say it. The right believe that people can be evil and often are but not that it comes about naturally. Only that desperate times calls for Desperate Measures..

Therefore, the ideal society or government is one that defends...

No governments job is to keep you safe and that's about it.

This post was 100% solely for karma. I hope you got what you wanted

It's a self post though.

Any type of manipulative, behind the scenes strategy is a conspiracy. The only difference from on to the next is how they are reported.

Trumps entire Russia scandal is a conspiracy theory. Doesn't mean it's not a true theory, but a conspiracy nonetheless. Uranium one is the same. It started as a conspiracy theory and now is looking more like an actual conspiracy.

Sorry, that was the point I was trying to make, that dismissing one theory by throwing around "conspiracy theorists" or "tinfoil hats" to discredit the it while embracing other narratives shows an inherent bias and attempt to push one viewpoint over another. Says more about what someone wants you to think rather than what is true or false to dismiss certain theories and embrace others.

In case anyone doesn't feel like digging around google to find the information that has been claimed in this thread, but which wasn't given any sources, here you go:

The term "conspiracy theory" was used for many years. Perhaps the first usage was in 1870. However, rather than saying the CIA "weaponized" the term after the JFK assassination, I think it would be more accurate to say the CIA put forward a plan to "debunk" conspiracy theories using psychological operations techniques and things of that nature. They wanted to discredit conspiracy theorists.

CIA Document 1035-960

Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

Here is something that is a little more recent. I don't think the government would admit to this if they went through with it, but an Obama Administration official had written a report in 2008 (before joining Obama) saying that the government should "cognitively infiltrate" conspiracy theorist groups, chat rooms, etc.

Sunstein was the head of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs until last year, when he returned to teaching at Harvard Law School.

As one of our intrepid commenters pointed out yesterday, while at Harvard in 2008, Sunstein co-authored a working paper that suggests government agents or their allies "cognitively infiltrate" conspiracy theorist groups by joining "chat rooms, online social networks or even real-space groups" and influencing the conversation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/23/obama-pick-for-nsa-review-panel-wanted-paid-pro-government-shills-in-chat-rooms/

The MSM propagates the lie that what many people already think is the case shouldn't in fact be thought at all. They convince the public that what "those noisy negativist conspiracy theorists say is nothing but hogwash" even though a lot of what the folks in this sub say turns out to be more valid than not.

It's a war going on - and information war between th lies that TPTB peddle over and over, and what your own logic and critical thinking show you is the truth.

We shouldn't depend on Assange or Snowden or whoever. Each and every one of us as individuals needs to hold the torch of responsibility ourselves where it regards bringing these deviants to task.

Oh well

Completely understand and agree.

I have a theory that this was invented post WW1. The mass brain wash had concluded by the end of WW2. I don't mean to offend.

Operation Mockingbird: the CIA program to control the dissemination of news through MSM.

No nations? What do you mean by that? England France Spain and Portugal were their own countries way before 1700 unless I don't understand.

Nice first post

Why don't you learn to participate in civil discourse like grownups?

This is not about 'The Founders', this is just the political and social philosophy which was being discussed at the time. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes covered all this this 100 years before anyone even thought of having a United States.

The mythologising of American political figures is ridiculous. They're treated like deities, which I find rather dangerous.