Let me explain something to your puny little brain.
Left/ right was intentionally constructed by propaganda ministers in the United States … everything you hear is a lie. The left was the party of higher taxes for the rich. That was hated by the rich, so they needed to switch polarity, and add confusion to the polar parties. The plan was to make the left seem the most evil and for the right to rescue us from this evil. You only need a few false flag moments to accomplish this goal for the average person (of which you are) I’m one of the exceptions.
Electronic voter fraud has been going on since 1992!!
Trump was NEVER elected by the American people.
You are so unbelievably misinformed (gigo - garbage in garbage out) that you actually think anything mass media is true in the US. It’s false. Electronic vote counting systems are coded by the United States government, that means that the United States government can hack all of them at will. This has been the case since the early 90’s.
What is “progressive” in terms of Scientific Medical Authoritarianism? How about violating the US Constitution and forcing people to wear masks and/or vaccinate?
What is “progressive” in terms of Gun Control? United States is one of the only places left in the world where citizens can arm & defend themselves against the government.
What is “progressive” in terms of Critical Race Theory? How about “canceling” tradition, conservativism, history, and purging the memory of 19th Century slavery and 20th Century Jim Crow laws?
When put into context, left & right, liberal & conservative, democrat & republic, can be inverted by what determines “Progressive” from a historical context.
Right, depending on one’s assessment of them, gun control, progressive, and scientific authoritarianism can be seen as progressive, positive or regressive, negative.
I call progressives, progressives because that’s what they call themselves and to contrast them with conservatives, not because I think they’re necessarily progressive.
I think it’s important to differentiate progressive authoritarians, the left with scientific authoritarians, which’re neither the left, nor the right.
Progressive authoritarianism is the inversion of conservative authoritarianism.
Progressives maximize equality and inclusivity, conservatives inequality and exclusivity.
Scientific authoritarianism is not the inversion of conservative values, but the imposition of scientific values.
What are scientific values?
Scientists see the world less in terms of good and bad/evil, the way both conservatives, and progressives see them, and more in terms of functional, ordered, healthy, sane, rational and dysfunctional, disordered, unhealthy, insane, irrational.
If you think about it, we’ve never really had a country who’s foundational ideology was scientific authoritarianism or technocracy.
We’ve had various conservatisms, libertarianisms and progressivisms, but not much technocracy.
But look how people responded to the scamdemic, when it comes to conservative and progressive authoritarianism, people have a lot of reservations, but when it comes to medical crises, real or imagined, people will very readily surrender their rights and freedoms.
A lot of people don’t trust priests, conservatives or progressives, but they seem to trust technocrats.
The future of authoritarianism may be technocracy, rather than fascism or communism.
What part of the Constitution does mask wearing violate? I find this line of argumentation odd. What “rights and freedoms” are people having to surrender? The right to not wear a mask?
Objectively, only Freedom is “Progressive”, which means little to no government intervention.
That means government should not tell you what to do, no seat-belts, no guard rails, no mandates, no restrictions, no safety-net, no welfare, etc.
If you are Pro-Government and therefore Pro-establishment, then you are actually Regressive, not Progressive.
Progressive is inverted by the Liberal-Left as a way to politically leverage the Conservative-Right, for example, for “abortion rights”, “environmentalism”, welfare, and more.
What Modern-Post-Modern progressivists actually do, is Regressive, not Progressive.
It’s also a coin-word, a phrase, that implies “if it’s Progressive then it’s automatically morally good, righteous, and superior.” This is another common lie. What is “Progressive” is not necessarily good. As we see, many “progressive” examples are actually Regressive. And many objectively progressive examples might not be morally good, but the exact-opposite. “Good for whom exactly”?
The phrase “Progress” means advancement toward a goal or solution.
But is all “Progress” actually forward movement? No, because people often make mistakes, need to back up to go forward, or need to find a new path left or right.
“Progress” can be backward when you are disoriented, which is proved by the exposition in this thread.
Another good contribution from Gloominary, one of the few worthwhile thinkers on this forum. Good philosophy.
Specifically, yea, the right not to wear masks.
More broadly, the right to bodily integrity.
The right to determine what goes on and into your body.
The right not to be forcibly medicated.
The right not to be prevented from accessing medicine and medical services, such as cancer patients being denied treatment, because they were supposedly worried hospitals would become overcrowded, which never came to pass.
Freedom of movement.
Freedom of association.
Freedom to conduct business.
People are choosing what’s more important to them, freedom, or technocracy.
What comes first?
Do medical experts have the right to take as much freedom as they want without challenge?
Do they have the right to take freedom at all?
The political establishment seems to think so, but millions of people beg to differ.
They are fighting them in the courts, and by noncomplying.
It’s up to us to determine whether we want to live in a free democracy or an unfree technocracy, or what degree of unfree technocracy we’re willing to put up with.
It means civil rights over authoritarian dictatorship. That is the divide between West and East.
In the East ALL people live only to serve the society (via authoritarian rule). In the West, ALL society exists to serve the people (constitutional law).
Broadly there are two approaches to “progressing” social issues:
Relax measures that restrict certain social conducts
Increase measures to steer conduct in a direction deemed “better”
The latter is commonly referred to as “affirmative action” - and generally people only accept one of the above two options as “progression”, rejecting the other as regression or moving away from progress.
This tends to be what distinguishes the libertarian from the authoritarian.
A common misconception is that this has anything to do with “left” or “right”. Lumping them together tends to be a sure sign of political ignorance.
One can be an authoritarian leftist, a libertarian leftist, an authoritarian rightist, or a libertarian rightist (or some centrist or apathetic combination etc.)
“Left versus right” is down to economic progressivism, which broadly follows the same distinction as above but about economic issues instead of social ones.
However the left are often lumped in with authoritarians in general on this account - plus the authoritarian left are currently the loudest and most easily criticised, so the MSM loves them. The authoritarian right are mostly ignored in today’s political spheres, being easily dismissed as Nazis/fascists.
Likewise, the libertarian left used to have a voice, but they have been politically marginalised on account of the actions of the authoritarian left. The libertarian right have gained a new identity as “alt-right”, taking their place as the main opposition to the authoritarian left.
To briefly cover a more nuanced distinction, there is a difference between laws/regulations and mores/customs/traditions. Conservatives tend to hold onto the latter and reject the former. Authoritarian progressives tend to favour the former to enforce the latter. The Libertarian left and right both want to minimise the former, and are cool with variety in the latter. This allows democracy. You can tell the authoritarian progressives and conservatives by their clear rejection of alternative opinions - they need their kind to dominate, or else (to them), deleterious catastrophe is imminent. Democracy for them can be a significantly traumatic ordeal.