ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Just because you can be left on economy doesn't mean you aren't right on other stuff.


Extreme nationalism (supremacism) is to the deep end of the right on that spectrum.

Actually, the more I can think of it, the more I see what is called the far right and the far left as being the deep end.

It's like a circle

"

faerwin wrote:

Actually, the more I can think of it, the more I see what is called the far right and the far left as being the deep end.

It's like a circle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

US civil war had little to do with tribalism or slaves. You think white people of that era would kill 700,000 of themselves for blacks? I think not. US civil war was about state rights as opposed to federalism.


Basically Federalism vs confederalism.

The Republicans fought the civil war to end slavery. The Democrats and liberal media in the south tricked all the white southerners into fighting the civil war for the reasons you listed; but the reality is, the rich liberal democrats in the south wanted to keep their slave labor, and the liberal media wanted to help them.

Most people from the south still believe the lies their grandparents were told by the democrats back then.

Oh and before you hit me with your "liberal doesnt mean that" meme: words change meaning over time. Progressives have hijacked the word liberal and now it is a synonym of progressive.

"

Khoranth wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

US civil war had little to do with tribalism or slaves. You think white people of that era would kill 700,000 of themselves for blacks? I think not. US civil war was about state rights as opposed to federalism.


Basically Federalism vs confederalism.

The Republicans fought the civil war to end slavery. The Democrats and liberal media in the south tricked all the white southerners into fighting the civil war for the reasons you listed; but the reality is, the rich liberal democrats in the south wanted to keep their slave labor, and the liberal media wanted to help them.

Most people from the south still believe the lies their grandparents were told by the democrats back then.

Oh and before you hit me with your "liberal doesnt mean that" meme: words change meaning over time. Progressives have hijacked the word liberal and now it is a synonym of progressive.

It isn't about slavery, state rights, federalism nor confederalism. Abraham Lincoln is the most right. It is about Separatists vs A United Union. Preservation of the Union was his goal rather than the abolition of slavery. Lincoln was only convinced that abolition of slavery is the right choice during the course of the civil war.

PS: Majority of the Northern States was abolitionists and Majority of the Southern States was pro slavery. The minorities who was abolitionists, pro slavery or neutral hardly matter, they don't decide the state polices. And we come to why the southern states want to secede from the union? The Majority of the States was abolitionists and the minority was pro slavery. The Majority would decide the national policies and to avoid it, Southern States would have to secede.

Any pro slavery advocates would have to bring in the US Constitution that says that any authority not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the individual states. However, individual liberty is a natural right. Any form of government that violates individual rights is immoral. In this case, it is the individual states. Applying the same concepts to any form of government, any authority not specifically granted to the government (individual states) is reserved to the individual. Natural rights superseded States' rights.

"

faerwin wrote:

Committing atrocities in the name of progress is just a cop-out. The very same thing can (and is) being done in the name of traditionalism.

While a few countries (Iran) for instance, may have killed a lot of people in their strive to bring back traditionalism, it is never on the same scale as the progressives such as Mao or Stalin etc. It also isn't the purpose of the traditional plan, whereas intentionally reducing population is often a primary purpose of a progressive plan.

"

faerwin wrote:

The US civil war is probably the easiest and closest (proximity) example I can give.

They weren't fighting over traditionalism. The southern states were rebelling against federal control - America was founded as a union of states, not a national system where states were subjects of the federal government. Over time, the system shifted towards federal power, and the civil war consolidated that.

"

faerwin wrote:

As such, if both side can commit extremes atrocities,

They don't on the same scales. On the smaller scale, there could be more fundamentalist abuses of one group vs another.

"

faerwin wrote:

then maybe one's position in regard to progressivism/traditionalism isn't the right thing to look at for the cause of those atrocities.


Instead, look at their perception of others. Those that view humans (or those viewed as inferior) as objects/pawns that can be sacrificed are the ones that are most likely to commit such atrocities.

While you are correct about mindset (people being disposable resources) - The chess analogy doesn't work for all of them, because many want to control their "subjects" and profit off of them.

"

faerwin wrote:

This is THE common factor that every leader that perpetuated atrocities have in common. They get so far removed from their own population (or in some rare case, so indoctrinated in their own belief) that they don't care about the rabble.

You can go and look at ANY warmonger in history and they ALL share that trait. Some do not have it for their own people but at the very least, they ALL have it for "the rest".

Genghis Kahn defies this. If the people surrendered and agreed, he didn't butcher them. If they did, he raised their cities to the ground. He didn't consider his troops completely expendable either, but used war prisoners as much of his shock troops.

Oddly enough, the lack of population control is what doomed his people to near genetic extinction.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

The US civil war is probably the easiest and closest (proximity) example I can give.

They weren't fighting over traditionalism. The southern states were rebelling against federal control - America was founded as a union of states, not a national system where states were subjects of the federal government. Over time, the system shifted towards federal power, and the civil war consolidated that.

It's not one or the other. You're both partially correct -- the Confederacy represented traditionalism and racism and state's rights; the Union represented progressivism and egalitarianism and centralization of government power. For the most part people's loyalty lay with the land they lived on, but for those with a choice they decided based not on a competition between single planks but on a competition between multi-issue platforms; different folks had different issue-priorities and thus would focus on the planks they thought were important while hand-waving away the planks from their preferred side that they disagreed with but considered relatively trivial.

On the one point of state's rights versus federal consolidation of power, the Confederacy was on the right side of history if you ask me. However, overall I'm glad the Confederacy lost, because I prioritize state sovereignty below the universal right to self-ownership.

"

faerwin wrote:

Just because you can be left on economy doesn't mean you aren't right on other stuff.


Extreme nationalism (supremacism) is to the deep end of the right on that spectrum.

Actually, the more I can think of it, the more I see what is called the far right and the far left as being the deep end.

It's like a circle

So what about Hitler was right wing exactly? I guess I think in American context of right. Freedom of speech/press/art/religion which he hated like left wing ANTIFA here. None was acceptable. [Removed by Support] - there is a joke in washington that Republicans are more hard core than Likud.

Like I said he followed all leftest diatribes - command econ, welfare, gun control, state control of everything.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Just because you can be left on economy doesn't mean you aren't right on other stuff.


Extreme nationalism (supremacism) is to the deep end of the right on that spectrum.

Actually, the more I can think of it, the more I see what is called the far right and the far left as being the deep end.

It's like a circle

So what about Hitler was right wing exactly? I guess I think in American context of right. Freedom of speech/press/art/religion which he hated like left wing ANTIFA here. None was acceptable. [Removed by Support] - there is a joke in washington that Republicans are more hard core than Likud.

Like I said he followed all leftest diatribes - command econ, welfare, gun control, state control of everything.

Since pretty much every Neo-Nazi group in the US is right wing that makes all of the right Nazis. This is the same type of hyper partisan logic you use.

Hitler went after the left wing and his party was made of the right wing of the time. Those free thinkers he went after where the left.

Conservatives are so pro anything israel because of the huge Evangelical base on the right. They can't wait for the rapture.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

So what about Hitler was right wing exactly? I guess I think in American context of right.

That's your problem. You need to drop the American context of "right wing" and escape the current position of the Overton Window.

Remember that flute question from my other thread? The far Left is defined by its desire to help out child C -- the one who historically has underperformed for whatever reasons -- using the force of government. The opposite of that is NOT libertarian minarchism or anarchism. The opposite of the far Left is using the force of government to give further advantages to those who are "not C" -- that is, have historically performed well -- and/or using government force to further disadvantage or even purge those who are "C" and/or advocate on their behalf. One way of looking at it is that the far Right wants to use the powers of an authoritarian state to crush the Left.

That's what makes Hitler a far-right figure: he was more than willing to use the tools and methods you associate with the far Left in order to crush the German far Left, especially the wealthy types who were funding Leftist causes.

Arnt Jehovah witnesses and Catholics conservatives? He put them in camps in large numbers. Pacifists like Libertarian ayn rand would say are most noble because they would never give life for the state because then they can take whatever they want after that - were also interned. Agree to disagree - he was a socialist on all levels. His party was even named such.