LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[The Parkus Empire]

(Image)

Hmm... "Fascism isn't left wing tho."
(Also, i'm assuming "Pro-Islam" is more a case of being against intervention in the middle east, and perhaps dogwhistling anti-israel stances.)

Pretty funny that the remnants of the fascist movement in the UK are further left than the status quo on foreign policy, and more radically left on economics than Labour.

Why would an anti-democratic ideology be in favor of "spreading democracy" in the Middle East? There is no possible way that seeing the west as having a mission to "spread democracy" is right wing, even if some right wingers can incidentally hold it. Intervening around the world can only be right-wing if it's driven by right-wing motives (as with Disraeli, for example).

[The Evergreen Dreamscapes]

I'm not sure about FOM, but the BNP did it so they could dismiss accusations of Islamophobia by lurching into criticism of middle east intervention and accuse the speaker of being the real Islamophobe, and then praising the Islamic doctrine on Usury, to distract from the fact they didn't like muslims very much.

Not sure why "Islamophobe" is taken seriously as a term to discredit someone anymore than "Christianphobe"

pseudochristians hold the power in the west, nobody's pushing persecutory policies against them

[The Parkus Empire]

Not sure why "Islamophobe" is taken seriously as a term to discredit someone anymore than "Christianphobe"

pseudochristians hold the power in the west, nobody's pushing persecutory policies against them

Dunno what you're talking about, Christianity has pretty much nil power in Europe unless you mean the Christian Democratic Parties and so forth, which I suppose are pseudochristian.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not sure about FOM, but the BNP did it so they could dismiss accusations of Islamophobia by lurching into criticism of middle east intervention and accuse the speaker of being the real Islamophobe, and then praising the Islamic doctrine on Usury, to distract from the fact they didn't like muslims very much.

Not sure why "Islamophobe" is taken seriously as a term to discredit someone anymore than "Christianphobe"

It shouldn't be taken seriously, you're right.

[Cekoviu]

pseudochristians hold the power in the west, nobody's pushing persecutory policies against them

Dunno what you're talking about, Christianity has pretty much nil power in Europe unless you mean the Christian Democratic Parties and so forth, which I suppose are pseudochristian.

hahahaha, sure

[Benuty]

Daily reminder anyone who supports the European Union is secretely supporting a degenerate cause as all nations, and pan national unions are degenerate, and must be destroyed. In their place an authoritarian global regime must rule over the habitable parts of the earth.

[The Parkus Empire]

Dunno what you're talking about, Christianity has pretty much nil power in Europe unless you mean the Christian Democratic Parties and so forth, which I suppose are pseudochristian.

hahahaha, sure

Sure. It's a major political force in America, but hardly in Europe.

Daily reminder anyone who supports the European Union is secretely supporting a degenerate cause as all nations, and pan national unions are degenerate, and must be destroyed. In their place an authoritarian global regime must rule over the habitable parts of the earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFj0e5dwkwE

[Cekoviu]

Daily reminder anyone who supports the European Union is secretely supporting a degenerate cause as all nations, and pan national unions are degenerate, and must be destroyed. In their place an authoritarian global regime must rule over the habitable parts of the earth.

I can never tell if you're joking or serious. :/

[Benuty]

Daily reminder anyone who supports the European Union is secretely supporting a degenerate cause as all nations, and pan national unions are degenerate, and must be destroyed. In their place an authoritarian global regime must rule over the habitable parts of the earth.

I can never tell if you're joking or serious. :/

In this case I am being completely serious.

[Benuty]

hahahaha, sure

Sure. It's a major political force in America, but hardly in Europe.

Daily reminder anyone who supports the European Union is secretely supporting a degenerate cause as all nations, and pan national unions are degenerate, and must be destroyed. In their place an authoritarian global regime must rule over the habitable parts of the earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFj0e5dwkwE

Not sure what to make of that video.

[The Parkus Empire]

Sure. It's a major political force in America, but hardly in Europe.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFj0e5dwkwE

Not sure what to make of that video.

An authoritarian global regime was Napoleon's project.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not sure what to make of that video.

An authoritarian global regime was Napoleon's project.

Meh.
https://youtu.be/oKkRS4rL6Pw

[Cekoviu]

I can never tell if you're joking or serious. :/

In this case I am being completely serious.

eesh

[Ostroeuropa]

In this case I am being completely serious.

eesh

I've become ambivalent about liberal essentialism. Where it's needed, authoritarianism seems fine to me, provided it is held in check by the public. Popular authoritarianism and so on, such as cracking down on some elements of culture.

[The Parkus Empire]

An authoritarian global regime was Napoleon's project.

Meh.
https://youtu.be/oKkRS4rL6Pw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHIz5l9LRBg

[Benuty]

In this case I am being completely serious.

eesh

Why the "eesh"? It is time humanity grow up, and accept the new order.

[Cekoviu]

eesh

Why the "eesh", it is time humanity grow up.

By living under a global authoritarian empire? Somehow, I don't think that will go very well.

[Ostroeuropa]

eesh

Why the "eesh", it is time humanity grow up.

In which aspects of governance do you think authoritarianism should be utilized?

[Benuty]

Why the "eesh", it is time humanity grow up.

By living under a global authoritarian empire? Somehow, I don't think that will go very well.

The remains of humanity will find it preferable to the disunity, and madness of the old order.

[The Parkus Empire]

eesh

I've become ambivalent about liberal essentialism. Where it's needed, authoritarianism seems fine to me, provided it is held in check by the public. Popular authoritarianism and so on.

I have no trust for the public. Juries are only good devices because they require unanimity. If I were accused of a very serious crime and liable to be put to death, and juries simply required majority vote to convict, I would prefer one hereditary juror try me rather than twelve random peers.

[Ostroeuropa]

Incidentally, for those who deny modern Social Progressives are very often Authoritarians:

Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups.

A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems".

Minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity.

I've become ambivalent about liberal essentialism. Where it's needed, authoritarianism seems fine to me, provided it is held in check by the public. Popular authoritarianism and so on.

I have no trust for the public. Juries are only good devices because they require unanimity. If I were accused of a very serious crime and liable to be put to death, and juries simply required majority vote to convict, I would prefer one hereditary juror try me rather than twelve random peers.

The public having a veto on government action is precisely the thing that gives authoritarian measures legitimacy should they be backed.

[Jelmatt]

Incidentally, for those who deny modern Social Progressives are very often Authoritarians:

Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups.

A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems".

Minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity.

Listing features of authoritarianism doesn't prove that social progressives exhibit them.

[The Parkus Empire]

The public having a veto on government action is precisely the thing that gives authoritarian measures legitimacy should they be backed.

If you're talking about tribunes, I can get behind that. If you're talking about Caesar, I can't.

[Ostroeuropa]

Incidentally, for those who deny modern Social Progressives are very often Authoritarians:

Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups.

A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems".

Minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity.

Listing features of authoritarianism doesn't prove that social progressives exhibit them.

Well, looking at feminism, it appears that the movement is definitively anti-pluralism and seeks to claim that you're either a feminist or anti-equality, and anti-equality is not legitimate. This also impacts the minimal social mobilization part (A small minority of the population locking down institutional control and denying others access while also suppressing and breaking up groups that aren't part of the movement), and much of the legitimacy is based in emotion rather than facts (Indeed, the core claim of the movement that women are oppressed and disadvantaged relative to men in the modern day are based on subjective emotional claims).

Social progressives on issues of race very often fulfill these criteria too so far as I can see.
Can you show how it's pluralist and so on?

[Ostroeuropa]

The public having a veto on government action is precisely the thing that gives authoritarian measures legitimacy should they be backed.

If you're talking about tribunes, I can get behind that. If you're talking about Caesar, I can't.

I think the second chamber should be sortition based, it would not be able to propose legislation, merely approve or veto it when it is proposed by the first chamber. It serves as a check on the political class.