shit MUH science is never wrong! they’ve mapped our entire patriotic genome out
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (38)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
The regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet.
No, that's not true at all. It's the left that is based in individualism, because individualism always leads to government power.
Right wingers base their ideology on the family, the community, the nation, and the race.
You're falling into the trick to make you look only at the economic spectrum. Politics is much greater than "free market yes/no"
You don't have any idea what you're talking about. I teach History and political philosophy at the university level in Texas. You sound very much like someone who's been thoroughly indoctrinated in the public school system to believe the exact opposite of what is fact.
The right-end of the political spectrum is absolute, 'sovereign' individualist. These people either won't, or haven't, come together to form society. If no one comes together into groups society, and thus politics, don't exist. And, the more people come closer and closer together in larger and larger groups, the more politics takes place: everything becomes political. Why do you think that big cities are so blue and socialist? Is it because they believe in freedom and individualism??
As people congregate into ever-bigger clusters and everything becomes political (and the drift toward the left-wing takes place because of the 'Overton Window' phenomenon), the individual gradually loses his individuality; he becomes one of the masses, the collective, the mob. The absolute left-end of the political spectrum is comprised of big, lawless, dangerous mobs who simply take what they want and crush any individuals who won't join them or who stand in their way.
Talented demagogues like Robespierre, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Soros, etc, who crave power can then use those mobs like a blunt instrument to smash open society, and get what they want out of the system. This is what Antifa and BLM have been doing. Does that sound like right-wing individualism to you??
To begin educating yourself, please read:
Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. (1943); “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” in The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek. (1991)
Because they are full of joggers.
Which makes your opinion worth less than a random post on 4chan.
How many of your colleagues are antifa, eh?
The guy who envisioned a world without borders and nations? He envisioned a one world government, for fuck's sake.
I think the exact same thing of you.
Tell me professor, why the hell do you think the Marxists are doing everything they can to destroy the family and the national, cultural, and racial identity?
Except, I'm in my '60s and have experienced life before the endless politicization of American culture by the left.
How many of my colleagues are Antifa? I'd say, pretty much all of them support it, in one way or another. They've been indoctrinated by the educational system, too. Hitler said "you might be against us, but your children will be for us".
Trust me, just because my colleagues get degrees doesn't mean they have any intellectual wattage whatsoever. And just because everyone in the country is running like lemmings toward social collectivism doesn't mean it's good, desirable or just. Becoming one of the anonymous masses and subsuming your own individuality into the mob has never, ever resulted in the utopia the monsters promise.
You don't like Hayek? Okay, fine. Read something else. Read anything else. Just read. Use your rational faculties to build an independent understanding that isn't based on what you've been taught to parrot.
Let me stop you for a moment. Feminists are individuals, yes, but they are not individualists; they're collectivists. They don't want a traditional family because it's, well, traditional which they've been propagandized to believe oppresses them; and the patriarchy that heads the traditional family makes them "weak", "dependent" and "marginalized". They've completely abrogated their most magical and profound role: that of lifegiver, for one of sterile, selfless and soulless service to the state. In fact, Eve's name in the Greek Old Testament is Zoe, or 'life'.
It's all horseshit. These women are just looking for excuses for their own inferiority complex. Any woman who wants to achieve will do so in spite of obstacles that have nothing to do with family, husbands, society's expectations, etc. They therefore seek safety and power in numbers. That makes them collectivist. They adopted the women's movement as their substitute "siblings"; the state as their surrogate "husband"; and, the social welfare system as their extended "family". No feminist that I know (I'm in academia, so I know lots of feminists) consider themselves individualists.
In addition, you must remember, as you look at the political spectrum, that philosophical premises do not have to possess their real-life corresponding social movement or political party. Just because we can imagine a theoretical political construct, doesn't mean it's workable in reality. So, just because absolute sovereign individualism exists on the continuum, it's not practical in any sense except as a means to argue for greater respect for individual personhood or for civil rights against the tyranny of an absolutist king or a ravening mob.
This precisely what the 18th c. Enlightenment philosphers did; because at the time, absolute monarchy (in which the executive, legislative and judicial functions of government were concentrated into one sovereign whose authority was unchallengeable) was the right-most point on the spectrum. John Locke and others argued that the sovereignty claimed by the king, alone, was a fundamental condition of all men, who are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, none of which were in the power of the king to take away.
What Locke did, then, was to push the political spectrum even further rightward by arguing for the sovereignty of each individual human being, from whose consent the king derived authority. Can we achieve a government from absolutely sovereign individuals? No. While it's philosophically sound, in practice it's unworkable: absolutely sovereign individuals will not relinquish their independence long enough to form a traditional family, community and nation.
In a concentric cascade of affiliation outward from the 'self', or ego, the family unit is one's first introduction into society proper; then church affiliation; then community, state, and nation, in that order. Leftists want to isolate individuals from their natural social progression in order to put the pieces back together in reverse order so as to create a New Soviet Man whose altruistic selflessness would make him a drone of society. Feminist theory seeks to achieve this same objective by substituting a woman's natural and traditional attachment to her own family for that of the anonymous others of the leftist state.
Look, professor.
I love Hayek. I gave The Road to Serfdom to several people to redpill them on the dangers of socialism.
However, Hayek and his dichotomy between individualism and collectivism looks only at the economic dimension. Hayek explains why a centrally planned economy fails in terms of both prosperity and (importantly) freedom. We agree on this.
However, when it comes to envisioning a whole society (i.e. politics) deciding how we decide what and how much to produce is only one problem. What makes a society is also a collection of social norms and accepted behaviors, not to mention the relationship with those outside of our society.
Think of the following issues:
The Saudis using their petrodollars to build thousands of mosques in your country (they do this all over Europe)
China flooding your country with cheap drugs
LGBT lobby grooming children to be homos and getting them HIV in the process
Feminism telling women that men are evil, and to get cats instead of having a family and making children.
If you're for "individualism" you shouldn't care about these things. That's what the Left pushes for. The current Left hates you and attacks you if you oppose any of these issues. They tell you it doesn't affect you and it's not your business what other people do.
A conservative, a right winger, understands that a society cannot survive if any of those issues is left unchecked. A Muslim, a homo, a drug addict, and a feminist will never preserve the kind of freedom of the individuals that you seem to treasure. You must understand this.
Human beings are not just mere economic actors in a textbook. A human spends a lot of his life without the ability to provide for himself: too young, too old, temporarily ill, some disabled, etc.
A feminist is individualist: she doesn't want a family, she doesn't recognize other institutions such as the Church, she probably hates her dad. She has a bullshit degree in gender studies and no work ethic. What do you think she does? She votes for socialism because she's a failure in society and needs the government to take care of her. Good luck explaining her the benefits of the free market.
So I, as a right winger, I'm saying that I do care what religion people in my community follow, if they do drugs, if they have work ethics, if they are homos, etc.
Libertarians are just like communists: they believe in a utopia that can never exist because it ignores human nature.
I would say the descriptions you gave about right wingers are accurate, but they are not exclusive to the right. A left wing person also values community for instance, the difference is the priority given to certain values.
Generally speaking the economic spectrum is the main detertiminate of left/right because the economy reflects the values of the people. The other values, depending on priority, will determine how far left or right you fall on the political spectrum.
Nazi's for example are socialists with a high priority on the nation state and racial identity which would place them on the left, but not far left, in my opinion.
Racial identity is a left wing priority. Traditional values do not, generally speaking, place a high emphasis on race. For instance throughout the middle ages monarchs would often marry off their children to other nations even though they were not of the same race for political power, but what did matter was religious belief. Race is one way of forming unity and tends to be utilized by the left more often because of a lack of shared morals based on doctrine.
Religious beliefs are a much higher priority for right wing people and tend to outweigh any consideration of race, because a shared moral foundation is generally what binds family, community and nation while racial identity tells you nothing of ones character.
Authoritarinism tends to be a much higher value to the left, because that is what will bind the community together when there is no agreed upon moral foundation.
This is where our views differ.
The economy is not the defining factor. In your reasoning you'd have to conclude that Sweden is much more right wing than Hungary. This cannot be right.
What defines the Left is the belief in the value of "equality / equity" as something to strive for, and in internationalism. Marx himself envisioned national borders disappearing, and the narrative of the burgeoise exploiting the proletarians has been shifted to nations in the 1920s - stating that rich nations are exploiting poor nations.
It's absolutely ridiculous to consider the Nazis to be left wing. They certainty didn't believe in equality - neither from a national point of view, nor from an individual point of view, where meritocracy and entrepreneurship and being middle class was still a value in the Nazi ideology. Their adoption of socialism is simply because they rejected unchecked capitalism too. They offered a third position, between communism (left wing socialism) and capitalism.
Race is the most important of the traditional values.
America being taken over by the Marxists and not recognizing this fact anymore doesn't make it any less true.
Do you think you, assuming you're a white man, could go to Nigeria and after speaking the local language and respecting the customs you'd be considered one of them? Hell, even if you're a black American you'll never be considered a Nigerian.
Or do you think you could convert to Islam, learn Urdu, marry your underage cousin, and now you're accepted in Pakistan?
The terms Right Vs left were invented in the French Revolution to differentiate those who supported democracy, which is the left side, from those who supported the King, which is the right.
Authoritarianism isn't a value; it's an instrument. Us on this forum wanting to throw commies out of helicopters - that's pretty authoritarian don't you think?
Leftists don't want communities to bind together at all. Why do you think they promote multiculturalism and the destruction of the family? They want individuals, not communities.
When you say I would have to conclude that Sweden is more right wing than Hungary because of the economic freedom score, I believe that is non sequitur. I also did not say it was the defining factor, I was trying to be a bit more nuanced in my use of language by saying it was the main way to determine the values of people.
The structure of an economy based on nationalizing business and property is a clear indicator of far left wing idealogy.
Free market capitalism is preferred by right wing people because it does not infringe on their sense of fairness and justice and this is a point that left wing people generally agree upon.
The disagreement comes with the far left, which for all intents and purpose is communism and also has major conflict with classical liberalism which is generally what I refer to as left wing.
Nazi ideaology is clearly borne of enlightenment principles thus why I would classify it as left wing and not far left or right wing. Left wingers believe in nation states and borders, that is not exclusive to the right. Why would you say they don't believe in equality? They clearly thought every German citizen was equal, im not sure why you would say otherwise. Did you mean to say they didn't believe in equity, if so I would agree and that also happens to be the same position of left wingers.
I heavily disagree with race being the most important traditional value, it very clearly has always been religious belief.
Race is important and does play a part in unifying a society, but shared doctrine is the foundation, not race. This is why countries of the same race have civil wars amongst each other.
It's funny you mention Nigeria, I am a white man and my best friend is Nigerian and our friendship grew that way because our religious belief is exactly the same. He came here because Nigeria doesn't have much opportunity and he became a citizen. I know for a fact that amongst the Christian population of Nigeria they would welcome a white Christian as one of their own if they went to live there, but it generally doesn't happen because western countries are better off finacially.
I agree with you about authoritarianism, you are correct in labeling it as an instrument. It is used and has been used by both left and right wing governments.
When you say leftists I take that as Communists, and they absolutely do not want individuals, they want group think, and will use force to crush anyone who disagrees with the group. Historically they focused on the aristocracy, today they focus on crushing white people. They don't think on an individual basis and it has always been a group vs group battle in their minds.
Give me some examples.
On the other hand racial wars happen all the time whenever two races share the same land, look at Africa. Take Rwanda for instance.
No it doesn't happen because they don't let foreigners in. Because only white people's countries have been duped into not seeing race. If you think you could be accepted in Nigeria and nobody would see your skin color, man I have a bridge to sell you.
In Africa they chop and eat albinos in a soup to get magic powers, did you know that?
Oh, forget Africa. Walk into an American ghetto and see what happens. See if they don't care about your race.