The Truth Animating the Political Left
The Savior is Hidden in the Margin.
-The push for free speech is in service to this truth.
-The idea that the savior is somewhere among the oppressed outsiders is what causes identification with the victim.
-As human beings, we usually act out the hidden truths of reality before they become fully conscious.
In order to seek out the savior, you must first identify. The problem is this identification with the savior leaves you susceptible to the deception that you’ve already actualized the savior. You can observe this among many political activists of the left in the West.
Free speech has traditionally been a value of the left. It’s the willingness to let some snakes into the garden in service of the search for the savior. Mass censorship, cancelling, throwing out the non-conforming are the opposite.
If you falsely believe that you’ve already reached the finish line and actualized the savior within yourself or your group — and the victimized have not been rescued — this leads to two possible responses. The first is to resign yourself to the reality check telling you you’re wrong.
The second is to defy the reality check and double down. One manifestation of this is trying to purify the environment of the victim group in order to preserve the savior identity. Another is to deny the reality where the victimized group has not been rescued. These two play off each other. If there is any instance of bigotry toward the victim group, then the false savior will have the impulse to quickly and forcefully purify the environment in order to recover the false reality of rescue. Inevitably, this escalates and.. no more free speech.
The deception of the false savior is very strong, so the political left being captured by it is to be expected. The Batman archetype can be useful to learn from as the way forward. The way Batman solves the false savior problem is to identify with, not only the marginalized he serves, but also the monsters he hates (bats in his case).
“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”
This is how reality works. You cannot seek the savior without identifying as the hero and you cannot overcome the false savior problem without also identifying as the villain.
Early in the story, the shepherd guards the flock of sheep from the wolf. However, this isn’t enough to save the sheep. The shepherd then allows some of the lost sheep near the flock, but a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing enters the pen and ravages some of the sheep. Finally, in order to truly save the sheep, the shepherd realizes he must leave the flock and live among the lost and damned in order to find the savior.
This is the story of John the Baptist. It’s part of the Batman story. It’s the story of reality.
The shepherd then allows some of the lost sheep near the flock…
We see this step with the influx of immigration by left leadership. It’s not the entire explanation but part of it.
It seems that in a free society, women are more likely to engage in the victim + rescuer dynamic, likely due to their inherited inclination to care for infants. This explains why the political left is increasingly female.
On the other hand, it takes more masculine identification and actions to overcome the false savior problem.
Christian fundamentalist who hates immigrants is an odd vibe.
Can someone summarize this thread so a non-religious person can understand?
In our “secular” society, many political activists have become the false Messiahs of old. This is not a bad thing - to identify with the savior and engage in the victim + persecutor + rescuer dynamic. It’s inevitable.
If you view the political landscape as a bunch of secular, rational actors, even on the left, then you won’t be affective in any meaningful way.
Maybe some people would just prefer having healthcare to destroying some country they picked out of a hat.
In our “secular” society, many political activists have become the false Messiahs of old. This is not a bad thing - to identify with the savior and engage in the victim + persecutor + rescuer dynamic. It’s inevitable.
If you view the political landscape as a bunch of secular, rational actors, even on the left, then you won’t be affective in any meaningful way.
I have no idea what you're saying. Can you state it in non-religious terminology? Like, "Without religion in politics nothing can get done."
I see plenty of false Messiahs in politics and the ones on the right are proposing and enacting awful things for USA #1.
d2, can you translate?
I have no idea what you're saying. Can you state it in non-religious terminology? Like, "Without religion in politics nothing can get done."
I see plenty of false Messiahs in politics and the ones on the right are proposing and enacting awful things for USA #1.
d2, can you translate?
I don't think anyone can translate craig, you just either get him or you don't.
Spoiler: I don't.
I have no idea what you're saying. Can you state it in non-religious terminology? Like, "Without religion in politics nothing can get done."
I see plenty of false Messiahs in politics and the ones on the right are proposing and enacting awful things for USA #1.
d2, can you translate?
The pathology of the political right is less unknown and therefore less interesting. This thread isn’t about left = bad and right = good.
An extreme version of what I’m talking about is the mother who poisons her own child in order to rescue them. This is the pathology of identifying with and then desperately clinging to the savior identity.
It gets exposed when there is feedback indicating the social programs are not working or have no basis. Those who are actually trying to solve problems on behalf of the marginalized will accept the failure but others will not. This is because it’s not actually about solving problems for them but about their identification with the savior.
The pathology of the political right is less unknown and therefore less interesting. This thread isn’t about left = bad and right = good.
The religious energy has gotten way turned up on the right since the failed assassination attempt. This isn’t good to have so much religious projection (on both sides) in the political domain. I will help alleviate this in due time.
I think there is a kernel of truth that a lot of pundits, influencers and ideological firebrands on the left have somewhat of a savior complex. This often goes so far as to label even slight disagreement as morally bankrupt. I think one of the big cues is the very common "why are they voting against their own interest"-argument that you often see stated in those circles.
However, I don't think we need some religious analogy to discuss that.
I disagree that the left has been supporters of free speech. Historically, both the left and conservatism has had a very problematic relationship with free speech. They support it when it is irrelevant or benefits them, but once it gets dangerous or ideologically threatening they want it gone.
The ideal of free speech is just a remnant of classical liberalism, which is all but dead as a political movement. It sort of makes sense. Most of us have grown up very free, we don't really know the price of losing that.
one should use the phrase "freeze peach" when talking about things that are not in fact "free speech".
conservatives want what's better described as forced listening. they want to force people to listen to their drivel.
the left defends the rights of free speech.
one should use the phrase "freeze peach" when talking about things that are not in fact "free speech".
conservatives want what's better described as forced listening. they want to force people to listen to their drivel.
the left defends the rights of free speech.
I'd agree that conservatism has for the better part of its 250-year existence been an existential threat to free speech. Views seen as immoral, progressive or critical of the government are the common victims. Conservatives always struggle with the idea that there are people who see the world differently, and their ideal solution is typically to make those people criminals.
However, the left does not fare that much better. The far left in particular really love it when you have agencies, ministries or courts that decide what is true. However, I'm not really talking about communists in my post above. I find that even the moderate left is often very quick to call on or accept state intervention for speech they find problematic.
The issue isn't speech you agree with, anyone can accept that. The issue is speech you find galling, insane or dangerous.
one should use the phrase "freeze peach" when talking about things that are not in fact "free speech".
conservatives want what's better described as forced listening. they want to force people to listen to their drivel.
the left defends the rights of free speech.
I agree with the rest of this post but would you be willing to share you opinions on why the bolded is true? We both frequent up, and I won't be cross posting but I've seen quite a lot of similarities between the right and the left as far as attempting to curb stomp what many there collectively view as immoral or problematic.
I do think there are posters on the left, like Microbet and a few others that kind of have a deep affection for freedom there but I think those particular folks are clear outliers.
I agree with the rest of this post but would you be willing to share you opinions on why the bolded is true? We both frequent up, and I won't be cross posting but I've seen quite a lot of similarities between the right and the left as far as attempting to curb stomp what many there collectively view as immoral or problematic.
I do think there are posters on the left, like Microbet and a few others that kind of have a deep affection for freedom there but I think those particular folks are clear o
are we talking about the right to free speech? or freeze peach? looks like you are talking about freeze peach. which is why we need to make distinctions.
it's not the left trying to get the government to ban pornography. it's not the left trying to get the government to ban works of literature. it's not the left getting the government to ban displays of certain flags or colors.
Wb, TD. Good to see you back.
