Healing the Left
1. Surface: crazyiness, confrontational activism, refusal to converse, alienating potential allies,
Lefties have been making the mistake of condemning people too quickly, refusing to listen tothem defend themselves, so not being able to hearthatthey're not bigots, and so a cycle (pic)
People's moral stature is supposed to be determined by their actions and choices.
But in identitarianism, it's determined simply by who the person is.
Moral quality of an action is no longer based on the action itself, but on who is doing it towhom. Any action done by a good person to a bad person is a moral action, and any action done by a bad person to a good person is an immoral action. That's it.
So postmodernism is a Reality interface pattern that arose out of technocracy. Technocracy wants people in a machine consc bc that lays the vibrational groundwork for doing further work to buiod the techno world. Vibration determines structure. Machine consc leads to tech world faster.
Postmodernism lacks any central set of principles, and so, absent any principles on which to build a shared society, people have nothing to latch onto for meaning except their demographic identity - their physical characteristics - the basest, rawest, lowest common denominator on which to build identity. That's ttibalism.
The main mistakes:
1. Confrontational Activism
A. Social disruption
B. Repetition over engagement
C. Ostracism of opponents
which comes from:
2. Tribalism: Identity over principle
which comes from:
3. Postmodernism: Rejection of objective truth
which comes from:
A. Glorification of computers
B. Deification of tech gurus
C. Scorn for rural life
D. Alienation from the natural world
It's a chain of causation, with Technocracy the most basic culprit.
In the style of Master Yoda:
"Technocracy leads to postmodernism,
postmodernism leads to tribalism
tribalism leads to confrontational activism
and confrontational activism leads to irrelevance."
That's what happened to the modern Left Wing.
The main solutions:
1. Heart-Oriented Activism
A. Social integration
B. Engagement over repetition
C. Edification of opponents
2. Universalism: Principle over identity
3. Recognition of objectivity
4. Return to Nature
from Confrontational Activism
to Heart-Oriented Activism
The Left has been using a dualistic strategy of inter-group warfare to advance its ideals. The strategy looks like this:
1. Find people who already agree with you
2. Gather them together and form into a tribe
3. Establish a collective "us-vs-them" identity
4. Use ritualistic behavior (chanting, marching, sloganeering, signs, mass-produced symbols and memes, in-group terminology) to solidify the identity
5. Reinforce the duality between the in-group and the out-group by shunning the out-group and refusing to socialize with them
6. To to war with the out-group, and conquer them by convincing people to denounce and condemn them
7. Victory is achieved when so many people denounce and condemn the "bad guys" that the bad guys retreat out of mainstream society and hide in a dark place, out of sight and out of hearing. That's "victory."
In a nutshell: Find allies, and then conquer enemies.
But that's sooooooo third-density. It reads like the playbook from a religious inquisition.
The Left started doing this in the 1960's, and it worked back then - and so it's assumed to still work now. But it doesn't, because we live in a different environment now. The energies are different, and society has evolved. Shouting over someone is no longer an effective way to change their mind.
This isn't the 1900's anymore.
We are evolving to a higher vibration - a more heart-oriented society, and only structures aligned with the frequency of love will be viable. Strategies from the old civilization won't work in the new one.
We all - especially those of us on the Left - claim we want the New Civilization, based on peace, love, and understanding. And if we want it, we have to BE it.
Be Congruent - no hypocrisy. Reinforcing the dualistic attitudes of the past doesn't help to bring in the unity of the future.
So here's the strategy we need now:
1. Seek out people who don't agree with you
2. Befriend them and start a dialogue with them
3. Listen to them to gain their trust
4. Teach them about your ideas and beliefs, explaining the logic behind your beliefs so that they gain a new understanding.
In a nutshell: Find enemies, and turn them into allies!
So find the ignorant, and edify them, so that they're no longer ignorant, but woke.
And in doing so, you just created an ally.
No white community, no black community,
No LGBT community, no straight community.
No more fragmentation.
No more atomization.
There is only ONE community: ALL of us.
You are a member of the human race. You are a resident of Planet Earth. You are an Earthling. You are a member of the Community of Life.
We have some serious problems to fix here on this planet. Some of them threaten the very continuity of Life itself. We can't afford to be fighting against each other.
The fragmentation of humanity into separate communities based on race, class, sex, bedroom preferences, and other egoic identities, is an age-old strategy of divide-and-conquer. By keeping us divided and squabbling with one another, the defenders of the status quo keep us from turning our eyes to the true enemy - ignorance - which knows no race or sex.
This strategy was used by politicians in the Jim Crow south. There were plenty of impoverished white people back then, too - but when convinced that black people were their enemy, they did nothing to truly improve their situation, and the status-quo didn't change. Likewise, this strategy is being used again, today - but in reverse. Black people are being told that white people are their enemy, and women are being told that men are their enemy. It's divide-and-conquer, all over again, and the only people who benefit are those who are attached to the status-quo, who don't want change or evolution.
It's all too common now for a conversation to begin with statements such as:
"I'm a _____ and I think..."
"Speaking as a _____, I believe..."
"What" we are shouldn't matter. Our race, sex, religion, nationality, origins, and bedroom preferences shouldn't matter when engaging in rational debate. Of course, these characteristics do shape our experiences, and hence, they shape our beliefs. But that's a given. It's already an obvious fact that a person's experiences affect their thinking. We don't need to reiterate it. All that does is separate us into tribal divisions which is the opposite of what the world needs now. Our planet desperately needs unity.
There's a trend now for people of color to identify with their color - to single out the amount of melanin in their skin as the defining characteristic of who they are as a person. And that's exactly what KKK members and Neo-Nazis do - they construct an identity out of their skin color. Just like some people of color are now doing!
And even worse, some people are now being told that their feelings and opinions matter less, due to their characteristics. Women are dismissing the opinions of a man as "mansplaining", and thus shut down debate without evaluating his arguments. It's also common for a person of color to shut down a white person as "whitesplaining." There's also "straightsplaining", "cissplaining", and other types of "XYZ-splaining."
The message behind these terms is simple: "I don't care about your opinions, because you are a _____ (insert race, sex, etc.)."
Which is precisely what the KKK would say to black people, and precisely what Archie Bunker would say to women. It's that, all over again. The Left has come full circle, and become the stale, close-minded Right of yesteryear.
Of course, some opinions are more valid than others, especially if the person sharing it has more experience in the topic in question. For example, a white person surely knows less about anti-black prejudice than a black person, because s/he hasn't lived it directly. But his/her (possibly under-informed) opinion must still be debated (and if necessary, debunked) on its merits (or lack thereof), through rational discourse - through logical evaluation - and NOT simply by dismissing the person who's sharing it.
The invocation of "XYZ-splaining" dismisses the person, while doing nothing at all to dismiss their argument. After dismissing them, their argument still stands, because it hasn't been debunked yet. It hasn't even been addressed. And, due to the effects of ostracism (explained above), it goes off somewhere, and festers and grows.
How can the Left - the side that's traditionally led the struggle to end racial and sexual discrimination and prejudice - now be encouraging that very same behavior? How can the side of inclusion now be pushing the atomization of humanity into categories, and saddling each group with different expectations of conduct? This is pure hypocrisy, and it's a prime cause of the Left's loss of credibility in recent years.