What Political Values do you Align With Most?

[Blessed2]

Acknowledging jealousy in regard to the super rich was a life-changing insight for me. That's one thing I noticed left-leaning folk are not fully taking in account.

 

I can give a very specific example. My girlfriend is left, in 'Murica terms she would be very, very left. At one point, when I acknowledged the jealousy and came clear & expressed my desire to be wealthy, she didn't like that at all. She said to be rich is automatically synonymous with oppressing others. Being rich & making wealth is stealing other people's labour.

 

We actually had quite a serious argument on that and she felt like I had changed and she wasn't sure if she can be with a person like that, who wants to be wealthy.

 

She said stuff like seeking material wealth is anti-spiritual, money is the root of all evil, she was shocked and repulsed at the material goals I was setting. She said I was a victim of capitalist conditioning. 😁

 

I tried to explain that I was simply feeling alignment and that in feeling it could not be more clear how my alignment & happiness isn't in the way of others' happiness, but that in fact my happiness will overflow and benefit everyone. That is VERY clear in feeling. She didn't acknowledge that. 🤷

 

The left / stage green is great in that emotions are more taken in account, but the full power and actuality of feeling / alignment isn't recognized. And emotions are suppressed with beliefs and ideological setpoints. I think this is the root of the conformism and in/out-group vibe.

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Blessed2

[Orb]

4 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

For anyone interested, Louis Theroux's documentaries are great and interesting.

 

@Orb For example, he has a documentary on young non-binary folk and how they are treated. Have you seen that one?

 

No I haven't seen it. 

[Loop]

As the only one who put “Don’t Care” as their answer I just wanna say, these issues are highly complex systemic issues where typically both sides have truth to be taken into account. So I am not saying I have solutions, but the solutions are not to be found in one side is right & the other is wrong, but in systemic thinking. 
 

I feel the context of there being a left & a right, is already veiling to the fact that we are all co-creating, and are looking for the happiness that we already are. 

 

I would much rather focus on the root issues of trauma & repression so that we can have healthy conversations, with everyone actually present.

 

[Orb]

@Loop I can agree somewhat with this. when i look deeper into the fundamental "roots" of all the issues in the system i realize that no one actually knows the real problem/solution. 

 

I just realize there's actually a higher intelligence operating "behind the scenes" and that the system is actually perfect. Which I know might sound really crazy or messed up but yea. 

 

It's actually working out perfectly, no one's actually doing anything, it's all the universe playing out as cheesy as that may sound. 😀 

[Links]

On 8/30/2023 at 12:49 AM, Orb said:

I wish there were more right leaning people on here 😮‍💨

 

I think I must be the other one who's voted "right wing" so far. I haven't been active in the forum for a while, but this thread caught my eye when I logged back in recently. Sorry in advance for my long rant!  Like folks have said so far, right & left mean various different things. I'm not a fan of big international corporate capitalism, I'm more of a traditionalist, socially conservative rather than a free marketeer. (But I'd better qualify that by saying that my pension fund is invested in the stock market so that makes me a capitalist of sorts). 

I'm an example of that old stereotype about being left wing when I was young, and became more right wing as I got into middle age and especially when I became a dad. There's another spectrum of individualism <--> collectivism and although a certain amount of individualism is useful for freeing up creativity, it's become clear to me that the western world civilisation, and increasingly the eastern world, has lost any semblance of sustainability. Community has declined, family life is becoming more difficult leading to fertility rates below replacement and the corporate capitalists have been relying on large scale immigration from other cultures to support their need for workers, leading to the melting pot known as multiculturalism. It all seems very unstable to me. 
 

So I suppose this puts me into stage blue on the spiral, looking at what orange and green have done with our culture and wondering how we're ever going to regain a sense of stable, cohesive, sustainable  community and national unity. The modern world has all this identity politics with race, ethnicity, gender, religion etc; we are all endlessly profiled and encouraged to identify ourselves like this but when the natural consequence of in-group preference appears, there's a huge outcry about discrimination, inequality and bigotry etc.  
 
What's the logical end game of the left wing collectivists then, to dissolve the boundaries of human differences as "social constructions" and merge all identities and nations into a single global identity? If so then that's the opposite of what I want. It also comes back to how we want to collectivise. The left tries to create collective power through increasing the power of the government and other institutions become subservient. The right wants to do it through traditional structures such as religion, shared culture, family, even tribalism and keep secular government to a minimum. What I see happening is that governments which previously used to be ruling over mostly monocultural societies are trying to flex themselves to accommodate some very different cultures as society becomes multicultural. How is that affecting people's loyalty to their own country when it's all becoming a melting pot? Especially in very large countries like the US where there's such a mixture of competing interests? I don't have easy answers except to say I don't like Unions becoming too United. Perhaps the US, EU, Russia, China, even the UK would be better off radically decentralising and empowering more local democracy which fits the local culture. Just keep the Union for essential things like defence and overarching justice.  

[Devin]

1 hour ago, Links said:

 

What's the logical end game of the left wing collectivists then, to dissolve the boundaries of human differences as "social constructions" and merge all identities and nations into a single global identity? If so then that's the opposite of what I want. It also comes back to how we want to collectivise. The left tries to create collective power through increasing the power of the government and other institutions become subservient. The right wants to do it through traditional structures such as religion, shared culture, family, even tribalism and keep secular government to a minimum. What I see happening is that governments which previously used to be ruling over mostly monocultural societies are trying to flex themselves to accommodate some very different cultures as society becomes multicultural. How is that affecting people's loyalty to their own country when it's all becoming a melting pot? Especially in very large countries like the US where there's such a mixture of competing interests? I don't have easy answers except to say I don't like Unions becoming too United. Perhaps the US, EU, Russia, China, even the UK would be better off radically decentralising and empowering more local democracy which fits the local culture. Just keep the Union for essential things like defence and overarching justice.  

No, I value diversity, the richness of the diverse ethnic groups in the world, my country, and even community. What we want is peace.

 

I will say though I don't tolerate oppression or what I see as abuse in other cultures though, we are a global community as well. I'm pro choice, and support women's rights throughout the world. But if cultures don't want public displays of affection, or dress codes even different for women(so long as women are not abused), that's beautiful actually, even dictatorships let alone Monarchies, all can be done without abuse. I don't mean going to war with abusive nations though, just not trading with them, unless it turns to genocide then I support intervention, I'm pretty well onboard with the U.N. approach.

 

I'm Democratic, however the people collectively choose to govern is what I want, including all the little subsects, like communities having different rules, I like, no one wants global sameness.

 

The only reason I like federal programs in the u.s. is because of efficiency, but there's a balancing act. Our trade and movement in the u.s. is so seamless, there are no divides, where we mine or manufacture, therefore I support higher education for all the u.s., not just my state, same for welfare. We all benefit from every state so directly, therefore I support national programs. Like would you prefer blue states tarrif red state goods due to political disagreements?

 

To me right wing wants to as you say "dissolve the boundaries of human differences as "social constructions" and merge all identities and nations into a single global identity?", look at the crusades, look at Vietnam, Korea, Middle East wars, look at Russia in Ukraine, Hitler, Rome, Alexander, Khan, Hun, they want everyone to conform to their beliefs. U.S. conservatives want Christianity as the national religion, they want to ban abortion throughout the country even though there isn't even a federal law against normal murder. They want federal English requirements. They want to own the oil of the middle east, the rubber of Vietnam, they would takeover Mexico, Cuba, Canada, .... and keep going.

 

If anything leftists push us away from global dependence, take green energy for instance, the core tenet is not to sustain our consumption on windmill power, it is to reduce our consumption, push us back to more globaly INDEPENDENT primitive modalities like bicycles and gardens for instance, durable repairable heirloom goods rather than disposable one time use products.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Devin

[Orb]

21 minutes ago, Links said:

 

I think I must be the other one who's voted "right wing" so far. I haven't been active in the forum for a while, but this thread caught my eye when I logged back in recently. Sorry in advance for my long rant!  Like folks have said so far, right & left mean various different things. I'm not a fan of big international corporate capitalism, I'm more of a traditionalist, socially conservative rather than a free marketeer. (But I'd better qualify that by saying that my pension fund is invested in the stock market so that makes me a capitalist of sorts). 

I'm an example of that old stereotype about being left wing when I was young, and became more right wing as I got into middle age and especially when I became a dad. There's another spectrum of individualism <--> collectivism and although a certain amount of individualism is useful for freeing up creativity, it's become clear to me that the western world civilisation, and increasingly the eastern world, has lost any semblance of sustainability. Community has declined, family life is becoming more difficult leading to fertility rates below replacement and the corporate capitalists have been relying on large scale immigration from other cultures to support their need for workers, leading to the melting pot known as multiculturalism. It all seems very unstable to me. 
 

So I suppose this puts me into stage blue on the spiral, looking at what orange and green have done with our culture and wondering how we're ever going to regain a sense of stable, cohesive, sustainable  community and national unity. The modern world has all this identity politics with race, ethnicity, gender, religion etc; we are all endlessly profiled and encouraged to identify ourselves like this but when the natural consequence of in-group preference appears, there's a huge outcry about discrimination, inequality and bigotry etc.  
 
What's the logical end game of the left wing collectivists then, to dissolve the boundaries of human differences as "social constructions" and merge all identities and nations into a single global identity? If so then that's the opposite of what I want. It also comes back to how we want to collectivise. The left tries to create collective power through increasing the power of the government and other institutions become subservient. The right wants to do it through traditional structures such as religion, shared culture, family, even tribalism and keep secular government to a minimum. What I see happening is that governments which previously used to be ruling over mostly monocultural societies are trying to flex themselves to accommodate some very different cultures as society becomes multicultural. How is that affecting people's loyalty to their own country when it's all becoming a melting pot? Especially in very large countries like the US where there's such a mixture of competing interests? I don't have easy answers except to say I don't like Unions becoming too United. Perhaps the US, EU, Russia, China, even the UK would be better off radically decentralising and empowering more local democracy which fits the local culture. Just keep the Union for essential things like defence and overarching justice.  

Just to be clear, no one individual represents a solid spiral color, every individual is rather a blend of many different colors and the overall color they represent is what they're often labeled as. So a stage green person is actually a blend of the prior colors as well, they may just express a lot more green values so on the surface they are clearly dominantly following green values. 

 

That being said, the current generation is dominated by green/orange values yet represses blue/red/purple. 

 

What stage green people don't understand is that the only way to move to yellow is to embrace ALL of the colors and that's what they refuse to do for the most part. Tier 1 is always in conflict with itself. Tier 2 is all embracing. 

 

So we are witnessing this conflict playing out, we're actually moving into Tier 2. It just looks ugly rn lol.

[Orb]

@Links the modus operandi of all tier 1 colors is "the world would be perfect if everyone represented my color/values". 

 

Tier 2 says "The world would be better served if everyone fully integrates all of the colors/values". 

[Links]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

To me right wing wants to as you say "dissolve the boundaries of human differences as "social constructions" and merge all identities and nations into a single global identity?", look at the crusades, look at Vietnam, Korea, Middle East wars, look at Russia in Ukraine, Hitler, Rome, Alexander, Khan, Hun, they want everyone to conform to their beliefs. U.S. conservatives want Christianity as the national religion, they want to ban abortion throughout the country even though there isn't even a federal law against normal murder. They want federal English requirements. They want to own the oil of the middle east, the rubber of Vietnam, they would takeover Mexico, Cuba, Canada, .... and keep going.

 

Thanks for your reply, there's lots of issues but just to pick up on this. There's the political axis of nationalist vs imperialist, which can apply to both left and right wing.  The examples you're quoting here I'd categorise as imperialist where there's a totalitarian attempt to change other people's cultures to match their own, or to transfer wealth from 'them' to 'us'.  For example in my own country there were some people who supported the British Empire and also Little Englanders who wanted a more isolationist approach, both being on the political right.  Similarly I don't regard Hitler and the Nazis as right wing nationalists because they didn't respect the sovereignty of other nations which they invaded.  Russia is already a large empire rather than a country imo, it's simply trying to expand its empire using the Russian-ness of the eastern Ukraine people as the excuse, similar to when the Nazis moved into Austria and the Sudetenland. 

 

You say that you want peace, but I would question whether that will ever be possible in a country where multiple and incompatible cultures are rubbing up against each other and competing for their own self interest. Maybe only when one of the cultures becomes sufficiently dominant to control the others. I realise that sounds pessimistic about human nature, but I don't think we're evolved enough yet to have true equality. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Links

[Jonas Long]

5 minutes ago, Links said:

 

Thanks for your reply, there's lots of issues but just to pick up on this. There's the political axis of nationalist vs imperialist, which can apply to both left and right wing.  The examples you're quoting here I'd categorise as imperialist where there's a totalitarian attempt to change other people's cultures to match their own, or to transfer wealth from 'them' to 'us'.  For example in my own country there were some people who supported the British Empire and also Little Englanders who wanted a more isolationist approach, both being on the political right.  Similarly I don't regard Hitler and the Nazis as right wing nationalists because they didn't respect the sovereignty of other nations which they invaded.  Russia is already a large empire rather than a country imo, it's simply trying to expand its empire using the Russian-ness of the eastern Ukraine people as the excuse, similar to when the Nazis moved into Austria and the Sudetenland. 

 

You say that you want peace, but I would question whether that will ever be possible in a country where multiple and incompatible cultures are rubbing up against each other and competing for their own self interest. Maybe only when one of the cultures becomes sufficiently dominant to control the others. I realise that sounds pessimistic about human nature, but I don't think we're evolved enough yet to have true equality. 

How do you think one dominant culture controlling all the others is going to result in peace?  Enforced peace isn't exactly peace, is it? 

[Links]

1 hour ago, Orb said:

Just to be clear, no one individual represents a solid spiral color, every individual is rather a blend of many different colors and the overall color they represent is what they're often labeled as. So a stage green person is actually a blend of the prior colors as well, they may just express a lot more green values so on the surface they are clearly dominantly following green values. 

 

That being said, the current generation is dominated by green/orange values yet represses blue/red/purple. 

 

What stage green people don't understand is that the only way to move to yellow is to embrace ALL of the colors and that's what they refuse to do for the most part. Tier 1 is always in conflict with itself. Tier 2 is all embracing. 

 

So we are witnessing this conflict playing out, we're actually moving into Tier 2. It just looks ugly rn lol.

 

Thanks, and ok I'm not an expert on the spiral thing. Tho if the millennials are repressing their blue/red/purple then doesn't that mean they haven't fully lived those stages so aren't really ready to call themselves orange or whatever?  I realised a while ago that I'm kidding myself to identify with orange or green, when I used to do that in my younger life it was really a delusion. 

 

Yes it's certainly ugly at the moment - but to be fair history has been very ugly before too.  I just don't see us progressing any further up the spiral any time soon because the people/communities who arguably have reached orange or green, aren't raising enough children to replace themselves and are being repopulated by immigrants from less developed nations. No offense to anyone of whichever level of development they're in of course. 

[Orb]

6 minutes ago, Links said:

 

Thanks, and ok I'm not an expert on the spiral thing. Tho if the millennials are repressing their blue/red/purple then doesn't that mean they haven't fully lived those stages so aren't really ready to call themselves orange or whatever?  I realised a while ago that I'm kidding myself to identify with orange or green, when I used to do that in my younger life it was really a delusion. 

 

Yes it's certainly ugly at the moment - but to be fair history has been very ugly before too.  I just don't see us progressing any further up the spiral any time soon because the people/communities who arguably have reached orange or green, aren't raising enough children to replace themselves and are being repopulated by immigrants from less developed nations. No offense to anyone of whichever level of development they're in of course. 

Every individual lives through the spiral stages up until the current dominant color which is green/orange. It's just that the earlier colors tend to be repressed more than the current values. When you were a baby you experience purple/red. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Orb

[Devin]

21 minutes ago, Links said:

 

Thanks for your reply, there's lots of issues but just to pick up on this. There's the political axis of nationalist vs imperialist, which can apply to both left and right wing.  The examples you're quoting here I'd categorise as imperialist where there's a totalitarian attempt to change other people's cultures to match their own, or to transfer wealth from 'them' to 'us'.  For example in my own country there were some people who supported the British Empire and also Little Englanders who wanted a more isolationist approach, both being on the political right.  Similarly I don't regard Hitler and the Nazis as right wing nationalists because they didn't respect the sovereignty of other nations which they invaded.  Russia is already a large empire rather than a country imo, it's simply trying to expand its empire using the Russian-ness of the eastern Ukraine people as the excuse, similar to when the Nazis moved into Austria and the Sudetenland. 

 

 

Hmm, I'm trying to think of a nationalistic culture that doesn't try to take over other countries. 

21 minutes ago, Links said:

 

 

You say that you want peace, but I would question whether that will ever be possible in a country where multiple and incompatible cultures are rubbing up against each other and competing for their own self interest. Maybe only when one of the cultures becomes sufficiently dominant to control the others. I realise that sounds pessimistic about human nature, but I don't think we're evolved enough yet to have true equality. 

Could you give me an example of the rubbing up against eachother for their own self interests, I think it would require respecting the other cultures, I live in my world with a lot of people that I have huge cultural differences with and we just respect eachothers differences, learn where we can cooperate together and where we shouldn't do things together.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Devin

[Jonas Long]

2 minutes ago, Devin said:

Hmm, I'm trying to think of a nationalistic culture that doesn't try to take over other countries. 

Could you give me an example of the rubbing up against eachother for their own self interests, I think it would be required to respect the other cultures, I live in my world with a lot of people that I have huge cultural differences with and we just respect eachothers differences, learn where we can cooperate together and where we shouldn't do things together.

Honestly, it sounds like he's been listening to tim pool.  And people who talk about "replacement theory" which is essentially a racist theory that goes back forever. 

[Orb]

@Links also the human race will continue to increase in population, the sexual drive is very powerful. What makes you think people arent raising enough children? Last i checked the population globally is increasing.

[Devin]

@Links have you spent much time in large metropolitan areas? There's actually ethnic neighborhoods, and I don't just mean like ghettos or something, there's Indian neighborhoods, Middle Eastern, Italian, Cuban,.... They're adored actually, not frowned upon, it's so beautiful seeing distinct cultures, and then also coexisting in the same city. Mosques, Synagogues, Cathedrals, all around the corner from eachother, the different religious leaders coming together on shared holidays, it's so beautiful actually.

[Orb]

9 minutes ago, Devin said:

@Links have you spent much time in large metropolitan areas? There's actually ethnic neighborhoods, and I don't just mean like ghettos or something, there's Indian neighborhoods, Middle Eastern, Italian, Cuban,.... They're adored actually, not frowned upon, it's so beautiful seeing distinct cultures, and then also coexisting in the same city. Mosques, Synagogues, Cathedrals, all around the corner from eachother, the different religious leaders coming together on shared holidays, it's so beautiful actually.

Coming from someone who's lived in NYC, it is awesome and amazing.

[Devin]

50 minutes ago, Links said:

 

 

You say that you want peace, but I would question whether that will ever be possible in a country where multiple and incompatible cultures are rubbing up against each other and competing for their own self interest. Maybe only when one of the cultures becomes sufficiently dominant to control the others. I realise that sounds pessimistic about human nature, but I don't think we're evolved enough yet to have true equality. 

I'm not well versed in UK politics, I think the u.s. right is more far right, but what issues is the Right combating in the U.K.? Immigration? Yeah I wouldn't be open arms for immigration into the u.k., and I would support assimilation, the u.s. is historically a melting pot though so I see it differently here, if I was in Europe I would be more resistant to immigration. I don't support mass migration of refugees, if you get that many they should be staying and fighting for their country.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Devin

[Links]

3 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

How do you think one dominant culture controlling all the others is going to result in peace?  Enforced peace isn't exactly peace, is it? 

 

Yes, there's different types of peace from the absence of physical conflict, all the way to psychological harmony and trust/kindness between people. But I reckon politics can only get us so far along this line, usually it tries enforce physical peace through physical/material means. 

[Devin]

3 minutes ago, Links said:

 

Yes, there's different types of peace from the absence of physical conflict, all the way to psychological harmony and trust/kindness between people. But I reckon politics can only get us so far along this line, usually it tries enforce physical peace through physical/material means. 

Yeah politics isn't what brings peace, it just sets an operating framework, there is still required grace and morality by the individuals.