Orwell called out the marxists for intentionally altering language to limit the scope of peoples' thought

Orwell called out the marxists for intentionally altering language to limit the scope of peoples' thought.

The only way to protect yourself from this newspeak is to use words correctly.

Here are the original definitions of a few political terms:

"Left" refers to constitutionals (pic related)
"Right" refers to absolute monarchists (pic related)
"Liberal" refers to center-left groups such as paleoconservatives.
"Marxism", "Fasicism"/"Corporate Syndicalism", "Anarcho-Capitalism", and "National Socialism" are not ideologies that fit into the right/left spectrum. They must be each be considered seperately.

Other urls found in this thread:

www(.)hollywoodreporter(.)com/news/dark-side-monaco-uncovered-murder-793697
archive.is/eukeu
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Political thought isn't a flat line.

Good point. Modern left-wing, right-wing designations are literal nonsense phantasms. They can mean a number of things depending on a number of different definitions.

Of course, but the definitions of Left/Right are a flat line descibing a few ideologies specific to 1700s France

Marxists have redefined political in an attempt to redefine the limits of political thought

Wait why is monarchy more right wing than traditionalism?

its not

Traditionalism seems pretty vague

Then your pic is not accurate

It seems like fundamental theocracy to me, unaware of the intellectual foundation to the ideology.

The pic shows traditionalism farther right than monarchy

We don't live in the same political landscape of then. The left and right are not what they once were.

A caste system

You assume the words themselves were originally benign, not created and promoted for subversive reasons in the first place.

Bad assumption.

meh, the only caste system I could support is perhaps a geniusocracy or some other meritocratic/genetic-based caste system.

Don't forget about the term objectify. To normal people it means

To faggots it means

The reasoning behind this is simple. Marxists and women don't believe in objective truth. They cant comprehend abstract concepts.

Political thought is not linear, OP. You're a dumb faggot for thinking that it is. Pic related is the most accurate representation of the political playing field

Fuck I meant the other way around. Nevermind, I'm being retarded.

Nigger, there are countless dimensions. People create new dimensions of political thought every time they have a unique thought.

shit thats a good point

Thank you for the most retarded thing I've read all day.


Fuck your bullshit headcanon.

Totally, except the original uses of the word right and left wing are useless, because then everyone would be left wing except for monarchists , of which there are very few. You can either stop using the words because they have expired, or realize that the words have changed to mean left = globalist and right = nationalist.

If everyone one is left wing, then how do you differentiate? Monoarchism is basically dead, (for now) so you have to update the terms to reflect modern day political struggles. This isn't even remotely newspeak, not in the slightest.

pffft, bears are fags.

That's fucking bullshit. All political ideologies can be plotted accurately on the graph I have made. I guarantee it.

That bastard.

That chick has balls tho, fucking with a bear like that, they're small but they still have nasty claws and jaws. Is that shit about bluff charges real, or is it more of that makebelieve bullshit that got grizzly man turned into bear chow?

The bluff charge stuff is real, they do that. Black bears are mostly pussies. However despite what that woman thinks they're not totally harmless, they do kill people on occasion.

An authoritarian fascist who supports environmentalist causes and an authoritarian fascist who couldn't care less about the environment would both fall onto your 3d plot on the same point, unless you add another dimension for environmentalism.

I get the impression that she's doing something that is safe 99 times and then the 100th time you do it and just as you're going "gotcha bluff charge teehee~" you get your shit proper #REKT. What's the backup plan if it turns out to not be a bluff? Or can you just tell a bluff charge from a real one straight away?

Cute video btw.

In 1984 there is a controlled opposition "resistance" movement, the name of the leader of this group is:
EMANUEL GOLDSTEIN
Orwell knew about the JQ, he knew so much that he had to hide his knowledge underneath a denunciation of generic dystopian rule, but he planted the note for us to find nonetheless.

Agreed.
With a blackbear? They are scavengers, so absolutely do not try playing dead. Fight back if you can't get away from it.
I mean, maybe she thinks she can, but I wouldn't trust myself to read bear behavior like that.

Left/Right spectrum is solely for economic policies.

Enviromentalism does not define the ideology, though. It has nothing to do with the underlying principles motivating the ideology. An Authoritarian Fascist that supports environmentalism and one that rejects environmentalism still have the same fundamental ideological foundations - they just disagree on the minutia of policy.

You're only saying that because you've already concluded that there are three dimensions. There is absolutely no reason you cannot model environmentalism as a 4th dimension. In fact if you do, your model will have more descriptive power since it will now be able to differentiate between fascists who have fundamentally different outlooks on the value of nature and humanities relationship to it (an ideological divide which very quickly manifests itself as divides on matters of practical policy).

by allowing more people to significantly influence the country?

Consider the following.

No I'm not. Environmentalism is a matter of superficial policy and not an underlying defining factor of an ideology. You can be a kosher cuckservative and care about the environment or be the exact same yet not give a shit at all. This doesn't mean they don't draw their deeper ideological values from the same source.

Environmentalism is pretty apolitical, since only an utter autist would outright hate nature.

But the important part is how you want to implement that politically. It comes down to what you believe peoples natural inclinations are, and what measures you consider acceptable if those natural inclinations go against what seems like a the wiser decision. Ie. fining polluters, regulation, using tax money to fund conservation, public education, not do anything and hope people just naturally don't fuck over nature, etc. So you see, it is very political.

Says you. Needless to say a staunch environmentalist might disagree. Why shouldn't that disagreement be modeled in your system of ideological dimensions?

yes, and these can be modeled in the graph I made here

Bad pic.

First 2 also happen to be city states (maybe it has something to do with elites not being so distanced from the governed?). Last one is a failed state, not bona fide anarchy, and demographically different as well. I'd also argue that USA was never less effective than USSR. Not even in the first few years - especially in the first few years.

Well I'd say that dimension ranges from apathy to love, but it's only apolitical if you define environmentalism to not be "political". But even if you say it's "not politics" it is still something that effects policy decisions, and it is something that people disagree on. Just because existing mainstream political parties aren't divided along these lines, doesn't mean it isn't a dimension of the the ideological landscape.

Environmentalism is just one of infinite possible dimensions. Consider also your stance on urbanization. Is moving people into cities a good thing, or a bad thing? Should people be lead into agrarian lifestyles?


I don't agree with that pic, it's just an argument for monarchy that I happen to have saved.

The nazis were staunch environmentalists. So are leftycuck race-traitors. This doesn't change the fact that one is a hard-"right" ideology and the other is hard-"left". Why? Because these two ideological frameworks gather their guiding principles from vastly different sources, specifically the ones I have listed. "Right-wing" ideologies value hierarchy and are more likely to tend towards authoritarianism and some state intervention into the economy, but not necessarily. "Left-wing" ideologies value egalitarianism, and thus would theoretically tend towards anarchism, however in practice they tend to be authoritarian as well due to the need of enforcing their values. Environmentalism is insignificant in determining the type of ideology while the three different scales are absolutely necessary and fundamental.

What's the sauce on the image? Also have some oc.

Gay day in Russia or something

OP is a high school faggot bringing us his basic bitch, little kid homework.

Traditionalism is EXTREME right haha. Only a autistic American school would give you 5 examples. Don't want to confuse the coloured kids or the white ones on ten different drugs.

pic is blatantly wrong about case 1
Monaco is a glitzy posh/trashy kleptocratic shithole of corruption and degeneracy
so much that even the fucking {{{ [[[ ((( Hollywood Reporter ))) ]]] }}} takled about some of the shit happening there
www(.)hollywoodreporter(.)com/news/dark-side-monaco-uncovered-murder-793697
archive.is/eukeu

Congratulations, you've successfully debunked the 1-dimensional models. 1-dimensional models do differentiate between people who agree on one sort of issue, but completely disagree on others.

Now consider the following: You can plot Ted Kaczynski on your 3-dimensional model. But no matter where you choose to place him in that model, he will be in the neighborhood of other people who vehemently disagree with him on matters of technology. Just like Nazis and Jill Stein both agree on the environment but plainly would want nothing to do with each other, you'd find the same divide between Ted and whoever was in his 3-dimension neighborhood. You'd need an additional dimension to represent the deep divide between Ted and those people, just as you need additional dimensions to see the divide between Jill Stein and Adolf Hitler.

I agree.

>1-dimensional models DO NOT differentiate between people who agree on one sort of issue, but completely disagree on others.

Agreed, but my point was that nobody would really want the environment to be destroyed. The difference is in how much risk they think there is of it happening, and what they are willing to do about it (specifically, in a political sense, not individually).

Because it comes down to acknowledging societal/national problems (or denying them), and methods of controlling societal behavior, it's really not different general political orientation I think.

If you want to reduce rape by teaching men not to rape, you'd probably want to reduce pollution by asking companies to please not pollute and twitter shaming them if they do anyway.

If you want to reduce theft by executing thieves, you will probably also want to shoot poachers on sight.

If you think the solution to drug abuse is mo money for dem programs, you'd probably say national park trips should be chargeable to EBT and up taxes to cover the expense.

If you disagree with the latter part of either of these statements people like to say you're anti-environment, but in truth that's unlikely. The more obvious reason is that the person disagreeing also cares about the environment, but disagrees with the methods.

So really I don't think environmentalism is a special case at all. Once you decide what are your pressing issues (as in things that need to be addressed right now), it's a matter of what you think people should do and what is a good way of making them. Again, if you decide the environment can be ignored right now, it's probably not because you hate it, but because you believe it is not being damaged as fast as some claim.

Anyway, sorry for the complicated post, but I'm just trying to say political view isn't really some complicated 384392-dimensional thing. It's really got 2 or 3 fundamental dimensions. But from various interactions of those you get a wide diversity of opinions. Of course if you look only at the resulting opinions, it seems like many dimensions, but even in >>8347802's example, you can nicely describe everything by asking:


Of course if you use metrics like "technology", "economy", "abortion" then you'll have no end of "political dimensions", but they will all weirdly correlate for unclear reasons. Well, they correlate, because they are many-dimensional holograms of 3-dimensional data.


Russian paratroopers were celebrating their official holiday, when a bunch of gays decide to steal the show by spouting anti-Russian liberal rhetoric.

If I can include my opinion on this thread, every ideology can be put in a triangle made of 3 vertices called: equality, stability & liberty.

anything that can't fit in it, is a moouvement.

...

If you believe that then you're a huge newfag. How many years need to go by before you retards stop posting it?

The picture presents a case that ignores race, and the average IQ of the native citizenry.

I wouldn't put too much thought into this. Trying to understand how languages are developed is a very deep rabbit hole and you will begin to realize that you've been taking part in newspeak your entire life without even knowing it.

You try making a political spectrum based on more than a few criteria that can incorporate and reconcile all the competing political ideologies. Most anons are pretty aware that this is all phantom nonsense anyway.

I putted that chart in exemple of other dimension. I tend to defend a triangle instead. The two axis chart has only been absurdity. I should have putted some fancy 5D chart.

I like to think it's because of Gerrymandering and the incompetent MassGOP but damn are there are lot of retards here. Send help.

WTF

And the Republican party are Trotskyists. Newgger.

Has stalin found out?

user's linguistical redpill.


OP is here

you are here


And for a practical connection to OP's post: The solution is not to resist a natural phenomenon, but to ride it and direct in your favor. We are just as able to shift the meanings of words. Nothing stops us from making "diversity" literally mean "anti-white", or "feminism" literally "anti-male". In fact, amongst ourselves this is already the case. All that remains is assert these new semantics on liberals.

Some of the pictures from it were pretty funny.

Can someone educate me on the use of the Hammer and Sickle here?

You can actually just keep adding dimensions regarding every single fucking variable. The whole idea that political ideas can accurately be expressed graphically is retarded, and is simply a way to pigeonhole people into certain, often pre-determined paths. Yes there are overall trends, but they're not universal.
The political bullshit compass would have you believe that all actions a government can take to limit personal or economical freedom are equivalent, and the only thing that matters is the amount of limits.

Massive manufacturing from Soviet era. After Soviet Union fell, Russian army has been using the insignia and stuff. Sometimes they change the insignia slightly, especially when they restuff and rebrand some portion of armed forces. This happens gradually, for example the new T-14 platform has just a star and the stripe. Russians take pride in hammer and sickle, because it is a symbol of triumph over the conqueror despite immense hardships (in ww2). Naturally, it is also a time of great hardship for Russians, but it's kind of bittersweet part of history to them. Paratroopers (VDV) apparently still use the old insignia. VDV is also kind of legendary in terms of military with those sailor stripes and blue berets. It's kind of like Airborne for Americans.

Not where I'm at alll, it's pretty important to have a diversity of memes. Spending 5 minutes into looking who wants to create simplified languages would convince anyone around here of that.

I like how this guy looks like such an enormous bender.

Don't gays realize that nobody would give them half the shit they do if they just stopped looking like such faggots? Or is that the point? Some kind of weird game of chicken where the object is to see how much lower they can drag societal standards?

Most of the ones in Russia probably do, they even have laws against being a flagrant fucking faggot. That guy was just an omega-tier assblasted one.

Sage for mostly irrelevant question, but why the radishes?

Thanks. Have a funny webm of an angry jewish man.

I remember when this video emerged years ago, it was discussed for a week straight.

...

lol op you fucked up big time
derailed your own thread
now its all pol spectrums from here lol

oh..
ffs
double down on my last comment now that this has been posted rofl

...

thanks, was looking for this since the old day of the pill-wars

Good premise, bad examples. I'll give my own. (Leftist definitions will be loose, since leftists hate having to stick to anything). In no particular order:

Bigot:

Discrimination:

Misogyny:

Racism:

Diversity:

Nation:

Privilege:

Radicalism:

Homophobe:

Transphobia:

Islamophobia:

Person of Color:

If you guys can think of anymore words I'll do my best on them, in the spirit of getting this thread back to its (presumably) original topic.

Sage and not reading thread

...

The political spectrum is BY DEFINITION D&C from the start OP to divide the people. The left-right paradigm IS THE ENEMY.

fucking hate women tbh lads

...

That graph is absolute shit.

Islamophobia and homophobia are 2 great cases of this.

There are no such things.

Phobias are irrational fears. When you know by logic that homossexuals and islamics are groups which spout a huge amount of bullshit compared to others, it's no longer irrational.

Also, "islamophobes" and "homophobes" do not cower in fear from islamists the same way arachnophobes cower from spiders, or agoraphobes have anxiety over open spaces. Stop using leftist lingos.

I think Orwell may have intended Emanuel Goldstein to be Hitler. At least, he was remarkably prophetic in the role that Emanuel Goldstein is meant to play in. The thing about Goldstein in the book is that it is never about him as the individual, it is always in order to tell us about the society based on how it reacts to Goldstein. For example, the ritualized 2 Minutes Hate is a pretty obvious sublimation-group cohesion ritual that works for the same reasons as a struggle session. In the case of Goldstein, unlimited hatred and denunciation is not only justified, but rewarded by the Party. It forms a point of coordination by the Party and works to entrench its rule among the Party members. (The overwhelming bulk of society is portrayed as essentially indifferent to the state of their society - again accurately reflecting our own.)

Holohoax or not - our reaction to Hitler says more about us than about Hitler.

You missed my point.

That's not your decision to make.

Why you should get on people's cases when they use their terminology, doing the work for them.

Left is liberalism/socialism
Right is Monarchism/Conservatism

Marxism, Libertarianism etc.. are not leftwing or rightwing, they are Jewish cults.

That's not an ideology.

Traditionalism is subjective dependent on the founding values and culture of each country. For most of Europe a traditionalist government would operate under a Monarchy but for countries like America it would be based heavily on the constitution and the beliefs of the founding fathers.

Your point?

The real political spectrum runs more like this:

Leftwing/whig

Social Democratism (barely)

Early Socialism

Progressive Liberalism

Christian-Democratism

Conservative Liberalism

Monarchism

Fascism/Nationalsocialism

Rightwing/Tory

Marxism, Social-Democratism (most of the time), anarchism, neoconservatism, libertarianism etc.. do not belong in the left/ring spectrum because they are Jewish cults and in the case of anarchism which has Russian roots, simply outside the political spectrum. Islam doesn't belong in it either.

A Jewish political spectrum would look more like this.

Leftism.

Marxism

Cultural Marxism

Social-Democratism

Libertarianism

Neoconservatism

Zionism

Rightwing

Constituional Monarchy was the greatest political achievement in history.

Then the Lucifereans started dismantling everything into degeneracy.

That graphic is cringe-worthy.

It's basically asking "how much of a libertarian are you?" along three ill-defined variables (what is "personal freedom that isn't political nor economic"?)

Not to mention, make up new ideologies such as:


How the fuck do you get more anarchistic than anarchism? How the fuck do you go from no government to even less government? Shit just sounds like some kids being edgy to me.

Shit thread

Wrong, orwell was a blue-pilled cuck (on the JQ)

Did you not notice that the 2 minutes hate was directed at Goldstein? He literally claims that the elites use the jews as a scapegoat for everyone to get mad at

hah my uncle told me about Gnosis and the Nag Hammadi library recently. All about the archons and all that, I have previously never heard of this and information online is hard to look through.

Is it true from my understanding the Nag Hammadi basically contains a modified story of the Bible but predates even the Bible itself? What year was this written in?

Had to dig this up

No. Gnosticism is a Hellenistic religion influenced by Platonism, and contemporary with Early Christianism. The Old Testament was composed from th 6th century BC to the 2nd century BC.

If there's anything ancient in the Gnostic texts, it would be whatever they took from Egyptian myth.

bump

radish mag