PDA

View Full Version : Theory on property and political slant


TSA
05-02-2008, 05:45 PM
Disclaimer: so it turns out gen chat wasn't such a safe haven after all. Btw keep 5% reptile bullshit to a minimum.









I have been reading a lot of writings on nations, politics and economics and i've made a realization, that, i believe, was none existant till now.

Rightist and Leftist thought exists on a linear diagram (though i don't believe in the linear, i'll use it until i have found a better chart)

<leftism--------------------------------------------conservatism>



most ppl fall in there somewhere with for example



<-Palehorse--leftism-------------------g.bush-------conservatism>


we all know this.


but why?


WHY?


Another theory of mine, which i'll inject is the fact that the concept of the "nation" is at it's primal core, a feeling of "shared property"

and that's all it is.












IN THE BEGINNING (dont have to read)
Bands of hunter gatherers came together to survive. In order to survive, they would develope a way to communicate with each other, and share the catch.

when human population was at it's lowest, there was no need for competition for other humans as the earth gave needed resources abundantly


But still, herds would travel, people would follow, and that herd became your "property"

meaning thats MY herd. I have the right to hunt it because I claimed it. Then in the group context, WE have the right to hunt it, it's OUR herd.

Other groups of marauding humans didn't have the right. If they did, they would be using YOUR property, which THEY didn't have the right to because THEY are not a part of your group of property sharers.
and thus the nation is born.

the same way your brother doesn't have to ask to use you playstation, but it would be strange for his homie you've never met to just take it home without asking.


you SHARE property with your brother, but not with that homo. In other terms, that homo is not a part of your 'nation'.


i'd also like to add that this is when women lost their "value" in society because as a resource they were less physically able then men, and were thus culturally enslaved. This is where the concept of marriage comes from.

Marriage is one man, taking another mans(a fathers) women as a resource, and as a resource of his 'nation', all this love shit came along a lot later. This is where bride prices come from, it was really no different then selling a slave. the women was a resource, like a cow, used for whatever she can do, but not a true member of the 'nation' because she is property.






NOW!















PROPERTY AND WAR(reading needed to get the point)

Fast forward to agriculture. Now land is a means of survival. you need land unlike you needed it before. Therefore people stake claims to land, populations explode, and people become stationary.

Then another 'nation' wants your land, for whatever reason, and there is a good core reason that links all other reasons.


War.


War is not the fighting we see, that's just 'rapid war', war is the competition for resource. Nations would farm to sustain.

but for reasons of population, and land insecurity, they needed more land, so they'd stake more claims, or more wealth, and they'd stake more claims, until the land held has surpassed it's use by people. This is when the nations enters a state of war, which all modern nations participate in, it's called "economy".


Now, Another nation wants some of your land, and because people have more land then need be, they need slaves, they need women to produce for them and not for you. So in an attempt to compete for resource, they attack your black ass, and take all they need as a resource. This was steady war, or economy which is the division of scarce resources, turning into rapid war, which is the competition for scarce resources. whether they aquired what you own by trade, by theft, or by pillage, the core result is still the same, they're competing to have as much as possible.



I'll explain whatever parts i wasn't clear on

NOW NOW NOW

the theory





















THE FUCKIN POINT
(the fucking point)
A person's leftist or rightist slant is based on his or her VALUE of property which is inevitable linked to a value of war.

the further right, the more you feel that property is "yours"
the further left, the more you feel that property isn't "yours"

for instance, your sister. She's wearing nothing but a hot dog in her pussy.

You get really pissed off and tell her to go change.
REALLY REALLY pissed off

but some random hooker is wearing the same thing, your less pissed, and less inclinded to tell her to fuckin quit being a douche.

why? cause that's YOUR sister, as opposed to a hooker you have no relationship, ownership, and therefore, care about.

that's not a part of your nation.


Now look at cars. Someone smashes your car window. your pissed, you want revenge

someone smashes your neighbors? that sucks for him



NOW lets look at nations
a bunch of fuckin illegals are all sneakin in and taking jobs.

where do you stand on that?

I as a liberal american don't give a fuck.
a conservative american is gonna be pissed.
why? he feels this nation is HIS nations more so then I do.



A part of me coming to this conclusion is realizing the Bias i have for things that happen in nigeria as opposed to things that happen here.

If an austrian is elected president of the US, i won't care that much, so long as he does well

If an austrian is elected president of nigeria, I'd be pissed.

almost all bi-national people know what im talking about.


reason is, i feel nigeria is more my property then i feel america is.


this explains why the poor are more leftist in thought then the rich
why white america is more republican then black america
why most bi national ppl have this bias
why you care about somethings and not others considering the fact that they're the same fuckin thing (2 cars, 2 women example)

AND why extreme leftist thought, communism, is rooted in desolving the sense of property and ownership and extreme rightist thought, militarism or fascism is rooted in the sense of "war" or competiting to acquire more property.






there's also cultural property as opposed to material property.
for instance, the Okorosha dancing in igbo land is cultural property
saying the pledge of alligance in american schools is cultural property

i would be pissed if they banned okorosha dancing
i wouldn't care if they banned the pledge in schools

and language
I would like Igbo to be taught more in nigerian schools, it pisses me off that they use english
A conservative american would be pissed if english wasn't used in american schools, and thats why they take a bizarre pride in "speaking english" when half of them cant.

this explains why black americans are so homophobic, as gayness is "alien" to their cultural property or straightness and maliness even though they're leftist materially.



this is also why the republican party is more propertied
and the democractic party isn't






thoughts?

TSA
05-02-2008, 06:40 PM
being rude and insulting because i've insulted you months ago is a rude means to bring you contribution to the table.

immature at best.

your better then that.

I don't trust videos submitted by you as the all spiral out of control but i won't watch it, i would like to here what YOU think from YOUR mind and YOUR observation, not a videos.

and no, your not beyond it, you feel little attachment or sense of ownership to the property of The United States, that's why your so materially leftist

your probably a cultural conservative but the word has bad tones to you and you don't want to use it.


thoughts?


YOUR thoughts?

Prolifical ENG
05-02-2008, 08:08 PM
I kinda got confused when you tied your conclusions in with your premises. Thats kind of a good thing since you stated in the beginning that you don't believe in that linear political alignment. A square could work better but I wouldnt know what to label each side.

TSA
05-02-2008, 09:15 PM
the premises are just to explain the importance of property itself, and square wouldn't work, but that's parts not too important btw


http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd116/STYLEMASTERR/requests/prof2.gif

^prestige.

STYLE
05-03-2008, 11:37 PM
you made a huge leap that requires a bit of overgeneralization.

i would think that there is a correlation between the valuation of property and political view but that is a small piece to a much larger picture.

i am tempted to think this is a non sequitur. (just because A=B does not mean B=A all chinese are asian does not mean all asians are chinese)

idk you have a couple of reasonable points in there and i did READ it all.

btw welcome back to reality on the gen/ktl idea and it was only yesterday you called palehorse a psychopathic reptillian paranoid.

a square would be best represented with wealth lying on the y axis. poor conservatives have a different view than rich conservatives.

TSA
05-04-2008, 02:07 AM
dude will you just shut the fuck up and stay on subject you balding child.

this one didn't go further then the gen chat one in terms of real conversation.

ENG's the only person that's really said anything, and you i guess, but whatever.

Im the only son of a bitch on here with the fortitude to present MY ideas and MY learnings on something as opposed to articles from sites that lack credibility of point, and look.

and yes palehorse is a paranoid douche.


oh, and your axis idea is good.

KERZO
05-05-2008, 11:34 AM
hahahahaha you do say some right bullshit sometimes tsa...keep up the good work :thumbup:

TSA
05-05-2008, 07:49 PM
also, stylemaster, everything i type was a fast foward not details type thang thang, tell me the parts that' don't add up and the larger picture so i can explain myself where need be and/or change or adjust if needed