Why is white supremacy a right wing thing?

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,261

3

4

10

03.10.2023 07:54PM

3

4

10

03.10.2023 07:54PM

So not all republicans are white supremests, but pretty much all white supremests are republicans.

But why? If you believe the way white people have done things in this world is the best out of any other race, you would have to believe the following ideas are great ideas:

1) Secure the border; keep non white people out.

2) Universal healthcare.

3) Free college

4) High taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs

5) Abortion is legal; and paid for by the government for all that want them up until 12 to 20 weeks into pregnancy.

6) Hate speech is banned

7) Transwomen are women

It sounds like claiming white culture is the best culture in the world is akin to saying social democratic policies are the best in the world (except for immigration).

Social democracy is western civilization.

#2

hey-yo

Debates: 24

Posts: 382

1

2

4

hey-yo

03.10.2023 09:11PM

1

2

4

03.10.2023 09:11PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Not all white supremists are republicans or right wing. Personally I say none are. Majority seem to follow socialist political view points which is a far left political scale.

Unfortunately there are opposing ideas about how political scale should look. The best scale to use should be based on govt. size and scale. Bigger govt. on left, less govt on right.

In terms of white males/females being racist and republican - well this might be based more on political arena. Historically speaking, everyone was racist. Democrats consisted of primary group that followed whitesipremacy where as some republicans may have been racist but didnt want to outright keep anyone down or out of society.

Hard to pin point a change as any change spans from 1950 on through to 1990.

#3

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

8

10

11

03.10.2023 09:13PM

8

10

11

03.10.2023 09:13PM

stop using Republican as interchangeable with right wing. They don't mean the same thing at all and for many years, the Republican Party was the Left Wing party in America.

Right-wing politics "describes the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies"

By definition, any claim of inherent superiority of one class of humans over another based on inheritance rather than merit is the core of all Right-Wing belief- that is what that word means. Americans and other leftist political systems believe that all men were created equal.

#4

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,928

3

4

10

03.10.2023 10:26PM

3

4

10

03.10.2023 10:26PM

all men were created equal.

And all men were created women too.

#5

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,838

3

2

03.10.2023 10:38PM

3

2

03.10.2023 10:38PM

-->

@oromagi

Right-wing politics "describes the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies"

That definition exists in the narrow paradigm of socialist conceptualization. It all but excludes itself from applicability to any political theory that was not derived from socialism. It is applicable to nazis, fascists, communists, and democrats for example.

Liberals regardless of school (classical Greek, English, French) don't ask such questions and don't care to answer them. Like the Buddha answering questions about gods or a rabbi answering questions about the afterlife.

Liberals don't pass judgement on the existence of hierarchy, only their method of formation. The question is simple: Did you people volunteer to be part of this?

#6

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

8

10

11

03.10.2023 11:25PM

8

10

11

03.10.2023 11:25PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

That definition exists in the narrow paradigm of socialist conceptualization. It all but excludes itself from applicability to any political theory that was not derived from socialism. It is applicable to nazis, fascists, communists, and democrats for example.

Unsurprisingly, you demonstrate deep ignorance of the concepts of Left Wing and Socialism.

The political terms Left and Right were first used in the 18th century, during the French Revolution, referencing the seating arrangement of the French parliament. Those who sat to the right of the chair of the presiding officer (le président) were generally supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Old Regime. The original "Right" in France was formed in reaction to the "Left" and comprised those supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[ The expression la droite ("the right") increased in use after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the ultra-royalists.

From the 1830s to the 1880s, the Western world's social class structure and economy shifted from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism. This shift affected centre-right movements such as the British Conservative Party, which responded supporting capitalism.

The idea of Right Wing vs. Left Wing precedes the notion of Socialism by half a century. SInce Socialism is meaningless outside of the context of a robust Democracy, Socialism presumes that all men were created equal and free from inherent social obligation. Socialism is a natural outgrowth of left-wing thinking (i.e.- functional democracy demands public ownership of certain services- public defense, infrastructure, utilities, etc) which is itself a natural outgrowth of LIberal/Enlightenment thinking (all humans are by right equal and deserving of certain elemental rights).
Nazis and other Fascists defintionally assert the superiority of some humans before others and so by defnition are Right-WIng, anti-Liberal, anti-American, etc. in nature.

Liberals regardless of school (classical Greek, English, French) don't ask such questions

You forgot to say what questions

and don't care to answer them. Like the Buddha answering questions about gods or a rabbi answering questions about the afterlife.

What questions?

Liberals don't pass judgement on the existence of hierarchy, only their method of formation.

False and deeply ignorant. Liberals are defined by their faith in human equality, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" LIberals, by defnition, seek to separate political power from religion and aristocracy.

The question is simple: Did you people volunteer to be part of this?

Incomprehensible, I'm afraid. Try identifying who "you people" are and what the pronoun "this" represents in the question.

#7

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,928

3

4

10

03.10.2023 11:41PM

3

4

10

03.10.2023 11:41PM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

I guess he thought you said leftists.

#8

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,838

3

2

03.10.2023 11:42PM

3

2

03.10.2023 11:42PM

-->

@oromagi

The idea of Right Wing vs. Left Wing precedes the notion of Socialism by half a century.

No, the terminology does. Your definition does not.

Fascists defintionally assert the superiority of some humans before others

Everybody does that, at the very least they assert that people who agree with their ideology are superior to those who do not. That is all the fascists claimed in that regard.

Liberals regardless of school (classical Greek, English, French) don't ask such questions
You forgot to say what questions

"Are certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable?"

False and deeply ignorant. Liberals are defined by their faith in human equality ... LIberals, by defnition, seek to separate political power from religion and aristocracy.

Or perhaps they are defined by their belief in the moral supremacy of... liberty, but don't let me blind you with the obvious.

The question is simple: Did you people volunteer to be part of this?
Incomprehensible, I'm afraid. Try identifying who "you people" are and what the pronoun "this" represents in the question.

You people = anyone in the hierarchy or social order

This = the hierarchy or social order

#9

Double_R

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,246

3

2

5

Double_R

03.11.2023 12:16AM

3

2

5

03.11.2023 12:16AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

So not all republicans are white supremests, but pretty much all white supremests are republicans.

It is at it's core, quite simple; republicans are the conservative party.

Conservatism is about conserving the status quo.

The status quo in America is that white people own nearly everything and maintain the power.

The idea that we should conserve everything as it is, is based almost entirely on fear, so those who are fearful of change, fearful of the other, fearful of losing their livelihood... Tend to gravitate towards conservatism.

People for whom fear is their primary motivator are easier to manipulate by scapegoating.

#10

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,885

3

2

4

03.11.2023 12:25AM

3

2

4

03.11.2023 12:25AM

All ideologies are fucking poison to humanity. Think for your fucking self. I spit on them all.

#11

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,838

3

2

03.11.2023 12:26AM

3

2

03.11.2023 12:26AM

-->

@sadolite

All ideologies are fucking poison to humanity.

Tell me more about this anti-ideological ideology :)

#12

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,885

3

2

4

03.11.2023 12:55AM

3

2

4

03.11.2023 12:55AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Nothing to tell.

#13

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,885

3

2

4

03.11.2023 12:57AM

3

2

4

03.11.2023 12:57AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Now that you have told nothing what will you do now?

#14

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,838

3

2

03.11.2023 01:04AM

3

2

03.11.2023 01:04AM

-->

@sadolite

Probably exactly what I would have done had you never said anything.

#15

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

8

10

11

03.11.2023 01:34AM

8

10

11

03.11.2023 01:34AM

No, the terminology does. Your definition does not.

My definition is the dictionary definition my definition is the correct usage of this terminology. You are making semantic claims without any semantic evidence.

Fascists defintionally assert the superiority of some humans before others
Everybody does that,

False. Here in America, our first commandment is all men are created equal.

at the very least they assert that people who agree with their ideology are superior to those who do not.

Liberals don't think that way. Even people who disagree with me are entitled to civil rights. That is hyper-extremist right wing thinking and you think "everybody does that?" Clearly, you don't know have a realistic understanding of the world you live in.

That is all the fascists claimed in that regard.

Ideology is pretty irrelevant to Fascism. Under fascism, there is no poltical debate, websites like this are not permitted to exist.
Fascism is "a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."
The only ideology that counts is the idealogy of the autocrat. For example, the Republican Party has given up trying to publish a party platform because the only ideology that counts is Trump's and subject to change without notice.

"Are certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable?"

By definition, the Liberal answer to all of these questions is no. We reject that any human is worthy of more or less based on any inheritance.

False and deeply ignorant. Liberals are defined by their faith in human equality ... LIberals, by defnition, seek to separate political power from religion and aristocracy.
Or perhaps they are defined by their belief in the moral supremacy of... liberty, but don't let me blind you with the obvious.

I'm not surprised you're not a fan of liberty.

The question is simple: Did you people volunteer to be part of this?

Liberals believe that every social construct is voluntary and subject to improvement by a well-informed majority. All tyrants rule at the sufferance of thier subjects.

#16

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,885

3

2

4

03.11.2023 01:45AM

3

2

4

03.11.2023 01:45AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Welcome aboard.

#17

TWS1405_2

Debates: 4

Posts: 2,186

3

7

TWS1405_2

03.11.2023 01:48AM

3

7

03.11.2023 01:48AM

There is nothing more irritating than uneducated people throwing terms around that they do not understand.

White supremacist is a leftist fictional term derived from the fact-based term: racism

Basic (loose) definition of white supremacist: 1. one who believes that white people are racially superior to others and should therefore dominate society. 2. An advocate of white supremacy, a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.

That is basically the definition of racism. The only difference is the designation directed at white people.

Suffice to say, the exact same definition can be directed at any race.

Chinese supremacist.

Black supremacist.

Hispanic supremacist.

Using and focusing only one "white" supremacy is a fucking farce.

It's a part of human nature for one to believe they are better than another. Especially when one follows the law, graduates high school, gets a college degree and raises a family adding to the betterment of society/community; whereas some others do exactly the opposite and do nothing but cause harm, crime and division within that very same society/community. One is, by definition, better than the other. As such, the attitude/position of feeling/believing that they are better than the other is patently justified.

We all reap what we sow in life, and for those who take the low/criminal road...any attitude directed at them by others who feel more superior to them is justified and entirely warranted.

#18

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,838

3

2

03.11.2023 02:23AM

3

2

03.11.2023 02:23AM

-->

@oromagi

No, the terminology does. Your definition does not.
My definition is the dictionary definition my definition is the correct usage of this terminology. You are making semantic claims without any semantic evidence.

Which dictionary? When was it published? Before socialism? Didn't think so.

Fascists defintionally assert the superiority of some humans before others
Everybody does that,
False. Here in America, our first commandment is all men are created equal.

Created equal is not the same as eternally equal. If men were eternally equal then how come some are in prison and others aren't?

at the very least they assert that people who agree with their ideology are superior to those who do not.
Liberals don't think that way.

Yes they do, even pacifists do. Liberals may not consider it an excuse to deprive liberty just as pacifists may not consider it an excuse to use violence; but if they didn't believe it was a superior way of life they wouldn't fit the definitions.

Ideology is pretty irrelevant to Fascism.
The only ideology that counts is the idealogy of the autocrat.

Can't both be true.

"Are certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable?"
By definition, the Liberal answer to all of these questions is no.

A blanket "no" to any given social order or hierarchy means you are not a liberal, that is not the liberal answer. That is the answer of an insane anarchist who couldn't manage to fit in to a collective farm.

The liberal answer, as explained is: order and hierarchies assembled by consent are acceptable. Those assembled without consent are not acceptable.

We reject that any human is worthy of more or less based on any inheritance.

You inject an implication of inheritance where none is required, even by your own choice in definition.

The question is simple: Did you people volunteer to be part of this?
Liberals believe that every social construct is voluntary and subject to improvement by a well-informed majority. All tyrants rule at the sufferance of thier subjects.

You forgot "should", majority is democratic not liberal. Democracy a form of government. Liberty is a purported goal of government, the primary and indispensable one according to liberals.

Topic's author

#19

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,261

3

4

10

03.11.2023 03:03AM

3

4

10

03.11.2023 03:03AM

-->

@oromagi

Right-wing politics "describes the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies"

How is this different from republicanism? And if this were true, they would both support hierarchies based on race where whites are at top and whites at bottom.

#20

Intelligence_06

Debates: 167

Posts: 3,837

5

8

11

Intelligence_06

03.11.2023 04:55AM

5

8

11

03.11.2023 04:55AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I don't know, maybe white supremacism is commonly held more from right individuals than for example leftists.

Maybe? I mean, what is "right" and what is "left" is defined by who is associated with it, possibly. Spectacles are just spectacular single pieces of glass, but they have since been a symbol of the bourgeoisie because rich people have them on.

#21

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

8

10

11

03.11.2023 05:40AM

8

10

11

03.11.2023 05:40AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

-

Which dictionary?

wikipedia.

Created equal is not the same as eternally equal. If men were eternally equal then how come some are in prison and others aren't?

Created equal. Nobody should be in prison because of inheritance.

t if they didn't believe it was a superior way of life they wouldn't fit the definitions.

You do understand that asserting that one class of humans is inherently supreme is very different than prefering on argument of another.

Ideology is pretty irrelevant to Fascism: the only ideology that counts is the idealogy of the autocrat.
Can't both be true.

False and stupid.

"Are certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable?"
By definition, the Liberal answer to all of these questions is no.

That is the answer of an insane anarchist who couldn't manage to fit in to a collective farm.

False. Liberals don't believe in poltiical heirarchies or inheritances. LIberals are the opposite of anarchists: Liberals believe a highly organized democracy is the only real guarantee that freedom and equality will be respected.

The liberal answer, as explained is: order and hierarchies assembled by consent are acceptable. Those assembled without consent are not acceptable.

A temporary government appointment is not social heirarchy in the White Supremacist sense we are talking about here.

You inject an implication of inheritance where none is required, even by your own choice in definition.

White supremacy implies an inheritance of white genetics, white "blood"

majority is democratic not liberal

Anything democratic is Liberal definition. Democracy is the Liberal form of government.

#22

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,269

3

6

zedvictor4

03.11.2023 07:54AM

3

6

03.11.2023 07:54AM

-->

@hey-yo

Far left is far right in terms of extremist views.

Who supports what political organisation and why, is a separate issue, largely relative to historic circumstances and social education/programming.

And as far as sensory perception and data processing goes, everyone is still discriminatory towards everyone else. It's an inherent survival mechanism.

So it would be foolish not to expect discriminatory consequences based upon extreme dissimilarity.

Extreme racism is the outward projection of internal discrimination based upon a negative internal discriminatory assessment, and is a World wide phenomena. (Or positive of course based upon the individuals point of view.)

Being tolerant is the outward projection of a conclusion based upon a positive internal discriminatory assessment. (Or negative of course based upon one individuals appreciation of another individuals conclusion. )

#23

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,928

3

4

10

03.11.2023 11:06AM

3

4

10

03.11.2023 11:06AM

-->

@ADreamOfLiberty

Was the republican party far left in 1860?

No, the Republican Party was not far left in 1860. The Republican Party was actually formed in the mid-1850s as a center-right political party that was opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories in the United States. At the time, the dominant political party was the Democratic Party, which was split into factions that were divided over the issue of slavery.
The Republican Party's platform in 1860 emphasized economic growth, protectionism, and infrastructure development, while also opposing the expansion of slavery into new territories. Many Republicans also supported temperance and public education, which were popular causes at the time.
It's worth noting, however, that political labels and ideologies have evolved and changed over time, so it's not entirely accurate to apply modern political labels to historical parties and movements. The political context of the 1860s was very different from today, and it's important to understand the historical context and nuances of the time.

Was the Democrat party far left in 1860?

No, the Democratic Party was not far left in 1860. Like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party of the mid-19th century was a center-right political party that was divided over the issue of slavery. The party was primarily focused on maintaining the status quo of the country and protecting the interests of white southern slave owners.
In the 1860 presidential election, the Democratic Party split into two factions: the Northern Democrats, who nominated Stephen A. Douglas, and the Southern Democrats, who nominated John C. Breckinridge. Both candidates were conservative by modern standards and did not advocate for any significant progressive policies or reforms.
It's important to note that political labels and ideologies have evolved and changed over time, and it's not entirely accurate to apply modern political labels to historical parties and movements. The political context of the 1860s was very different from today, and it's important to understand the historical context and nuances of the time.

Labels mean nothing in the context of White Supremacy, or anything else.

#24

ebuc

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,268

3

2

4

ebuc

03.11.2023 12:29PM

3

2

4

03.11.2023 12:29PM

-->

@Greyparrot

@oromagi

And all men were created women too.

False. Woman X x....Man X y and share bilateral biologic/soul equaity alone with larger X chromosome, for most humans

oromagi....all By definition, any claim of inherent superiority of one class of humans over another based on inheritance rather than merit is the core of all Right-Wing belief- that is what that word means.men were created equal...

First part true. Kudos to truth

2nd part false to whatever degree. All, or, most men are X y, bilateral in biologic/soul equality.

Labels mean nothing in the context of White Supremacy, or anything else.

Yes OGP, labels do have meaning to whatever degree just as any word or word combinations do. You just dont like it when the labels appropriately --for the most part--- describe your right-wing aspects ex cultist Trumpeteer, Jan 6 violence insurrection etc.

You run and hide from truth is what i observe with you, for the most part.

#25

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,928

3

4

10