What political ideology do you identify as?

[New Juda]

What's with extremists trying to fix the 'corrupt' or 'flawed' state of society by supporting extreme fringes which lack the support or broad-base acceptability to achieve any meaningful change?

By extremists I'm really referring to the super-fringe, absolute monarchists, supra-fascists, reactionaries, egoists, totalitarian communists, etc. I discount fascists and communists in my statement because they have political parties and support that beats the 0.001% margin.

Because none of the groups that have mainstream support or are broadly accepted are capable of fixing society.

Not like the extremists can either

[Albrenia]

Because none of the groups that have mainstream support or are broadly accepted are capable of fixing society.

Not like the extremists can either

Mostly because society can't be 'fixed' by any form of politics.

[Victoria I Penetravir]

absolute monarchists.

Constitutional hubris. That's what's makes a democratic - or should I say, 'false populist' society more extreme.

[Senator Huey Long]

Because none of the groups that have mainstream support or are broadly accepted are capable of fixing society.

Supporting super-fringe extremists is like praying to God to solve a problem. It might happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not like the extremists can either

Mostly because society can't be 'fixed' by any form of politics.

Sure it can, you just need to throw out democracy and such things.

[New Juda]

Not like the extremists can either

Mostly because society can't be 'fixed' by any form of politics.

Depends on how you define fix I guess

[Albrenia]

Mostly because society can't be 'fixed' by any form of politics.

Sure it can, you just need to throw out democracy and such things.

Yeah, uh... we've had thousands of years of society without democracy, and it's always been broken in some ways. If you're looking for perfect, you ain't gonna find it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sure it can, you just need to throw out democracy and such things.

Yeah, uh... we've had thousands of years of society without democracy, and it's always been broken in some ways. If you're looking for perfect, you ain't gonna find it.

Our democracy is broken too, something needs to change.

[Proletarian Republic of Americanada]

No forcing of policies on others that would violate their basic rights. What a "basic right" is is up to interpretation. I could say that the value of your own labor is a basic right and that therefore the people who produce should have control their own means of production. So first you'll have to clarify what a basic right is. EDIT: Also force is necessary in every society even they follow some mythical "NAP." I explained this in another thread.

Rights as defined by international law, and further expounded by the state's (or community's for the anti-statists there) shared values.

Competence and merit should be emphasized. But then, we all make mistakes and they should be used as a learning experience so as not to be repeated. I don't think owning the means of production means you're more competent or have more merit. You'll likely have more wealth, but that's just a consequence of owning the means of production and doesn't reflect personal merit. It simply means that you have the means to hire other people to produce value for you and then just take a little bit of the value for yourself. I believe in a merit based system, but that merit comes from individual producers themselves. The value they create is only owned by themselves.

You've got to have a measure of competence to maintain your ownership of the means of production.

I'm not sure that international law even defines what basic rights are, but even they if do you should your own standard to judge whether laws are unfair. If they are indeed the community's laws then they could be anything, including the example I gave (which I imagine you disagree with.) I wanted clarification on what you thought basic rights were yourself.

I don't see how your supposed competence entitles you to the value someone else produces. Ownership doesn't have to be maintained either, its simply something that you have or do not. As a consequence of ownership, you reap massive benefits that allow you to pay producers to maintain your factories for you by cleaning machines for example.

[Dark Socialism]

Sure it can, you just need to throw out democracy and such things.

Yeah, uh... we've had thousands of years of society without democracy, and it's always been broken in some ways. If you're looking for perfect, you ain't gonna find it.

The Satya-Yuga didnt have democracy

[Senator Huey Long]

Sure it can, you just need to throw out democracy and such things.

Why though? Objectively speaking, living standards in democracies have been much better than autocracies. Not perfect, by any means, but comparatively superior.

[New Juda]

Sure it can, you just need to throw out democracy and such things.

Why though? Objectively speaking, living standards in democracies have been much better than autocracies. Not perfect, by any means, but comparatively superior.

It depends on what you consider "fixed." People will have their different litmus tests.

Maybe he doesn't care about prosperity, rule of law, or human dignity.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sure it can, you just need to throw out democracy and such things.

Why though? Objectively speaking, living standards in democracies have been much better than autocracies. Not perfect, by any means, but comparatively superior.

Because American democracy is unworkable without an Other to unite us and prevent our tribalism from turning on one another and we don't have anyone to sub in for that position. Look at what happened once the USSR fell, just a few years later you got Newt Gingrich and it's just been a fast and steady downwards decline since then. Unless our society changes quickly the union is dead and we just need to balkanize.

[Avidius Legion]

Why though? Objectively speaking, living standards in democracies have been much better than autocracies. Not perfect, by any means, but comparatively superior.

Because American democracy is unworkable without an Other to unite us and prevent our tribalism from turning on one another and we don't have anyone to sub in for that position. Look at what happened once the USSR fell, just a few years later you got Newt Gingrich and it's just been a fast and steady downwards decline since then. Unless our society changes quickly the union is dead and we just need to balkanize.

About time tbh. The northern american map has been boring for centuries now.

[Firaxin]

To all the far-right/left people, how did you become an extremist?
My descent into fascism has been more a spiritual thing than political.

Mines been very spiritual as well, if you look back to see when I started on this site I would've been more a strasserist, but I realized I was being hypocritical and began following the virtues more closely. The virtues became more important to me after recently changing my attitude towards education and becoming diligent.

[Trumptonium1]

I don't like labels.

My first ever coherent set of views could firmly be labeled as neo-liberal about six years ago, with Chrome bookmarks full of Friedman videos. That's the way I identified and stayed as until the midst of the migrant crisis when I turned decisively to the right after Germany and a certain Belgian started dictating what other countries should look and feel like. My economic views haven't really changed that much but they did float towards the general ""populist"" trend of more government spending and disliking of free/unfair trade.

My general principles still align with progressive/neoliberal social views on issues other than migration, however since the migrant crisis/Brexit/Trump my principles have been strongly overcome by a feeling of disgust towards the centre-left and the centre and my views have circled around the simple objective of pissing off liberals as much as you can by doing whatever they don't want done. The Trumpian way of handling politics, which I ascribe to totally.

Hence I don't really have a label for myself. I would say largely identical to Trump, but I have a gigantic gripe with his foreign policy over his interventionism and the idea of any sort of relations with Russia and Israel beyond enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nationalist liberal is probably closest, i.e. what PVV and Likud identify as.

As for a single-line compass, I would say right-wing, although as the world shifts to the right it won't be long before I'm centre right again.

[Valrifell]

I don't like labels.

My first ever coherent set of views could firmly be labeled as neo-liberal about six years ago, with Chrome bookmarks full of Friedman videos. That's the way I identified and stayed as until the midst of the migrant crisis when I turned decisively to the right after Germany and a certain Belgian started dictating what other countries should look and feel like. My economic views haven't really changed that much but they did float towards the general ""populist"" trend of more government spending and disliking of free/unfair trade.

My general principles still align with progressive/neoliberal social views on issues other than migration, however since the migrant crisis/Brexit/Trump my principles have been strongly overcome by a feeling of disgust towards the centre-left and the centre and my views have circled around the simple objective of pissing off liberals as much as you can by doing whatever they don't want done. The Trumpian way of handling politics, which I ascribe to totally.

Hence I don't really have a label for myself. I would say largely identical to Trump, but I have a gigantic gripe with his foreign policy over his interventionism and the idea of any sort of relations with Russia and Israel beyond enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nationalist liberal is probably closest, i.e. what PVV and Likud identify as.

How hateful do you have to be that spiting the other side is your driving force?

[Page]

I don't like labels.

My first ever coherent set of views could firmly be labeled as neo-liberal about six years ago, with Chrome bookmarks full of Friedman videos. That's the way I identified and stayed as until the midst of the migrant crisis when I turned decisively to the right after Germany and a certain Belgian started dictating what other countries should look and feel like. My economic views haven't really changed that much but they did float towards the general ""populist"" trend of more government spending and disliking of free/unfair trade.

My general principles still align with progressive/neoliberal social views on issues other than migration, however since the migrant crisis/Brexit/Trump my principles have been strongly overcome by a feeling of disgust towards the centre-left and the centre and my views have circled around the simple objective of pissing off liberals as much as you can by doing whatever they don't want done. The Trumpian way of handling politics, which I ascribe to totally.

Hence I don't really have a label for myself. I would say largely identical to Trump, but I have a gigantic gripe with his foreign policy over his interventionism and the idea of any sort of relations with Russia and Israel beyond enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nationalist liberal is probably closest, i.e. what PVV and Likud identify as.

How hateful do you have to be that spiting the other side is your driving force?

They're not alone. Trump is President only because a lot of non-ideological voters voted for him for the sole reason that they thought it was funny that Trump offended and triggered some people. I call it the nihilist vote. I remember from the 2016 election quite a few people saying stuff like "Trump is going to ruin everything it's going to be hilarious, that's why I'm voting for him!"

And I do not think that the nihilist voters are insignificant in numbers. In fact, I think without them Trump would not have carried Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

[Trumptonium1]

I don't like labels.

My first ever coherent set of views could firmly be labeled as neo-liberal about six years ago, with Chrome bookmarks full of Friedman videos. That's the way I identified and stayed as until the midst of the migrant crisis when I turned decisively to the right after Germany and a certain Belgian started dictating what other countries should look and feel like. My economic views haven't really changed that much but they did float towards the general ""populist"" trend of more government spending and disliking of free/unfair trade.

My general principles still align with progressive/neoliberal social views on issues other than migration, however since the migrant crisis/Brexit/Trump my principles have been strongly overcome by a feeling of disgust towards the centre-left and the centre and my views have circled around the simple objective of pissing off liberals as much as you can by doing whatever they don't want done. The Trumpian way of handling politics, which I ascribe to totally.

Hence I don't really have a label for myself. I would say largely identical to Trump, but I have a gigantic gripe with his foreign policy over his interventionism and the idea of any sort of relations with Russia and Israel beyond enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nationalist liberal is probably closest, i.e. what PVV and Likud identify as.

How hateful do you have to be that spiting the other side is your driving force?

Extremely.

They're not alone. Trump is President only because a lot of non-ideological voters voted for him for the sole reason that they thought it was funny that Trump offended and triggered some people. I call it the nihilist vote. I remember from the 2016 election quite a few people saying stuff like "Trump is going to ruin everything it's going to be hilarious, that's why I'm voting for him!"

And I do not think that the nihilist voters are insignificant in numbers. In fact, I think without them Trump would not have carried Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

"ruin"?

I certainly wouldn't vote Trump 'for the lols' or because I want to watch the world burn. I like him because he hates the same people as I do and obstructs their life to the greatest extent of inconvenience, more often than not by politically targeting the groups that are most often subscribers to some wavelength of liberal ideology. For example, LGBT people. For those that are not, well that's called bad luck / wrong place wrong time / guilt by association.

[Washington Resistance Army]

How hateful do you have to be that spiting the other side is your driving force?

They're not alone. Trump is President only because a lot of non-ideological voters voted for him for the sole reason that they thought it was funny that Trump offended and triggered some people. I call it the nihilist vote. I remember from the 2016 election quite a few people saying stuff like "Trump is going to ruin everything it's going to be hilarious, that's why I'm voting for him!"

And I do not think that the nihilist voters are insignificant in numbers. In fact, I think without them Trump would not have carried Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

Michael Moore of all people actually had a rather great segment on people like that.

[Valrifell]

How hateful do you have to be that spiting the other side is your driving force?

They're not alone. Trump is President only because a lot of non-ideological voters voted for him for the sole reason that they thought it was funny that Trump offended and triggered some people. I call it the nihilist vote. I remember from the 2016 election quite a few people saying stuff like "Trump is going to ruin everything it's going to be hilarious, that's why I'm voting for him!"

And I do not think that the nihilist voters are insignificant in numbers. In fact, I think without them Trump would not have carried Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

From what I know, Trump didn't make any significant voter gains in those areas but his opponent lost a far greater amount than compared to her predecessor. That doesn't tell me that nihilists abruptly became a significant voting bloc, it tells me that more apathetic voters stayed home. The nihilists are the ones more likely to not vote because they're disillusioned with it.

[Datlofff]

Anarcho-Nazbol-Fascist-Communist

No. Im pro constitutional monarchy.

[Hohenzollern Deutschland]

I am a Russo-German Monarchist, believing that elements of both absolutist and constitutional monarchies could be formed together into the perfect form of government. The term "unconstitutional monarchist" could also apply here.

[Trumptonium1]

For the record I clicked Conservative, but that itself is very broad and includes groups/people I strongly dislike.

[Gospel Power]

I am pro Benevolent dictatorships, like in Belarus or António de Oliveira Salazar Portugal, you can have some freedom, but not too much, the nation is the most important, the dictator may use soft power to keep the country and it values safe without purging it citizens

Pro:
big government, Militarism, religious values, patriarchy, skeptic borders, unity, Moderate capitalism or maybe even socialism, pro environment, masculinity, Russia, Eastern Europe, Israel

Anti: Liberalism, Anarchism, Communism, Mass immigration, Nazism, American capitalism, SJW, Feminism, abortions, EU, KKK.