Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
NO you are right basically. Left would be pure fascism or communism, and the right would be wild west or pure anarchy.
The issue is the American right has an America first nationalist streak and people equate that with Nazi Germany nationalism. Nationalism can exist at any point on the spectrum and is just a strategy really, it's especially tame in America which isn't an ethno state.
It is a lie to say that fascism is a right wing extreme, as in fact it is anarchy.
Correct, fascism has nothing to do with freedom or small government. Our constitution is right about where libertarian is on the chart. Watch the video I posted earlier about the forms of government, it describes everything perfectly.
Also, Ghandi was a nationalist, so was hitler. Nationalism doesn’t have anything to do with the form of government you get. It can be present with a good or bad government.
That makes sense. I assumed they compared the old Democrat racist laws to be a far-right thing but I find any government intervention is a shift left no matter what.
If there is a racial supremacy law in the US, it will be on the left regardless of what race is benefits. So I would see people that want to obtain white nationalism through government part of the left. This would be the same for black nationalism. It's collectivism + big government.
It would get muddy I think with the term nationalism. White / Black nationalism would be supremacy instead of nationalism. Nationalism would only imply you are putting your nation first. In the context of an ethno state like Germany that could also mean putting your race first as well but that wouldn't hold true for America which is all races and cultures.
There are some cultural stances of the parties that don't align fully. For example pro life which is a staple of the right is further left then pro choice since it's implying government regulate what people can do.
That's a good point. I meant it as using the government as a weapon against other races.
Supremacy, racism, whatever else, honestly I don't care what people believe or who they associate with as long as they don't involve government.
Actually I thought about this more and there's a bit of a linguistic hole. As an American of a race there's no word for wanting to preserve your race within a culture. There's only supremacy which would imply you think your race is superior not that you want your race to merely survive, they might be using nationalism as a stretch for this as well.
This is mostly correct, anarchy is not pure freedom because you can’t leave your property unattended or it gets taken. You then end up forming tribes to band together to protect each other’s property and then eventually a dictator will take control. Anarchy always precedes an oligarchy or dictator.
This video is the best explanation and should be viewed by every human being!
This is mostly correct, anarchy is not pure freedom because you can’t leave your property unattended or it gets taken. You then end up forming tribes to band together to protect each other’s property and then eventually a dictator will take control. Anarchy always precedes an oligarchy or dictator.
Anarchy is never freedom...
you will always live in fear that whatever you have worked your life to attain will be destroyed, sometimes just because some sick fucks just want to watch the world burn and reflect the emptiness inside of them.
Yeah, this thing is accurate except I think it should be in a circle. If there is no government, anarchy, one will quickly form and will likely look very much like communism or fascism, i.e. a brutal dictatorship.
Best is to be as far right on this line while still having enough of a government to protect individuals from anarchy.
NO you are right basically. Left would be pure fascism or communism, and the right would be wild west or pure anarchy.
The issue is the American right has an America first nationalist streak and people equate that with Nazi Germany nationalism. Nationalism can exist at any point on the spectrum and is just a strategy really, it's especially tame in America which isn't an ethno state.
It is a lie to say that fascism is a right wing extreme, as in fact it is anarchy.
Correct, fascism has nothing to do with freedom or small government. Our constitution is right about where libertarian is on the chart. Watch the video I posted earlier about the forms of government, it describes everything perfectly.
Also, Ghandi was a nationalist, so was hitler. Nationalism doesn’t have anything to do with the form of government you get. It can be present with a good or bad government.
That makes sense. I assumed they compared the old Democrat racist laws to be a far-right thing but I find any government intervention is a shift left no matter what.
If there is a racial supremacy law in the US, it will be on the left regardless of what race is benefits. So I would see people that want to obtain white nationalism through government part of the left. This would be the same for black nationalism. It's collectivism + big government.
It would get muddy I think with the term nationalism. White / Black nationalism would be supremacy instead of nationalism. Nationalism would only imply you are putting your nation first. In the context of an ethno state like Germany that could also mean putting your race first as well but that wouldn't hold true for America which is all races and cultures.
There are some cultural stances of the parties that don't align fully. For example pro life which is a staple of the right is further left then pro choice since it's implying government regulate what people can do.
That's a good point. I meant it as using the government as a weapon against other races. Supremacy, racism, whatever else, honestly I don't care what people believe or who they associate with as long as they don't involve government.
Actually I thought about this more and there's a bit of a linguistic hole. As an American of a race there's no word for wanting to preserve your race within a culture. There's only supremacy which would imply you think your race is superior not that you want your race to merely survive, they might be using nationalism as a stretch for this as well.
This is mostly correct, anarchy is not pure freedom because you can’t leave your property unattended or it gets taken. You then end up forming tribes to band together to protect each other’s property and then eventually a dictator will take control. Anarchy always precedes an oligarchy or dictator.
This video is the best explanation and should be viewed by every human being!
This is mostly correct, anarchy is not pure freedom because you can’t leave your property unattended or it gets taken. You then end up forming tribes to band together to protect each other’s property and then eventually a dictator will take control. Anarchy always precedes an oligarchy or dictator.
This video is the best explanation and should be viewed by every human being! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jJEuZrvNYg0&feature=youtu.be
Anarchy is never freedom... you will always live in fear that whatever you have worked your life to attain will be destroyed, sometimes just because some sick fucks just want to watch the world burn and reflect the emptiness inside of them.
Yeah, this thing is accurate except I think it should be in a circle. If there is no government, anarchy, one will quickly form and will likely look very much like communism or fascism, i.e. a brutal dictatorship.
Best is to be as far right on this line while still having enough of a government to protect individuals from anarchy.
My thoughts.