# Why is big tech overwhelmingly left leaning?



## Some Curious Person (Dec 5, 2021)

Does the right not know how2code?


----------



## Virgil19 (Dec 5, 2021)

Squeaky wheel gets the grease.  The left-wing are far more likely to put pressure on companies to comply to their ideological world view.  Companies comply so they don't have to put up with all the BS Josh has to.


----------



## Sanshain (Dec 5, 2021)

Mostly because people who like to program and mess with technology are almost overwhelmingly likely to be furries, degenerates, child rapists or deviants to some degree or another, so they're hardly going to be bible-thumping conservative diehards.


----------



## Yuri_ (Dec 5, 2021)

The answer is the same for almost all levers of power in society. 

The left:

does anything possible to beat their opponents, including foul play
once it has any kind of power within a system, they work to push all their opponents out of it completely 
does not tolerate ideological dissent 
spends their time trying to think of new ways to win
extremely well funded 

The right:

tolerates everything including extremely hostile opponents that want to destroy them
doesn't use its power to attack its opponents, or help its allies 

I'm sure it doesn't take a genius to figure out which one of these teams is going to rise above the other


----------



## NekoRightsActivist (Dec 5, 2021)

Because they aren't tbh, if they were actually left then they would pay their tax and threat their employees better.


----------



## WeWuzFinns (Dec 5, 2021)

Because left has been tricked to be compliant with what is the best for the corporations. The leftist agenda has lead to crackdown of employee rights and anyone can be kicked out of a company if they commit a micro aggression what is just an easily made up excuse. Just like with any religion one can justify any action if it is done in the name of righteousness. The left has been enslaved by their own morality and the only way out is a complete rejection of faux morality and purging their system from foreign memes. Going against the current is something only a radical or autist can do.


----------



## cummytummies (Dec 5, 2021)

Working in any type of massive corporation requires compliance above all else, and that suits a specific world view.

That being said big tech isn't "leftist". They're just using societal trends to amass power and wealth.


----------



## PoppyFizz (Dec 5, 2021)

Something something about some multi trillion dollar hedgefund pulling banks and corpos out of the 2008 economic recession under the stipulation they follow their woke guidelines for investor funds or something like that.


----------



## Blue Screen of Death (Dec 5, 2021)

Most younger people have left leaning views, and big tech is full of young people.
It doesn't take too much effort to see the type of people that generally work in big tech companies.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 5, 2021)

Because it's a bottleneck, and leftists exert all their efforts controlling bottlenecks. As a result, everything that's not one of them either shuts up or is purged.

Tech jobs are (or were) well paid and relatively high status, so the field attracts a lot of sociopathic strivers (aka, libtards). Their insane ideology is basically a sign that you're a member of the social parasite email job class, which is why it constantly changes; you need a way to weed out people who are insincere and not totally devoted to hyper-competition, and of course a way to take out rivals.

Libtards are the social equivalent of school shooters, in that they take out their frustration and dysfunctions on society at large and especially normal people who just want to be left alone. Because they have nothing else going on in their lives and they are too incompetent to survive without outside intervention, they are the perfect tools for oligarchs such as Jeff Bezos to elevate to positions of power. If he does so, their status and lifestyle is totally dependent on him and on their acceptance by the rest of the social parasite class, so they behave as fanatical berserkers in keeping everyone on their side in line and in attacking perceived enemies (the people on whom they are parasites).

tl;dr

Libtards are literally just bandits and thieves, and should be treated as such.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Dec 5, 2021)

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this in English; but there are established links between autism and mathematical ability, intelligence and depression, as well as creativity and breaking with tradition in the form of radical left wing views. 

People who work in the tech industry likely have higher mathematical/coding skills than the layman and are also as a result more likely to be autistic or display traits like transgenderism, LGBTQX identities or mental illnesses. 

People who have high skill levels are also more likely to be depressed and searching for a fix; be that in the form of religion, drugs or forcing other people to affirm you. 

People who display creativity, as many tech founders have, are also far more likely to hold contempt for the the established way of doing things, and the left is always on a march to "progress" and change. 

There's a bit more to it, and I think I'm fudging the wording as well but I think they are factors in themselves.


----------



## WhoBusTank69 (Dec 5, 2021)

Gullible woke retards funded by people who have money to burn are sailing through by chance and hearsay without merit, convincing up-and-coming STEM students that this is the only way and getting them into the employ of other gullible woke retards before they crash and burn on the wayside.
It perpetuates itself by convincing people they're doing great when actually they aren't.


----------



## KingCoelacanth (Dec 5, 2021)

Left wing ideologies are more compatible with global capitalism than right wing ones.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 5, 2021)

NekoRightsActivist said:


> Because they aren't tbh, if they were actually left then they would pay their tax and threat their employees better.


Left and Right aren't very useful descriptors for the social phenomenon of leftists and rightists. The left consumes and destroys, while the right produces and creates.

Earlier iterations of leftism advocated for things that benefited the productive classes because at the time advocating for them was the path to power. Now that they have power they no longer need the productive classes, so they are trying to disenfranchise and destroy us.

While the Conservatard "Democrats are the real racists/fascists/nazis!" argument is very stupid, it is accidentally correct in that the path that the Nazis took to power in Weimar Germany mirrors that of modern leftists. Where the Nazis had the SA, modern leftists have antifa/BLM: groups sanctioned by the party that can suppress the parties opposition when state force isn't feasible or desirable.

Leftists don't actually care that their policies harm black people, or that their militias torched black businesses and neighborhoods. Black people exist to them only as a means to an end; a club with which to bludgeon all who stand in their way to ultimate power.

When you think about it, leftism is an expression of Nietzschean will to power, as pure as that of the Nazis and far more devious in that they will lie, cheat, steal, and betray anyone to get it.

What's more, leftist rhetoric towards the productive classes clearly resembles that of Nazi Germany towards Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others they disliked. Just as they were scapegoated for failures of the previous German governments, so rightists are scapegoated for the coronavirus (and resulting economic upheavals), black criminality/terrorism, and vaccine failures.

It's more basic than that - this is rhetoric you use to create a mob via mass hypnosis and to scapegoat others for your failures. We are not literally Jews; we are the scapegoats now as Jews were then. It's a different instance of the same social phenomenon. That many leftists are Jews is an indication that they are no different than anyone else, and are not in any way exceptional.



Yuri_ said:


> The answer is the same for almost all levers of power in society.
> 
> The left:
> 
> ...


I address some of your points above, I hope you find them insightful.



WeWuzFinns said:


> Because left has been tricked to be compliant with what is the best for the corporations. The leftist agenda has lead to crackdown of employee rights and anyone can be kicked out of a company if they commit a micro aggression what is just an easily made up excuse. Just like with any religion one can justify any action if it is done in the name of righteousness. The left has been enslaved by their own morality and the only way out is a complete rejection of faux morality and purging their system from foreign memes. Going against the current is something only a radical or autist can do.


To build on your argument, in the past 7 years we've seen leftists whiplash from one extreme position to another often diametrically opposed position, with no apparent memory of their previous position or the contradictions in doing so. This indicates that they are both deluded and that they believe it's in their best interests to do so. The mental cost of doing such a thing is terrible, one would only do it as a sign that you are a true believer - a costly signal of compliance with the authorities and the rest of the herd.



Sanshain said:


> Mostly because people who like to program and mess with technology are almost overwhelmingly likely to be furries, degenerates, child rapists or deviants to some degree or another, so they're hardly going to be bible-thumping conservative diehards.





Spiritually Sodomized said:


> I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this in English; but there are established links between autism and mathematical ability, intelligence and depression, as well as creativity and breaking with tradition in the form of radical left wing views.
> 
> People who work in the tech industry likely have higher mathematical/coding skills than the layman and are also as a result more likely to be autistic or display traits like transgenderism, LGBTQX identities or mental illnesses.
> 
> ...


These two statements aren't necessarily true. There are plenty of autists and schizo(typals/oids) on 4chan, Twitter, and elsewhere who do not give a single shit about wokeness and say whatever is on their mind.

What divides the left from the right seems to be narcissism, both in normies and neuroatypicals. Lefits are on average very narcissistic, while rightists are not (or if they are their narcissism is mediated by a less simplistic morality, as with Trump).


----------



## Oliveoil (Dec 5, 2021)

Yuri_ said:


> The answer is the same for almost all levers of power in society.
> 
> The left:
> 
> ...


Let me add on to that.
Are you familiar with the Casey Neistad and Seth Rogen exchange on Twitter?




I'll use Keem since all these other channels suck ass.
Well, they are filthy rich and divorced from reality in addition to your great take.


----------



## moseph.jartelli (Dec 5, 2021)

The cope and seethe in this thread is hilarious. The answer is simple. Conservatives have lower IQ on average, Embracing new ideas is difficult for them, since they are retarded. New tech is the antithesis of the classic bumpkin conservative, and like most things scares them easily.


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Dec 5, 2021)

Superior marketing. Just check out that Apple 2 computer commercial from 1984. I would fuck that chick so hard, she's 10/10.


----------



## Kendall Motor Oil (Dec 5, 2021)

They are massive power holders and leftist religion is the current strategy to control people.

Investors: They can secure political power beyond just pestering the board of directors.(see ESG)
Executives: They get a company culture that requires obedience and punishes speaking out.
Autistic employees: They have a chance to live out their strange fantasies and get validation.
Employees(particularly those who gravitate to cult behavior): It's a feel good religion.


San Francisco tech culture:  They believe computer tech can solve humanity's problems. That level of hubris fits well with "leftist" ideals. They also attract individuals who behave in a sociopathic manner, backbiting people in a rat race to the top.
Decadence: Many of the employees come from very nice upbringings and have not experienced the median household lifestyle. Look at the "A Day at company_name_here" tiktok videos. They are detached form how normal people live.

The reasons are different for each group as to why it's continuing. As to why it started like that: The founders of these companies were also overwhelmingly liberal or libertarian and from coastal California. Microsoft and Dell weren't nearly as bad until recently.
If you go on Blind, the social media app for tech employees, they spout leftist rhetoric about immigration but want H1Bs gassed because of wage suppression and cleaning up after their incompetence. Any "bottom up" activism is from kool aid drinkers or those trying to kick the ladder out.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 5, 2021)

moseph.jartelli said:


> The cope and seethe in this thread is hilarious. The answer is simple. Conservatives have lower IQ on average, Embracing new ideas is difficult for them, since they are retarded. New tech is the antithesis of the classic bumpkin conservative, and like most things scares them easily.


Very true, conservatives don't understand new technology such as gender reassignment surgery, dilation, and cross-sex hormone pharmaceuticals. Luckily for us we have families such as the Sacklers to teach us about the wonders of opioids and compound interest.


----------



## moseph.jartelli (Dec 5, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> Very true, conservatives don't understand new technology such as gender reassignment surgery, dilation, and cross-sex hormone pharmaceuticals. Luckily for us we have families such as the Sacklers to teach us about the wonders of opioids and compound interest.


Remember when you saw a computy for the first time and were like 'What's this new fangled invention?? It looks like a devil machine!,'


----------



## Some Curious Person (Dec 5, 2021)

Does the right not know how2code?


----------



## Billy Beer (Dec 5, 2021)

The left are usually artists, poets, writers, creators etc. They live in imaginationland (not a dig) and big tech is the modern day equivilent of an art gallery.

The right are typically pragmatic and get shit done in the here and now, which doesn't lend itself to sitting behind an easel or computer screen. 

Mostly.


----------



## MrTroll (Dec 5, 2021)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco


----------



## stupid orc (Dec 5, 2021)

moseph.jartelli said:


> The cope and seethe in this thread is hilarious. The answer is simple. Conservatives have lower IQ on average, Embracing new ideas is difficult for them, since they are retarded. New tech is the antithesis of the classic bumpkin conservative, and like most things scares them easily.


(((IQ))), weak bait.


----------



## cybertoaster (Dec 5, 2021)

Most tech centers tend to be located at or near extremely left-wing cities like berkeley and san francisco

Many coders are nerds, nerds get bullied a lot so they go woke thinking they will be tolerated more (see linus' fat bald coworker that actually does eveything) but in reality the wokes also hate nerds, perhaps even more because their autism makes them invulnerable to their retarded dogma

And then theres women:





Imagine thinking a guy who simply shuts up and does his job  is a brogrammer, do they even know what the term means?


----------



## Lurk McDurk (Dec 5, 2021)

There is no left in the United States.

Che Guevara is left.

The Provo IRA is left.

The Viet Cong is left.

What you have in the US is a bunch of corporate stooges whose only master is money (which is a function of PR), sticking their fingers in the breeze and seeing which way they want to steer the culture war distractions on any given day, to distract people from all of the Pajeets and Fong Shuis they're importing as indentured H1B servants.


----------



## Jarolleon (Dec 5, 2021)

Because leftism appeals to people who think they can remake society with the correct programming-the fundamental coder's fantasy.


----------



## Mariposa Electrique (Dec 5, 2021)

Teannies + Autism


----------



## Mooner (Dec 5, 2021)

I work in Big Tech. There _are_ right leaning people here, but you can never outwardly project that. You have to put your head down and shut the fuck up, or else you lose your job. Most people just go along with it and pretend because HR is overwhelmingly full of screechingly woke SJW types.

See: the Google thing that guy (who promptly got fired afterwards) wrote a few years ago on their internal message board.


----------



## Hollywood Hulk Hogan (Dec 5, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> Because it's a bottleneck, and leftists exert all their efforts controlling bottlenecks. As a result, everything that's not one of them either shuts up or is purged.
> 
> Tech jobs are (or were) well paid and relatively high status, so the field attracts a lot of sociopathic strivers (aka, libtards). Their insane ideology is basically a sign that you're a member of the social parasite email job class, which is why it constantly changes; you need a way to weed out people who are insincere and not totally devoted to hyper-competition, and of course a way to take out rivals.
> 
> ...


lol calm down


----------



## The Littlest Shitlord (Dec 5, 2021)

Tech is dominated by young people, partly because older people either can't understand it because of the rigidity of age, partly because they aren't interested, and partly because age discrimination is absolutely rampant in the industry despite being illegal. Young people skew left. Also, tech is full of autists, and autists are weak against all social-elemental attacks that their obliviousness doesn't no-sell. And the left has been making a massive social push for their agenda for decades. In particular, autism makes you mentally ill and miserable and most people don't understand it very well because it wasn't common until recently, so that makes autists easy prey for trans ideology when it is pitched as a cure for all your problems (much like Dianetics).


----------



## stares at error messages (Dec 5, 2021)

You are being fooled by the Smokescreen.

Ask, "Who is Elliott capital?"


----------



## biozeminadae1 (Dec 6, 2021)

cybertoaster said:


> Most tech centers tend to be located at or near extremely left-wing cities like berkeley and san francisco
> 
> Many coders are nerds, nerds get bullied a lot so they go liberal thinking they will be tolerated more (see linus' fat bald coworker that actually does eveything) but in reality the liberals also hate nerds, perhaps even more because their autism makes them invulnerable to their retarded dogma
> 
> ...


Women make it really easy for men to hate them.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 6, 2021)

moseph.jartelli said:


> Remember when you saw a computy for the first time and were like 'What's this new fangled invention?? It looks like a devil machine!,'


I design web sites and mobile apps for a living. Are you sure you're not projecting?

If open discussion bothers you so much, you can always go back to your libtard containment and hugbox threads to discuss gendered physics and dilation. We won't bother you there.



Lurk McDurk said:


> There is no left in the United States.
> 
> Che Guevara is left.
> 
> ...


I would unironically vote for a hardcore tankie Marxist over a Democrat. Marxists are correct that class is the biggest factor in a person's political leanings and behavior, that LGBTQI+P stuff is a distraction being waved about by oligarchs, and that lumpenproles (Democrats) work to keep oligarchs (also Democrats) in power.



Hollywood Hulk Hogan said:


> lol calm down





What did he mean by this?


----------



## moseph.jartelli (Dec 6, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> I design web sites and mobile apps for a living. Are you sure you're not projecting?


It's a joke, but as someone who has been online since before Web 1.0, I find it funny that people question why there aren't more conservatives in tech. Conservatives historically do NOT like change, and especially rapid change, which is the crux of tech.  Conservatives of the early internet age were more of the 'christian conservative' type than today. The tech scene was not trusted by a lot of people, but less so by conservatives. They might have invested money, but rarely got hands on with it. The culture of tech has been liberal since inception, so it's likely to stay that way for a long time. I just think the answer is obvious.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 6, 2021)

moseph.jartelli said:


> It's a joke, but as someone who has been online since before Web 1.0, I find it funny that people question why there aren't more conservatives in tech. Conservatives historically do NOT like change, and especially rapid change, which is the crux of tech.  Conservatives of the early internet age were more of the 'christian conservative' type than today. The tech scene was not trusted by a lot of people, but less so by conservatives. They might have invested money, but rarely got hands on with it. The culture of tech has been liberal since inception, so it's likely to stay that way for a long time. I just think the answer is obvious.


And how has tech and especially design improved since that point?


----------



## moseph.jartelli (Dec 6, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> And how has tech and especially design improved since that point?


User friendly interfaces has been the biggest design improvement in the last 30 years I would say. It's dumbed down enough for 3 year olds to navigate.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 6, 2021)

moseph.jartelli said:


> User friendly interfaces has been the biggest design improvement in the last 30 years I would say. It's dumbed down enough for 3 year olds to navigate.


Why is that a good thing?


----------



## moseph.jartelli (Dec 6, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> Why is that a good thing?


I didn't say it was. The internet became what it would become. Once the web became viable, and normies could use it, the money making side really blew up, and now there is lots of trash all over it. Social Media was the worst part. I don't blame tech companies. I blame the users. They voluntarily became retarded online and many traded real life for a virtual one


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 6, 2021)

moseph.jartelli said:


> I didn't say it was. The internet became what it would become. Once the web became viable, and normies could use it, the money making side really blew up, and now there is lots of trash all over it. Social Media was the worst part. I don't blame tech companies. I blame the users. They voluntarily became retarded online and many traded real life for a virtual one


The only part I disagree with is the money making part. I've never seen any evidence that online ads work. The only ways to make money I can see on the internet are shops, pay to post communities, services, games as a (somehow) paid service, and subscription based interactions.

Most VC stuff glows so bright you can see it from Mars, is a scam, or it's obviously someone paying to shut out competitors so they can control political discourse and rent seek in government sectors (in which case you're paying journalists and associated scum to restrain people while you rob them).

Ads are in my opinion a scam, and a money laundering operation. They make people money only in very limited circumstances where things would spread by word of mouth anyways.


----------



## moseph.jartelli (Dec 6, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> The only part I disagree with is the money making part. I've never seen any evidence that online ads work. The only ways to make money I can see on the internet are shops, pay to post communities, services, games as a (somehow) paid service, and subscription based interactions.
> 
> Most VC stuff glows so bright you can see it from Mars, is a scam, or it's obviously someone paying to shut out competitors so they can control political discourse and rent seek in government sectors (in which case you're paying journalists and associated scum to restrain people while you rob them).
> 
> Ads are in my opinion a scam, and a money laundering operation. They make people money only in very limited circumstances where things would spread by word of mouth anyways.


Yeah that's what I mean. Amazon, online shopping etc... ads are stupid but Facebook etc are the ones making money from them, not the advertisers per se.  The social side and web interface is what attracted all the normies online. 

In '91 if I said I was on the 'Internet' it would been met with 'Interwhat?'  And then 'haha computer nerd'

In '96 those same kids were like 'ooooh can't wait to get home and get on AOL IM after school'


----------



## Some Curious Person (Dec 5, 2021)

Does the right not know how2code?


----------



## Lurk McDurk (Dec 7, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> I would unironically vote for a hardcore tankie Marxist over a Democrat. Marxists are correct that class is the biggest factor in a person's political leanings and behavior, that LGBTQI+P stuff is a distraction being waved about by oligarchs, and that lumpenproles (Democrats) work to keep oligarchs (also Democrats) in power.



There's a reason you can't vote for them .  Ultimately they are victorious in an armed insurrection, or dead.  They don't do elections.



MysticLord said:


> The only part I disagree with is the money making part. I've never seen any evidence that online ads work. The only ways to make money I can see on the internet are shops, pay to post communities, services, games as a (somehow) paid service, and subscription based interactions.
> 
> Most VC stuff glows so bright you can see it from Mars, is a scam, or it's obviously someone paying to shut out competitors so they can control political discourse and rent seek in government sectors (in which case you're paying journalists and associated scum to restrain people while you rob them).
> 
> Ads are in my opinion a scam, and a money laundering operation. They make people money only in very limited circumstances where things would spread by word of mouth anyways.



Facebook will happily sell you some evidence that online ads work!  That's their only contribution to the evolution of the internet, after all, they had the presence of mind to know that marketing stooges only care about the commission check, and are just as happy to receive a fake report that makes the check clear as they would be actually selling something.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 7, 2021)

Lurk McDurk said:


> There's a reason you can't vote for them .  Ultimately they are victorious in an armed insurrection, or dead.  They don't do elections.


I think they should reevaluate their goals and methods, and find another way to accomplish them. Most people would be very happy with something that is 80% Tankie Marxist, if it called itself something other than Marxism.

One fights with the army you have, not the one you want.


Lurk McDurk said:


> Facebook will happily sell you some evidence that online ads work!  That's their only contribution to the evolution of the internet, after all, they had the presence of mind to know that marketing stooges only care about the commission check, and are just as happy to receive a fake report that makes the check clear as they would be actually selling something.


I remember a controversy about this a few years ago.


----------



## Lurk McDurk (Dec 7, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> I think they should reevaluate their goals and methods, and find another way to accomplish them. Most people would be very happy with something that is 80% Tankie Marxist, if it called itself something other than Marxism.


I think that's the whole world we're living in right now.  The 19th century right is consuming itself as resources run thin, and the 19th century left is all either dead or Cuba, while no one has thought of a new idea yet.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 7, 2021)

Lurk McDurk said:


> I think that's the whole world we're living in right now.  The 19th century right is consuming itself as resources run thin, and the 19th century left is all either dead or Cuba, while no one has thought of a new idea yet.


We have, actually. Populism and localism are more popular than nationalism, and more palatable to lefties as it lets them have their buttsex worship in their little enclaves. Basically let's all become the Swedish Confederation instead of Balkanization and civil war.

The only issue is that our elites - oligarchs, bureaucrats - and the lumpenproles they partner with (who are parasites on the working classes) don't want change. They want to freeze everything as it is right now, forever. The problem is that they are cutting up the goose which laid the golden eggs, and they're just finding goose guts instead of gold.

You should read this article (and the comments) by Malcolm Kyeyune, a Populist from Sweden who was a Marxist. He's a co-founder of Orebro, a Swedish localist-populist party:








						The Decisive Battle
					

“A lot of people are feeling relieved, or saying they’re ‘grateful to Admiral Yamamoto’ because there hasn’t been a single air raid. They’re very wrong: the fact that the enemy hasn’t come is no th…




					tinkzorg.wordpress.com
				


He's appeared on the Good Ole Boys podcast several times, here's one that's public:


			https://www.patreon.com/posts/crawfish-58141096
		

Here's a clip from another episode he appeared on:





The leader of the Orebro party was also interviewed by the GOB on their podcast, which is here:


			https://www.patreon.com/posts/markus-allard-59625421


----------



## Lurk McDurk (Dec 8, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> We have, actually. Populism and localism are more popular than nationalism, and more palatable to lefties as it lets them have their buttsex worship in their little enclaves. Basically let's all become the Swedish Confederation instead of Balkanization and civil war.



It's not that simple.

Popular doesn't matter, because people who win elections will be compromised with just a little bit of money (look at AOC, for example). What's palatable to people who call themselves leftists doesn't matter either, because people who call themselves leftists are about a dozen strong in any particular place you might go to. What matters is a consistent narrative, a solid foundation, a coherent theory, whatever you want to call it.  Something people can't readily spot the bullshit in which resonates with the masses. 

Brexit and Trump weren't it, because they are just reactionary backlashes.  Reacting to a thing is not a plan to replace a thing.  Reactionary "movements" always putter out for this reason, they have no definition of victory.  If they accidentally defeat the thing they're reacting against, they find themselves with no plan for what to do tomorrow.

Marx identified the conflict correctly, although he got the predicted outcome wrong.  I think everyone forgets (or never really knew) that Marx was a journalist, not a political figure.  In keeping with that station, Marx was making predictions more than he was selling a theory for political action.  His predictions came true in some places but not others and eventually withered on the vine, but there wasn't a lot of meat there in terms of what to do when you've killed off all of the factory bosses.  That's why the Soviet revolution eventually fell to Stalin when Lenin died. There wasn't a clear way forward and absent a plan, Trotsky wouldn't take power. The result was an empire built on a shit foundation with Stalin at the helm.

America has also built an empire on top of a shit foundation, it just hasn't figured it out yet because it can finance the end game down the road with all of the money it amasses.  America's initial founding philosophy of free land for motivated evangelicals, who could be excused for killing off the Natives and Spanish colonists because people are fallen from grace and would be forgiven later... that all missed the boat entirely.  If god has to give you permission to kill the natives and Spanish colonists, he surely wouldn't do so just because you're greedy for a few more acres over the next hill.  This is a philosophy for people who "don't read so good," which is doomed to fail as soon as the free stuff runs out (you are here, LOL).

But because Marx's predictions aren't terribly different from John Milton's ideas, and both of them are trapped in Hegel's mousetrap of progression toward some mythical "end of history" that probably doesn't exist, there's no room for a competing narrative.  Their narratives cover the whole spectrum.  One says capital concentrates wealth and power, the other agrees with the one, but says "at some point people won't make the Air Jordans anymore, they'll just kill the landlord and the factory boss."

The two together don't leave any wiggle room.  If you want to kill the factory boss you're an extension of Marx.  If you think the Bangladeshi kids can be forced to make the Air Jordans forever as long as you have enough tables to chain them  to, you're the liberal bourgeoisie. To escape the cycle you've got to come up with some idea that isn't one of the others, which is hard to do considering you were born into the others regardless of which "side" you're on.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 8, 2021)

Lurk McDurk said:


> It's not that simple.
> 
> Popular doesn't matter, because people who win elections will be compromised with just a little bit of money (look at AOC, for example). What's palatable to people who call themselves leftists doesn't matter either, because people who call themselves leftists are about a dozen strong in any particular place you might go to. What matters is a consistent narrative, a solid foundation, a coherent theory, whatever you want to call it.  Something people can't readily spot the bullshit in which resonates with the masses.


AOC is popular because libtards are dumb enough to believe her shtick about being a bartender. She went to some sort of prep school as a kid, and her parents live in a mansion. Her boyfriend supposedly works for a startup and freelances as a marketing consultant on the side, but it's safe to say he's probably some oligarch or bureaucrat's spawn.

Libtards (and their right wing equivalent, wignats) are low quality people who will believe anything the authorities tell them. They have an external locus of control, anyone can get in their heads and fiddle around with shit if they have the correct credentials.


Lurk McDurk said:


> Brexit and Trump weren't it, because they are just reactionary backlashes.  Reacting to a thing is not a plan to replace a thing.  Reactionary "movements" always putter out for this reason, they have no definition of victory.  If they accidentally defeat the thing they're reacting against, they find themselves with no plan for what to do tomorrow.


Brexit and Trump were reactions by the working classes against their exploitation by oligarchs and both the email class bureaucrats and the lumpenprole criminals who depend on the oligarchs for status and resources.


Lurk McDurk said:


> Marx identified the conflict correctly, although he got the predicted outcome wrong.  I think everyone forgets (or never really knew) that Marx was a journalist, not a political figure.  In keeping with that station, Marx was making predictions more than he was selling a theory for political action.  His predictions came true in some places but not others and eventually withered on the vine, but there wasn't a lot of meat there in terms of what to do when you've killed off all of the factory bosses.  That's why the Soviet revolution eventually fell to Stalin when Lenin died. There wasn't a clear way forward and absent a plan, Trotsky wouldn't take power. The result was an empire built on a shit foundation with Stalin at the helm.


The only useful thing I've seen come out of Marxism is that people behave primarily in the interests of their class.

When you look at actual implementations of Marxism that isn't explicitly localist and populist, it always becomes managerialism.

The Soviets broke up the existing peasant farming collectives. They blood libeled them as kulaks, and set human trash on them to rape, torture, rob, and murder them - just like libtards are trying to do now with BLM and antifa terrorist militias.

They then set themselves up to "manage" the economy, and wouldn't you know it once they were in power they no longer saw the need to be subversive. The difference between the USSR then and the USA today is that the USA is now a Trotskyite Managerial State. Instead of commissars, we have diversity consultants and HR departments, which are mandatory for all corporations. And just like the USSR, the actual people's wealth is being taken from them and given to massive corporations which can hire more diversity consultants aka comissars.

Everything is a scam where bureaucrats do nothing unless the solution is to take your wealth, hire more bureaucrats, or pay bureaucrats more money.

Theory is entirely unnecessary to understand what's going on. You just need to look at what's happening and apply Ockham's Razor.


Lurk McDurk said:


> America has also built an empire on top of a shit foundation, it just hasn't figured it out yet because it can finance the end game down the road with all of the money it amasses.  America's initial founding philosophy of free land for motivated evangelicals, who could be excused for killing off the Natives and Spanish colonists because people are fallen from grace and would be forgiven later... that all missed the boat entirely.  If god has to give you permission to kill the natives and Spanish colonists, he surely wouldn't do so just because you're greedy for a few more acres over the next hill.  This is a philosophy for people who "don't read so good," which is doomed to fail as soon as the free stuff runs out (you are here, LOL).


When colonists first arrived here, they had a hard time keeping them in the colonies. They would run off to the live with the Indians, because the Indians lived freer lives, had a less rigid class structure, and know how to actually farm and hunt here unlike the colony commanders who were laser focused on cash crops and gold. We had entire colonies disappear (Roanoke) and go native.

Puritans were a very small part of the ethnic heritage of colonial America. Most of the colonists and pioneers prior to the Civil War were Scot-English Borderers, Cavaliers, Irish, and Dutch traders. Puritans were about as common as the French. Puritan culture is nothing like the cultures of Borderers, Cavaliers, the Irish, or the Dutch.

You're also denying agency to the Indians. King Phillips War against the Puritans started when he killed an Indian man who lived with them and was allied with them. During the war, two tribes fought alongside the Puritans. Some tribes were converts to the Puritan religion, and others were converted to Catholicism by French traders and wandering priests.

The natives still exist, they're just diluted into us via intermarriage.

In Central and South America, Catholic priests fought alongside their pure Indio congregations against Protestant mestizo slavers.

Absolutely nothing anywhere is black and white, and if you believe the low effort memes that reddit-tier libtards believe about America's "sins" then you are NGMI.



Lurk McDurk said:


> But because Marx's predictions aren't terribly different from John Milton's ideas, and both of them are trapped in Hegel's mousetrap of progression toward some mythical "end of history" that probably doesn't exist, there's no room for a competing narrative.  Their narratives cover the whole spectrum.  One says capital concentrates wealth and power, the other agrees with the one, but says "at some point people won't make the Air Jordans anymore, they'll just kill the landlord and the factory boss."


A better explanation is that Revolutionary Marxism and liberalism are totalizing ideologies. They believe that they have all the answers/solutions, and they can't tolerate anyone anywhere believing or organizing themselves differently.

Moreover, they are also purely materialist ideologies, which nonetheless seek to remake humanity - indeed, the world and all life on it - in their own image. For liberalism, this means turning everything into an economic transaction, the only thing that they believe can be measured.

And yet despite their materialism, whenever the chance to improve material conditions comes up, they whiff the ball. They do this because if material conditions improved, most normal and sane people would no longer see the need for them. Without their ideology, there is no need for managerialists - either commisars, bureaucrats, revolutionary vanguards, or oligarchs. Thus do these 4 *classes* of people prevent improvement of material conditions to keep those they supposedly serve dependent on them.

I believe in leaving people to their own devices. If they succeed, then their ideology is correct *for them*. If they fail, welp at least I contained a shit-tier ideology.


Lurk McDurk said:


> The two together don't leave any wiggle room.  If you want to kill the factory boss you're an extension of Marx.  If you think the Bangladeshi kids can be forced to make the Air Jordans forever as long as you have enough tables to chain them  to, you're the liberal bourgeoisie. To escape the cycle you've got to come up with some idea that isn't one of the others, which is hard to do considering you were born into the others regardless of which "side" you're on.


I have more in common with Sunni Muslim Bangladeshi kids chained to a sweatshop table than I do with bureaucrats in Washington DC, oligarchs such as Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, Twitter "commissars" whose parents are DC defense contractors, or a bunch of academics larping as a revolutionary vanguard while they drive busloads of feral lumpenproles to riot in the suburbs.

What I want is isolationism, nationalism, localism, and populism. Leave everyone to their business around the world and at home, do not interfere unless I am interfered with, show no mercy to social parasites, and organize society such that managerialists are not needed.


----------



## Lurk McDurk (Dec 8, 2021)

We've had what you're talking about before, it was the city-state era.  It makes the bourgeoisie merchant class wealthy (because there's no self-sustaining location that doesn't need any imports), and makes middle-tier invading German "kings" look powerful (because merchants don't want to pay for armies, they want to pay for hookers and blow).


----------



## TheFinalCountdown (Dec 8, 2021)

To make profit out of mentally ill people and to enable them on platforms like Twitter (read: echochamber.)

I don't give a shit if trannies simply exist, but when you give these people, or "people" these days one massive echochamber to sniff their own farts in 24/7 instead of just keeping it in the bedroom, that's the point where I draw the line.


----------



## Agent Abe Caprine (Dec 8, 2021)

Because the companies are typically in left leaning areas.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 9, 2021)

Lurk McDurk said:


> We've had what you're talking about before, it was the city-state era.  It makes the bourgeoisie merchant class wealthy (because there's no self-sustaining location that doesn't need any imports), and makes middle-tier invading German "kings" look powerful (because merchants don't want to pay for armies, they want to pay for hookers and blow).


What I'm talking about is the Swedish Confederation, the oldest extant nation state.

Say what you will about local governance, if the local magistrates fuck around it is very easy for them to find out. This is vastly superior to our current system of centralized bureaucratic control 3000 miles away in Washington DC, or centralized in a state capital in the middle of a favela.

A bourgeoise merchant class is desirable compared to our current crop of lumpen-bourgeoise bureaucratic parasites.

The history of the USA is the history of the failure of centralized bureaucratic organizations - central banks, federal government, and state bureaucracies. In order for the American people to prosper, these things must be destroyed and their people deported from the USA forever.


----------



## cybertoaster (Dec 11, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> I would unironically vote for a hardcore tankie Marxist over a Democrat. Marxists are correct that class is the biggest factor in a person's political leanings and behavior, that LGBTQI+P stuff is a distraction being waved about by oligarchs, and that lumpenproles (Democrats) work to keep oligarchs (also Democrats) in power.


Dont, tankies still believe that cuba is doing everything right and their abject misery its just the work of us gringos meddling in, even tho cuba has no limits to trade with any other country but us. The fact that marxism destroyed what was a net exporter of foodstuff to the point its now a net importer with a huge swath of its population going chronically malnourished its irrelevant to them.

When marxists rise to power you always see the same: the upper class parasites you complain about will flee and take their money with them, far easier to do today than a century ago. Only the lower middle class and down, basically anyone who cant afford an overseas bank account and a flight ticket out of the country will remain, which its still the majority but again not the people the revolution was supposed to stop, those got away.

So now you have to pay for the fuckups of the revolution, keeping you alive its optional


moseph.jartelli said:


> They voluntarily became retarded online and many traded real life for a virtual one


I wish, what actually happened is that the normies brought their IRL retardness to the web. Social media its but a tool to showcase and embellish if not outright fabricate whatever stupid shit they are currently doing


moseph.jartelli said:


> In '91 if I said I was on the 'Internet' it would been met with 'Interwhat?'  And then 'haha computer nerd'
> 
> In '96 those same kids were like 'ooooh can't wait to get home and get on AOL IM after school'


You were online in 91? how old are you?


MysticLord said:


> I think they should reevaluate their goals and methods, and find another way to accomplish them. Most people would be very happy with something that is 80% Tankie Marxist, if it called itself something other than Marxism.


Please, the average normie its a walking CONSOOMER meme, they would outright hate living in a marxist state where you have to wait months if not years for a new pair of shoes


----------



## Troonologist PhD (Dec 11, 2021)

Spiritually Sodomized said:


> *I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this in English; but there are established links between autism and mathematical ability, intelligence and depression, as well as creativity and breaking with tradition* in the form of radical left wing views.
> 
> People who work in the tech industry likely have higher mathematical/coding skills than the layman and are also as a result more likely to be autistic or display traits like transgenderism, LGBTQX identities or mental illnesses.
> 
> ...


But all the radlefts are the low IQ management.


----------



## Lurk McDurk (Dec 11, 2021)

MysticLord said:


> The history of the USA is the history of the failure of centralized bureaucratic organizations - central banks, federal government, and state bureaucracies. In order for the American people to prosper, these things must be destroyed and their people deported from the USA forever.


No,  the history of the US is decline on the horizon as soon as the last bit of "free" land was given away.  The only things that have prolonged the stasis before that decline are post-war profits in the 1920s and 1960s, and reckless amounts of credit beginning in the Reagan admin and continuing until the crashes of the early 2000s.  Next stop is social unrest.  None of this has anything to do with central committees or governments, because US governments at all levels are instruments of donor greed.



MysticLord said:


> Say what you will about local governance, if the local magistrates fuck around it is very easy for them to find out. This is vastly superior to our current system of centralized bureaucratic control 3000 miles away in Washington DC, or centralized in a state capital in the middle of a favela.


I'm not against a preference for local governance, mind you, I just don't think that it's any more likely in the US than a tankie overthrow by people who are more concerned with misgendering than anything else in the world. The deck is too stacked against it, it's pointless to talk about outside of causing grief for the two major political parties who ignore local races to keep more consultant money for themselves.



MysticLord said:


> A bourgeoise merchant class is desirable compared to our current crop of lumpen-bourgeoise bureaucratic parasites.



Not really, because eventually there's no more for rent-seekers to own and everyone else has no choice but to kill them all and burn their houses.  Capitalism is a poor means of distributing resources.  It just so happens that central committees are also a poor means of doing so as well.

When Bill Gates and Blackrock own all of the domestic farm land, there is no compromise that lets "muh free market" survive, and lets them keep it all.  It has to be taken from them.  This is the entirety of human history.  Wealth is amassed until the more powerful neighbor notices it, and then kills the wealthy and takes it from them.  It's really a testament to the naïveté of the children of boomers that they think the post-ww2 era was normal and sustainable.  It wasn't.  It was a particular set of circumstances that won't be repeated, because too many nations have nuclear weapons.


----------



## MysticLord (Dec 12, 2021)

Lurk McDurk said:


> No,  the history of the US is decline on the horizon as soon as the last bit of "free" land was given away.  The only things that have prolonged the stasis before that decline are post-war profits in the 1920s and 1960s, and reckless amounts of credit beginning in the Reagan admin and continuing until the crashes of the early 2000s.  Next stop is social unrest.  None of this has anything to do with central committees or governments, because US governments at all levels are instruments of donor greed.


Donors do act as a class, but the people who implement the donors plans are a class in themselves - the bureaucrat/middleman class. They insert themselves into bottlenecks and rent-seek.

Look at the Republican party elites: they will walk into your town, sniff out libtards stirring shit, insert themselves between you and them, then tell both locals whom the libtards afflict that he's on their side and they should give him money. After they have no more money left, he leaves and repeats the grift elsewhere. If they are foolish enough to elevate him to power, he'll immediately pal up with the libtards in private while putting up a token effort in public, while trying to extract as much money from both of them.

The federal government is the boot on our neck keeping us from doing what the American people did to grifters, con-men, liars, and politicians in the 1800s. Without the feds to protect them, they have only mercenaries - and mercenaries will kill if you pay them enough, but you can't pay them to die for you.

All efforts should be spent on subverting the federal government. That is the essential first step to liberation.



Lurk McDurk said:


> I'm not against a preference for local governance, mind you, I just don't think that it's any more likely in the US than a tankie overthrow by people who are more concerned with misgendering than anything else in the world. The deck is too stacked against it, it's pointless to talk about outside of causing grief for the two major political parties who ignore local races to keep more consultant money for themselves.


I'm referring to Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists, and hardcore old school Marxists. Not libertarian socialist gender spectrum freak shows.



Lurk McDurk said:


> Not really, because eventually there's no more for rent-seekers to own and everyone else has no choice but to kill them all and burn their houses.  Capitalism is a poor means of distributing resources.  It just so happens that central committees are also a poor means of doing so as well.
> 
> When Bill Gates and Blackrock own all of the domestic farm land, there is no compromise that lets "muh free market" survive, and lets them keep it all.  It has to be taken from them.  This is the entirety of human history.  Wealth is amassed until the more powerful neighbor notices it, and then kills the wealthy and takes it from them.  It's really a testament to the naïveté of the children of boomers that they think the post-ww2 era was normal and sustainable.  It wasn't.  It was a particular set of circumstances that won't be repeated, because too many nations have nuclear weapons.


How is rent-seekers having "their" land stolen by the locals and being lynched a bad thing lol?

On a long enough time frame, geographically isolated groups become ethnic groups. The catalyst for that is a breakdown in order, locals cleansing parasitic classes, and then keeping outsiders away.

Markets are by far the best means of distributing resources, but only at the local human scale. Scaling beyond locality unless absolutely necessary just burns resources faster, and the only people who profit from it are those who own the means of production (oligarchs) and those who manage them (bureaucrats). They have the first mover advantage, which is the only one that matters in a winner take all system such as our modern globalized economy.


----------



## Creepy Joe (Dec 12, 2021)

It's not just big tech. It's cooperations in general. Look at Activision Blizzard for example. They've been pandering to the far left for years and now you have one scandalous reveal after another. Employees are being sexually harassed (with one instance being so bad, that the victim committed suicide). Women and minorities earning less than others. Mothers having their milk stolen at work!

These people don't care about diversity, trans rights, black lives matter and so on. The only thing they care about is money. They preemptively use social topics as a shield, for when the actual truth gets revealed. It's so easy to make an Instagram post consisting out of a black block. But missing out on another yacht to keep 150 employees employed for longer? COME ON, MAN!


----------



## Troonologist PhD (Dec 12, 2021)

Creepy Joe said:


> It's not just big tech. It's cooperations in general. Look at Activision Blizzard for example. They've been pandering to the far left for years and now you have one scandalous reveal after another. Employees are being sexually harassed (with one instance being so bad, that the victim committed suicide). Women earning and minorities earning less than others. Mothers having their milk stolen at work!
> 
> These people don't care about diversity, trans rights, black lives matter and so on. The only thing they care about is money. They use the rest to use it as a shield, when the truth gets revealed. It's so easy to make an Instagram post consisting out of a black block. But missing out on another yacht to keep 150 employees employed for longer? COME ON, MAN!


Hit the nail on the head. It's because leftists are stupid and easily manipulated. Rightists and centrists are stupid too, but the left is stupid to the point of committing terrorism on behalf of the ruling class.


----------



## cybertoaster (Dec 12, 2021)

Creepy Joe said:


> It's not just big tech. It's cooperations in general. Look at Activision Blizzard for example. They've been pandering to the far left for years and now you have one scandalous reveal after another. Employees are being sexually harassed (with one instance being so bad, that the victim committed suicide). Women and minorities earning less than others. Mothers having their milk stolen at work!
> 
> These people don't care about diversity, trans rights, black lives matter and so on. The only thing they care about is money. They preemptively use social topics as a shield, for when the actual truth gets revealed. It's so easy to make an Instagram post consisting out of a black block. But missing out on another yacht to keep 150 employees employed for longer? COME ON, MAN!


Its like the neocon who is a huge closeted fag so he's super against gay rights, its all a smokescreen so nobody will suspect he's a polesmoker, but sooner or later the cat will be out of the bag.


Troonologist PhD said:


> Hit the nail on the head. It's because leftists are stupid and easily manipulated. Rightists and centrists are stupid too, but the left is stupid to the point of committing terrorism on behalf of the ruling class.


Its no secret that wokeism its the ideology of the 1%, plenty of studies show that. Due to the march on the institutions everyone with a college degree is either woke or woke-adjacent meaning that if you're a corporation they are your most profitable market, so you pander to them even if you dont actually fulfill any of your promises. If the economic pendulum went the other way and suddenly everyone upper middle class and above becomes right-wing then you'll see these corporations no longer pandering to the woke and instead pandering to the right.

Keep in mind a lot of these megacorps dont do the rainbow logo shit with their social media in markets like the middle east, russia and china, only on the west and even there some countries like poland are exempt because they know they'll lose marketshare for pulling that shit there.


----------



## Ona Quest (Dec 12, 2021)

Uhhhh... They're not? They just pretend to be because of being located in SanFran and the history it has had. But most tech dudes are more libertarian than leftist. They just wann buy guns, smoke weed, and ingest tiddy skittles


----------



## NotYourMom (Dec 12, 2021)

Because their right hand either holds their phone or controls the mouse while they masturbate.


----------



## Clint Torez (Dec 12, 2021)

Most of the tech companies created today were made during the 90's by "counter culture" anti-religious anti-republican leftoids who still pretend the 2000's never ended and must continue to "fight" against the "evil religious right-wingers like Bush!" that no longer exist in the government beyond fringe states.


----------

