Beyond Left & Right

The terms Left and Right are becoming increasingly obsolete as a way to accurately describe reality.

There is a reason why the Modern Left scoff at the idea that the BBC is Left wing biased, and insist it is too Right wing, much to our astonishment.

There is a reason why the Modern Left scoff every time we use the term Cultural Marxism to define the historic roots of their ideology, and ask us what it is. It is because the vast majority of them have never read or studied Cultural Marxism. They don't have to. All they have to do is go to university and breath in the air. As Marx himself astutely observed you can always tell when a belief system, a world-view becomes so entrenched and victoriously hegemonic, when its adherents deny its existence.

"Liberalism" is far more extreme than Cultural Marxism, Liberalism is Cultural Marxism on steroids. The reason that there is no outside the box is this:

The Modern Left scoff every time you use the term 'Cultural Marxism' because you're incapable of debating without accusing the left of being mind-controlled.



Explain how liberalism is 'extreme', without using an exaggerated straw-man version of it.

Most of us understand the importance of free speech. However, you seem to be under the impression that anyone who espouses far-right views is automatically locked up or silenced as soon as they express them. This obviously isn't the case. The 'far-right' are allowed to express their views. The only problem is that not many of them are capable of doing so without talking ****.

If it were true, as you claim, that 'the mainstream Conservative / and Left political elite perceive no enemies to the Left of them', we would be living in an actual communist state.

Did you think that no one would notice the way you've cherry-picked and exaggerated certain aspects of left-wing and far-right ideology in a crude attempt to make people believe that the latter is better? Try and be a bit more objective; no one's going to fall for this bull****.

All I ever see the far-right do on this forum is criticise left-wing ideology and political correctness without going into detail about their views and their proposals. The reason for this, I presume, is that even they realise that they can't justify certain aspects of their ideology.

We say you are mind-controlled because you are so full of contradictions that you cannot even explain.

E.g. Gay marriage is good for Christianity but not Islam. Everyone can have a homeland except for white European people and European nationalists are evil but African nationalists like ANC / Mandella are good. European history is evil and non-European history is good. Biological differences don't exist between groups when statistical analysis proves that they do etc. etc.

If I said that a box was red, and then the same box was black, you with a serious face, you would say I was either hypnotised or mind controlled also.

The lefts members in the education government, civil service, mass-media, etc. all act this way.

The left often behaves like rabid fascists wanting to try and "shame" or harm people it disagrees with. Many on the left want to literally destroy those who disagree with them e.g. Get them sacked from their jobs.

Again we are not met with rational debate, we are met with vehement disagreement often not backed up with reasonable debate but only reactions, smearing, labels etc.

The left often behaves like rabid fascists wanting to try and "shame" or harm people it disagrees with. Many on the left want to literally destroy those who disagree with them e.g. Get them sacked from their jobs.

We say you are mind-controlled because you are so full of contradictions that you cannot even explain.

E.g. Gay marriage is good for Christianity but not Islam. Everyone can have a homeland except for white European people and European nationalists are evil but African nationalists like ANC / Mandella are good. European history is evil and non-European history is good. Biological differences don't exist between groups when statistical analysis proves that they do etc. etc.

You keep saying this over and over again. It's actually pretty easy to explain the apparent "contradictions"; they aren't actually true. They're just obvious straw men you keep parrotting as if you're *ahem* mind controlled.

1. No-one says that gay marriage is only good for Christianity. Any religious organisation can choose to perform gay weddings; except, funnily enough, the Church of England. Which is Christian.

2. White European people can, and have, homelands. What you want is *exclusive* homelands for white people. No-one says that anyone, wherever they are from, are entitled to that.

3. No-one says "European history is evil" either, nor that "non-european history is good". There are good and bad bits from everywhere. What you probably want is a superficial, jingoistic Macaulay history, which just treats Britain as some kind of God-like race of superheroes benevolently civilising the rest of humanity.

The truth is that you say anyone who disagrees with you (whether or not they are actually left wing) is "mind controlled" because your intellect is so limited you can't actually have a rational debate with them.

So why are all the stated "reforms" about the Church not the Mosque? Did Pussy Riot do their silly dance in a church or Mosque? Do "activists" target Christianity and the Church or Mosques? Do politicians have discussions on the news about "reform of the religion" with church leaders or Imams?

Name me one group that promotes a homeland for white people that is not referred by by the establishment and the media as scum bags? Can it really be the case that there is not a single group prompting a white homeland who are not "scumbags"?

Ask many British people "are you proud to be white" and they will give you a strange look at best and often say that they are not because they have a history of oppression. From an early age people have it drilled into them that they are responsible for former oppression in the form of slavery, colonisation, racism etc. however what they are being accused of is the same thing that every culture historically does. The idea of "white pride" is seen as something perverse while black African pride is seen as excellent.

The reforms are in relation to all religions, as I said above. And only the Church of England - Christian - is prohibited from performing gay weddings, as I said above. Read the statute.



As I said above, white Europeans already have homelands. The "scumbag" groups you are referring to are asking for an exclusive homeland for white Europeans. As I said above, no-one is entitled to that, no matter what colour they are.



Ask most British people "are you proud to be white?" and they'll probably say "I don't really care". There's not really much to be proud of by trying to relate yourself to the achivements of others just because they happen to share the same skin colour as you and <0.5% of your DNA.

Am I proud to have gone to the same school as Horatio Nelson? Yes. Am I proud to have the same hair colour as him (before he went grey of course)? Hardly.

I have not read the bill but I know what is in people's minds by the words they say. Most of the people for this do not want to go into a Sikh temple or Mosque and start dictating what needs to change about the religion. At a wedding a priest said how he did not like the reforms and how even freedom of speech was threatened and the guests privately scoffed at his comments. This would have never happened in a Mosque or a Sikh temple. The guests had been pelted with propaganda from the BBC for years to make them react like this, but the Muslims and Sikhs will not have.

Very few far right groups ask for a homeland exclusively for white British people. Some want to stop mass immigration and some like the Traditional Britain Group want the voluntary repatriation of millions of foreigners. This is no different to the free Tibet movement wanting the Chinese immigration out of Tibet or the ANC wanting Africa for the Africans, or the movement for the people of Chiapas. I think the white left always want to try to use absolutes to discredit their own loyal people.

The term far-right is a propagandistic creation of the left. In my view the people of the left are quite gullible and lose themselves in their own rhetoric.

The term far-right may in some instances refer to some people with some highly extremist ideas, but very very rarely. In the vast majority of cases, it refers to anyone with the principles that were ordinary in society before 1950. e.g. that Britain should keep itself primarily white British, have a high standard of education, have people work for their own living, balance the books, keep things functional as opposed to post-modern urban decay.

The attitude of the left is how dare anyone white, in a white country dare to propagate an ethnic white interest among other ideas which are concerned with their own nation, race, culture,
the family etc.. It's Xenophobic, racist, homophobic, supremacist, male chauvinist etc. (But these things are good for non-Westerners e.g. the ANC in Africa, and Africa for the Africans)

In a British company today, people follow "X" ideas because they are pumped and pumped into the social space, but if you ask people privately, they say that they do not believe in them.

The only people who believe in them are nutty left field professors who have no common sense and can only think in terms of a set of written material that they are prescribed. This is like the Soviet professors just before the fall of Soviet Communism saying "There is no precedent for this in our books....Soviet Communism is great and it will always be here." days before the Berlin Wall collapsed.

Left field mad professors can only see their "X" theory books, and cannot see for example that the West is in a state of crisis, that the West is going bankrupt, that America has 16 trillion dollars of national debt increasing at one or two trillion a year, that the society is being dysfunctional, that welfare has become the norm for many parts of society. That Somalians come to this country just for benefits, that multiculturalism brings dysfunctional society and loss of trust between people (if you compare with 1940s and 1950s society) etc. etc. The left field professor will just say "My manuals tell me that this is a beautiful society of social justice, equality and diversity."

These views are now enforced in a kind of Orwellian sense. Political correctness is enforced in a kind of Orwellian sense. We have news articles about non-PC tweets and twitters that people make. People can lose their job for being non-PC.

Any attempt for someone to think in a mature way and to sort this country out is portrayed as a beast by the "X" influenced media. There is no maturity, there are only screaming children in the bodies of adults, the children who never grew up running this country and in the state institutions. The answer is to purge these people as opposed to Adjusting ourselves to conform, and that is why anyone with any maturity should embrace what is known as the "far-right".

I have not read the bill but I know what is in people's minds by the words they say. Most of the people for this do not want to go into a Sikh temple or Mosque and start dictating what needs to change about the religion. At a wedding a priest said how he did not like the reforms and how even freedom of speech was threatened and the guests privately scoffed at his comments. This would have never happened in a Mosque or a Sikh temple. The guests had been pelted with propaganda from the BBC for years to make them react like this, but the Muslims and Sikhs will not have.

Very few far right groups ask for a homeland exclusively for white British people. Some want to stop mass immigration and some like the Traditional Britain Group want the voluntary repatriation of millions of foreigners. This is no different to the free Tibet movement wanting the Chinese immigration out of Tibet or the ANC wanting Africa for the Africans, or the movement for the people of Chiapas. I think the white left always want to try to use absolutes to discredit their own loyal people.

The term far-right is a propagandistic creation of the left. In my view the people of the left are quite gullible and lose themselves in their own rhetoric.

The term far-right may in some instances refer to some people with some highly extremist ideas, but very very rarely. In the vast majority of cases, it refers to anyone with the principles that were ordinary in society before 1950. e.g. that Britain should keep itself primarily white British, have a high standard of education, have people work for their own living, balance the books, keep things functional as opposed to post-modern urban decay.

The attitude of the left is how dare anyone white, in a white country dare to propagate an ethnic white interest among other ideas which are concerned with their own nation, race, culture,
the family etc oppress others and disregard their rights under the pretense of promoting 'white interests'

.. It's Xenophobic, racist, homophobic, supremacist, male chauvinist etc. (But these things are good for non-Westerners e.g. the ANC in Africa, and Africa for the Africans)

In a British company today, people follow "X" ideas because they are pumped and pumped into the social space, but if you ask people privately, they say that they do not believe in them. The only people who believe in them are nutty left field professors who have no common sense and can only think in terms of a set of written material that they are prescribed. This is like the Soviet professors just before the fall of Soviet Communism saying "There is no precedent for this in our books....Soviet Communism is great and it will always be here." days before the Berlin Wall collapsed. Left field mad professors can only see their "X" theory books, and cannot see for example that the West is in a state of crisis, that the West is going bankrupt, that America has 16 trillion dollars of national debt increasing at one or two trillion a year, that the society is being dysfunctional, that welfare has become the norm for many parts of society. That Somalians come to this country just for benefits, that multiculturalism brings dysfunctional society and loss of trust between people (if you compare with 1940s and 1950s society) etc. etc. The left field professor will just say "My manuals tell me that this is a beautiful society of social justice, equality and diversity."

These views are now enforced in a kind of Orwellian sense. Political correctness is enforced in a kind of Orwellian sense. We have news articles about non-PC tweets and twitters that people make. People can lose their job for being non-PC.

Any attempt for someone to think in a mature way and to sort this country out is portrayed as a beast by the "X" influenced media. There is no maturity, there are only screaming children in the bodies of adults, the children who never grew up running this country and in the state institutions. The answer is to purge these people as opposed to Adjusting ourselves to conform, and that is why everyone should embrace what is known as the "far-right" turn into racist, sexist, homophobic degenerates.

It is because the political centre has gone whizzing by over to the far Left (anti-Nationalist/anti-West/anti-nativist) from a cultural perspective sinces the 60's, that the only way to attack it is from a nationalistic patriotic nativist perspective.

So why did you spout that rubbish about the reforms only applying to the church?



The only reason they're not asking for a homeland exclusively for white people is because they're trying to soften their image for purposes of gaining popularity. Luckily, the public can see past this nonsense.



Funnily enough, this describes you almost perfectly, Nick. Although, I would add that you're mentally ill. I mean, why else would you make scores of accounts on TSR in a pathetic attempt to turn the users into white nationalists? Lets not forget the fact that you've used multiple accounts to agree with your own posts. It's really sad and pathetic, as well as hypocritical.



Yes. pre-1950s Britain was a perfect society, wasn't it?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



The people who support these movements are no less degenerative than the far right, if that makes you happy.



This isn't even worth a reply. It's that stupid.




I took the liberty of fixing that last sentence for you.

So your supposed evidence for Christians being required to support gay marriage and Muslims not being is a wedding you heard of where the guests "privately scoffed" at the priest's disapproving comments, but, you assume, that "would never have happened in a mosque or Sikh temple". I don't share your mind reading gift, I'm afraid, so you'll understand if I treat your opinion masquerading as fact with some scepticism.

Groups like the TBG asking for the "voluntary repatriation of foreigners" (newspeak for the forcible deportation of non-whites) are very different from the free Tibet movement. Free Tibet does not call for the deportation of Chinese immigrants- it calls for the right to self government for Tibetans. Not the same thing, but yet another of your immature strawman supposed double standards.

The remainder of your post is just cut and paste from someone else's response (or more probably your own) on another forum- it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Oh, and I suggest you actually read the Gay Marriage Act, rather than just making up what you'd like it to say.

The way things are drafted in law and designed to be used are not the same thing. Laws plus prejudice equals the outcome. The prejudice is clearly in favour of changing Christianity not other religions.

You say that you need to roll your eyes to a comment that society was better before 1950. A recent TV programme did an experiment putting people on benefits onto the 1949 benefits system and while the claimants said that it was a harsher regime, most said that they got a better outcome from it. A better outcome for the claimant and the nation.

Why is there a usual reaction of saying that any changes since the Second World War are for the better?

Do you have an article or footage of a UK politician addressing an Imam or Mosque to discuss gay marriage in Islam?

You say that the "voluntary repatriation of foreigners" is newspeak for the forcible deportation of non-whites. Voluntary means just that, a policy of limiting non white people coming into the country to what is absolutely required and certainly no benefits people and incentives for non whites who have not assimilated into the country to leave. Why would you not want communities that are living in the ways of other cultures living in enclaves to go back. That's surely not a terrible oppressive idea and it would make this country stronger in its identity and stop people feeling that it is being changed beyond recognition. Surely that's a good thing.

Christianity is more culturally significant in this country than any of the other religions, so naturally, there will be more pressure on Christianity. However, the law applies to other religions too.



Pre-1950's Britain was better because its benefits system was supposedly better? Should we just forget about capital punishment, or the oppression of women?



Because they are, if you value egalitarianism and individual freedoms.

Women have never been oppressed. They have always received preferential treatment in Western society. How many homeless women are there compared to homeless men?



"Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an 'equality' in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot... In an attempt to 'dumb down' all students to the lowest common denominator, today's educators no longer promote excellence and students of superior ability... Imagine the following Academy Award ceremony. There are no awards for best picture or best actor. Instead, every picture gets a certificate and every actor receives a prize. That is not an awards ceremony, you say? So it isn't. But it is an egalitarian's dream -- and an achiever's torment. Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak... What would happen to a Thomas Edison today? If he survived school with his mind intact, he would be shackled by government regulators. His wealth would be confiscated by the IRS. He would be accused of 'unfair competition' for inventing so many more products than his competitors."

Gary Hull

You're the one who made the claim that only Christianity is being forced to accept gay marriage, so you're the one who has to provide the evidence for it I'm afraid. Which will be difficult, given that - I've now said this three times - Christianity is the only religion that is expressly prohibited from performing gay marriage.



Sorry, what? "Repatriation" = "limiting the number of non-white people coming into the country"? Doesn't "repatriation" mean sending people back to "their own" countries? The "re" and the "patriation" are the clues there.

Why would you want to live in a country that kicks people out because it feels like it? It might make the country stronger if there were no poor people, or elderly people, or anyone who doesn't currently contribute to the economy - would you send everyone away who doesn't contribute, or just non-whites? Why not white British people who don't contribute?

Yes correct. Repatriation would mean going to the non-white communities that are not at all integrated into British society and offering financial incentives to emigrate. The rationale is that there is a far too high proportion of such communities in the UK. Why would you object to that?

There is a big problem with native British people who refuse to work and just laze around on benefits, who are becoming increasingly thick and uninformed and dysfunctional. Many of them can't even for example run their own households or manage their money. The benefits system has created this. These people need to be shown tough love, have their benefits removed if they don't take a job. There is also the problem with the "MTV" generation thinking that they are going to be superstars, models etc. and therefore refusing what is actually realistic to them. The state should not support their delusions. They should not however be thrown out of the country. It is illogical and again a spirit of kinship. The comparison is like throwing your son out if the house versus throwing out a foreign visitor.

I get the impression that one of the biggest problems in this country is that liberal principle gets in the say of sensible actions. There is no perfect methodology. One needs to aim for the best outcomes and not expect every individual outcome to be perfect.

For example the law to pay maternity pay is ridiculous for small hotel owners. They simply avoid hiring young women because they simply cannot afford it if they get pregnant. But we still have this law.

Presumably you think that cracking down on British society would be oppressive. Why aren't you speaking out about the oppression and suffering that a falsely justified attack of Syria will create by the same people sponsoring its terrorist rebel army? Why is it so important to argue with the social right wing in this country while not speaking about that?