Right-Wing Discussion Thread

[Hurdegaryp]

Truly? Interesting. How do you think an absolute monarchy would work in a modern western society?

You aren't the least bit concerned that you'd be treated as one of the ignorant masses in such a situation?

It's Diopolis, he doesn't want a modern Western society. He prefers the Middle Ages.

But if he would actually find himself in the Middle Ages, he would probably be too busy dying of the plague to appreciate his situation.

[Russo-Byzantine Empire]

I've been lead to believe he prefers Ancien Regime France.

[Hurdegaryp]

I've been lead to believe he prefers Ancien Regime France.

The plague still performed live on tour in Europe during the days of Louis XIV.

[Kauthar]

My nationstate is right wing and It`s only on it`s first steps. We`re anti-left wing and anti-liberalism. I`ll contribute to the thread when I have something to say.

This isn't an IC discussion, it's for real life views.

I agree. The Assad family has greatly improved Syria and he is the only person who can stabilize the country.

While I definitely agree that he is a more stable and obviously better alternative to a bunch of radical Islamists, we can't ignore the fact that he has brutally murdered his own people and is an oppressive asshole.

He hasn't really brutally murdered his citizens, he's been more lenient on them than Daesh or ISIS have.

[Dinake]

Hello.
I'm back.

Truly? Interesting. How do you think an absolute monarchy would work in a modern western society?

You aren't the least bit concerned that you'd be treated as one of the ignorant masses in such a situation?

I'm more of a neo-medievalist/semi-feudalist monarchist than an absolutist, although the difference is not particularly huge- particularly as there is no such thing as absolute monarchies, just absolute monarchs, who can arise from a semi-feudalist/neo-medievalist monarchy almost as easily as from a renaissance monarchy. Anyway, such a thing would work by having a king/emperor/whatever title is appropriate for the country in ultimate command, who then appoints ministers/advisors/technocrats to run things, in consultation with the church and lesser nobility.

[Caninope]

In my life I have yet to witness such an event. At 22 I may not have lived long enough but I doubt that is the issue. I have been discrmanted againist in my life. I have found no advantage to being white. I have fought and worked very hard to get anything at all. I find myself leaning toward the fact that "white privilege" Is just an excuse used by the lazy to justify why they have nothing.

I am not denying that racism does not exist. it surely does but in modern day america I have yet to witness anything like aparthied or Jim Crowe.

Of course white privilege is nothing more than an excuse. White privilege isn't a thing in 2015.

White privilege is most certainly a thing.

I can, for instance, walk down a street and not have to worry about the police. I can walk into a room of people who come from old money families and pretend to pass (at least for a substantially longer period of time than an African American or Hispanic coming from a similar background would be able to).

Being a conservative shouldn't mean that we don't talk about race. Being a conservative means that we should support just institutions. One of the greatest conservative institutions in the US, the Catholic Church, embraces diversity. A quarter of its worldwide population lives in Africa, and almost a third of its population in the US consists of a Hispanics. Conservatives being willingly blind to race means that we miss both the serious problems of justice that can arise and that our values seem all the less appealing to those less fortunate members of society. There's nothing wrong with admitting that those of minority backgrounds have, for historical, economic, or political reasons been excluded. We must ask ourselves what to do going forward and how to rectify historical wrongs in a way that does not harm society as it currently stands.

[Diopolis]

I've been lead to believe he prefers Ancien Regime France.

I am a legitimist in the sense that I favor the restoration of monarchies. I am not a legitimist in that I view the ancien regime as the ideal; it's hundreds of years removed from the ideal.

[Caninope]

*sigh* Fascism is not a right-wing ideology. Far from it in fact, contrary to what left and right-wingers seem to think.

Of course it is, people who claim Fascism is leftist because it economically rejects free market Capitalism don't understand what the political spectrum actually means in an economic sense. Right wing economics don't boil down purely to free market Capitalism, just like how Anarcho Communism isn't the only form of Left wing economic thought. Corporatism is equally allowed to be claimed by the right due to it's inherent hierarchal and competitive nature as a system, and the social views of Fascists are also on the hard right.

Corporatism merely represents the authoritarian side of right wing economic thought, where as free market capitalism represents the more libertarian side of right wing economic thought. Just like how state Socialism represents the authoritarian side of left wing economic thought, and anarcho Communism the libertarian side.

Fascism is interesting to say the least. It is both rightist in essence and contradictory to much of the Right. Fascism, as it was implemented in a historical context, rejects liberal democracy but does not ultimately reject modernity. That makes it an anomaly. Fascism seeks to dismantle many traditional ways of doing things, but at the same time it seeks to emphasize the idea of rebirth of the nation. Fascism seeks to retain many traditional values, but only in so far as they increase obedience to the state.

The truth is that I'm not fascism can be classed as "right" or "left" but rather only as a reaction to modernity and the concept of a liberal, capitalist democracy.

[Geilinor]

The truth is that I'm not fascism can be classed as "right" or "left" but rather only as a reaction to modernity and the concept of a liberal, capitalist democracy.

Fascism is a reactionary ideology and therefore I'd characterize it as being far-right. The clue is in the "rebirth" of the nation, implying that the nation was once greater.

[Diopolis]

The truth is that I'm not fascism can be classed as "right" or "left" but rather only as a reaction to modernity and the concept of a liberal, capitalist democracy.

Fascism is a reactionary ideology and therefore I'd characterize it as being far-right. The clue is in the "rebirth" of the nation, implying that the nation was once greater.

The problem is that reactionism is generally fairly specific. Reactionaries in the US talk about specific mistakes(Roe v Wade, social security act, etc) that should never have been made. Fascists are so frustratingly vague that they're not really reactionary, although they could be called vaguely counterrevolutionary.

[Geilinor]

Fascism is a reactionary ideology and therefore I'd characterize it as being far-right. The clue is in the "rebirth" of the nation, implying that the nation was once greater.

The problem is that reactionism is generally fairly specific. Reactionaries in the US talk about specific mistakes(Roe v Wade, social security act, etc) that should never have been made. Fascists are so frustratingly vague that they're not really reactionary, although they could be called vaguely counterrevolutionary.

Fascists aren't against specific mistakes but ideologies and systems of government. Counterrevolutionary fits too.

[United States of White America]

Fascism is the way forward. Nationalism and a fair hand over the liberal tendencies of PC nincompoops any day, thank you.

[Diopolis]

The problem is that reactionism is generally fairly specific. Reactionaries in the US talk about specific mistakes(Roe v Wade, social security act, etc) that should never have been made. Fascists are so frustratingly vague that they're not really reactionary, although they could be called vaguely counterrevolutionary.

Fascists aren't against specific mistakes but ideologies and systems of government. Counterrevolutionary fits too.

Exactly my point- reactionaries have a strong tendency to be against specific mistakes and have an exact pinpoint where it all went wrong. Fascism doesn't. It just talks about past times and how they were so much better.

[United States of White America]

Fascists aren't against specific mistakes but ideologies and systems of government. Counterrevolutionary fits too.

Exactly my point- reactionaries have a strong tendency to be against specific mistakes and have an exact pinpoint where it all went wrong. Fascism doesn't. It just talks about past times and how they were so much better.

Well, yes, because past times were better.

[Caninope]

The truth is that I'm not fascism can be classed as "right" or "left" but rather only as a reaction to modernity and the concept of a liberal, capitalist democracy.

Fascism is a reactionary ideology and therefore I'd characterize it as being far-right. The clue is in the "rebirth" of the nation, implying that the nation was once greater.

The problem being that their "rebirth" often consists of a new vision of a society, not necessarily a return to an older form of organization. For instance, the rhetoric or the Nazis and the Italian Fascists, while compelling to a group of people who feel oppressed by modernity, called for a new vision of society. The Nazis did not call for a return to the Prussian Monarchy or the princely states. The Fascists did not call for a return to the regionalism. While I would contend that nationalism's inherent status as a "right wing" characteristic should be challenged, I think that is even more so the case for Germany and Italy. Neither nation (and I do mean nation, not state) existed before the beginning of the 19th century, which makes nationalism a product of European modernity (even more so than it already is).

So is it a reactionary ideology? I hesitate to say so, given that there is nothing that they wish to return to. There is only that which they want to destroy.

[Xune]

Of course white privilege is nothing more than an excuse. White privilege isn't a thing in 2015.

White privilege is most certainly a thing.

I can, for instance, walk down a street and not have to worry about the police. I can walk into a room of people who come from old money families and pretend to pass (at least for a substantially longer period of time than an African American or Hispanic coming from a similar background would be able to).

Being a conservative shouldn't mean that we don't talk about race. Being a conservative means that we should support just institutions. One of the greatest conservative institutions in the US, the Catholic Church, embraces diversity. A quarter of its worldwide population lives in Africa, and almost a third of its population in the US consists of a Hispanics. Conservatives being willingly blind to race means that we miss both the serious problems of justice that can arise and that our values seem all the less appealing to those less fortunate members of society. There's nothing wrong with admitting that those of minority backgrounds have, for historical, economic, or political reasons been excluded. We must ask ourselves what to do going forward and how to rectify historical wrongs in a way that does not harm society as it currently stands.

I would very much advise you read up on Soviet-era tactics to destabilize and control countries. One of their main tactics includes self hate and self shaming by the majority population.

Yuri Bezmenov, ex KGB talking about his job:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

Transcribed parts of the whole:
https://mcalvanyintelligenceadvisor.com ... malization

None dare call it a conspiracy:
http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html

There is plenty of stuff out there about this, just look around.

[Caninope]

The problem is that reactionism is generally fairly specific. Reactionaries in the US talk about specific mistakes(Roe v Wade, social security act, etc) that should never have been made. Fascists are so frustratingly vague that they're not really reactionary, although they could be called vaguely counterrevolutionary.

Fascists aren't against specific mistakes but ideologies and systems of government. Counterrevolutionary fits too.

Communists (or at least, the Leninists and their descendants) are against ideologies and systems of government, yet they're clearly not reactionaries.

The reason why they aren't reactionaries is because they do not want to return to anything, and I'm not exactly sure that fascism wants anything to return to.

[Caninope]

White privilege is most certainly a thing.

I can, for instance, walk down a street and not have to worry about the police. I can walk into a room of people who come from old money families and pretend to pass (at least for a substantially longer period of time than an African American or Hispanic coming from a similar background would be able to).

Being a conservative shouldn't mean that we don't talk about race. Being a conservative means that we should support just institutions. One of the greatest conservative institutions in the US, the Catholic Church, embraces diversity. A quarter of its worldwide population lives in Africa, and almost a third of its population in the US consists of a Hispanics. Conservatives being willingly blind to race means that we miss both the serious problems of justice that can arise and that our values seem all the less appealing to those less fortunate members of society. There's nothing wrong with admitting that those of minority backgrounds have, for historical, economic, or political reasons been excluded. We must ask ourselves what to do going forward and how to rectify historical wrongs in a way that does not harm society as it currently stands.

I would very much advise you read up on Soviet-era tactics to destabilize and control countries. One of their main tactics includes self hate and self shaming by the majority population.

Yuri Bezmenov, ex KGB talking about his job:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

Transcribed parts of the whole:
https://mcalvanyintelligenceadvisor.com ... malization

None dare call it a conspiracy:
http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html

There is plenty of stuff out there about this, just look around.

It seems rather obvious that, yes, propaganda is meant to do propaganda's job. However, that doesn't mean that we ought automatically dismiss any and all problems as propaganda.

[Diopolis]

White privilege is most certainly a thing.

I can, for instance, walk down a street and not have to worry about the police. I can walk into a room of people who come from old money families and pretend to pass (at least for a substantially longer period of time than an African American or Hispanic coming from a similar background would be able to).

Being a conservative shouldn't mean that we don't talk about race. Being a conservative means that we should support just institutions. One of the greatest conservative institutions in the US, the Catholic Church, embraces diversity. A quarter of its worldwide population lives in Africa, and almost a third of its population in the US consists of a Hispanics. Conservatives being willingly blind to race means that we miss both the serious problems of justice that can arise and that our values seem all the less appealing to those less fortunate members of society. There's nothing wrong with admitting that those of minority backgrounds have, for historical, economic, or political reasons been excluded. We must ask ourselves what to do going forward and how to rectify historical wrongs in a way that does not harm society as it currently stands.

I would very much advise you read up on Soviet-era tactics to destabilize and control countries. One of their main tactics includes self hate and self shaming by the majority population.

Yuri Bezmenov, ex KGB talking about his job:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

Transcribed parts of the whole:
https://mcalvanyintelligenceadvisor.com ... malization

None dare call it a conspiracy:
http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html

There is plenty of stuff out there about this, just look around.

And this has what to do with it? It's perfectly possible to have a conversation about priviledge without degenerating into self-shaming.

[United States of White America]

Fascists aren't against specific mistakes but ideologies and systems of government. Counterrevolutionary fits too.

Communists (or at least, the Leninists and their descendants) are against ideologies and systems of government, yet they're clearly not reactionaries.

The reason why they aren't reactionaries is because they do not want to return to anything, and I'm not exactly sure that fascism wants anything to return to.

It's returning to the old ways with a new vision. It is a matter of stamping out the poison of the old roots, so that the flower can blossom again.

[Diopolis]

Communists (or at least, the Leninists and their descendants) are against ideologies and systems of government, yet they're clearly not reactionaries.

The reason why they aren't reactionaries is because they do not want to return to anything, and I'm not exactly sure that fascism wants anything to return to.

It's returning to the old ways with a new vision. It is a matter of stamping out the poison of the old roots, so that the flower can blossom again.

And there's nothing reactionary about "stamping out the poison of the old roots". That's like the opposite of reactionary- that's progressive.

[United States of White America]

It's returning to the old ways with a new vision. It is a matter of stamping out the poison of the old roots, so that the flower can blossom again.

And there's nothing reactionary about "stamping out the poison of the old roots". That's like the opposite of reactionary- that's progressive.

Oh, it can be reactionary. A quick purge of the poison may be necessary. I oppose left-wing progessivism, but I support progress only if it benefits the state and the new government. As I said in the thread I made- which for some reason I can't seem to find- western democracy has become naive and has relied too much on progressive thought as opposed to action.

[Caninope]

Communists (or at least, the Leninists and their descendants) are against ideologies and systems of government, yet they're clearly not reactionaries.

The reason why they aren't reactionaries is because they do not want to return to anything, and I'm not exactly sure that fascism wants anything to return to.

It's returning to the old ways with a new vision. It is a matter of stamping out the poison of the old roots, so that the flower can blossom again.

Except that your analogy completely fails.

Fascism does not return to the "old ways" with a new vision. Hitler had no intention of re-instituting the aristocracy, princes, or Imperial Monarchy. Mussolini wanted to march forward with modernity and attempted to use every institution in his power to encourage loyalty to the state. Fascism is a reaction to liberal, capitalist, democratic systems, but it's illiberality is not the same as the illiberality of the traditionalist vision.

[Caninope]

And there's nothing reactionary about "stamping out the poison of the old roots". That's like the opposite of reactionary- that's progressive.

Oh, it can be reactionary. A quick purge of the poison may be necessary. I oppose left-wing progessivism, but I support progress only if it benefits the state and the new government. As I said in the thread I made- which for some reason I can't seem to find- western democracy has become naive and has relied too much on progressive thought as opposed to action.

The illiberality of the fascist is not the only illiberality, nor is it even the most important strand found within the thinking of those on the "Right".

I also question to importance of loyalty to the state. It should be pointed out that the conservative inclination in loyalty to authority does not always translate into loyalty to the state (and I would hold that it often should not).

[Xune]

I would very much advise you read up on Soviet-era tactics to destabilize and control countries. One of their main tactics includes self hate and self shaming by the majority population.

Yuri Bezmenov, ex KGB talking about his job:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

Transcribed parts of the whole:
https://mcalvanyintelligenceadvisor.com ... malization

None dare call it a conspiracy:
http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html

There is plenty of stuff out there about this, just look around.

And this has what to do with it? It's perfectly possible to have a conversation about privilege without degenerating into self-shaming.

The concept of white privilege is degenerating and self shaming.

For instance, I am Jewish. My people have committed many atrocities around the world (started the slave trade, funded and encouraged many soviets, ran sexual exploitation rings, ect ect). In the recent financial crisis, my country is the only one that got out unscathed, our economy even made bounds in progress. Our people have an incredibly high average salary.

No one would dare go up to one of us and say, "You have Jewish privilege." The fact is that we don't. We work hard, and we get paid. There isn't any conspiracy propping us up, none the less "Privilege".

The same goes with Whites.