3 ms·
> Plus, left wing is by definition a movement that opposes the current power hierarchies in society. Look it up on Wikipedia. A foolish movement that doesn't r
by core-questions 7y ago
> Plus, left wing is by definition a movement that opposes the current power hierarchies in society. Look it up on Wikipedia.
A foolish movement that doesn't recognize that power and competency hierarchies are endemic to nature and are a part of any human organization. The moment the current system is torn down, the rhetoric of the Left fails as it offers no actual method towards constructing anything meaningful - this is left to men who actually build and maintain things, who all recognize the fundamental nature of the hierarchy if anything is to actually be accomplished. A few years after every leftist revolution, there's a shittier version of the same basic hierarchy in place, equality is never achieved, and as many people starve as before.
> none of the people you would call totalitarian liberals are left wing at all
Agreed, they're just the left-side position in the false dichotomy. And probably none of the people you'd consider "right wing" are at all right wing by the standards of the real right, they're just the right-side of the same dichotomy, established to prevent anyone from actually upsetting the applecart in the name of real change.
> They would absolutely support a fascist coup if it was their only way to keep their money, power and influence.
So would just about every normal working class citizen, if they had the opportunity and if the populist values were sufficiently representative of their own. The problem is that fascism has been grossly misrepresented as simply being totalitarianism, when it is actually an ethos and aesthetic towards the upward construction of a nation in the interest of its families that is (obviously) considered undesirable by globalists.