-->
@cristo71
Well until this joke of a thread, both.
Why is white supremacy a right wing thing?
Posts
Total:
130
-->
@RationalMadman
Well until this joke of a thread, both.
I agree. RM Good call
Non-white { people of color } skin-heads, flying nazi flags is not familiar to me.
democrats of USA have much large base of color, Old news
Republicans have much smaller base of color.
Hispanics lean more and more conservative every year, for most part
Wiki......"In 2018, 29.1 million Latinos were eligible to vote. 62% of Latino voters identified with, or leaned toward, the Democratic Party, whereas 27% of Latino voters identified with, or leaned toward, the Republican Party"..
-->
@ebuc
I don't even care about that. If you look at Latino cultures they are right-wing by far. My point is that ethnosupremacy in any culture is linked to the right-wing faction of that respective society/community, pretty much always. The exception is that in east Asia (China, South Korea, Japan and such) you get ethnosupremacist attitudes on both sides of the aisle. Actually that's across Asia as a whole.
-->
@RationalMadman
Ok fair enough, tho none is ...' non-white { people of color } skin-heads, flying nazi flags is not familiar to me.'....
Not to say they dont exist. just not familiar with them.
-->
@oromagi
wikipedia.
Post socialism
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.
Moving the goal post. You injected inheritance where "wikipedia's" definition did not.
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.
I do. You inject "inherently" where it was not required by the definition you gave.
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.
Not an argument, ignored.
hat 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
Your contradiction is as obvious as it can be, no further effort from me is required.
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
Then republicans have never been in favor of social hierarchy. You attempt equivocation.
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"
I did not comment on your definition of white supremacy but "right wing politics" which did not contain "inheritance" or "inherent". Moving the goalposts.
Anything democratic is Liberal definition. Democracy is the Liberal form of government.
Since you like wikipedia, read:
If you come to a point where you say the word "liberal" has nothing to do with "liberty" don't bother going on, I'll ignore it. If someone is willing to subvert profoundly obvious vocabulary as an tactic they don't have an argument.
-->
@Greyparrot
Left vs right is too vague and dynamic a term to be useful. I say "right-tribe" and "left-tribe" to make it clear I'm talking about arbitrary political alliances and not any kind of coherent theory or attitude. oromagi's sad copy pasta from wikipedia illustrates this perfectly.
It was two sides of a french building and people have been engaging in semantic sophistry with the words ever since.
What is not a semantic game is this: The democrat party was the part of slavery since inception, become the party of jim crow when they lost a war, then became the party of affirmative action.
The record of disproportionately fucking up black people's lives is steady.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's clear the Democrat party has no plans for actual equality and integration. Diversity is just another excuse for segregating whites.
-->
@cristo71
Only white people tend to believe that white supremacy is a right wing thing.
What?
What people of color, aside from the tiny sliver of them who are MAGA, don't believe this?
Even the FBI recognizes that there's no denying it.
-->
@Double_R
Many POC tend to see white supremacy as existing just about everywhere, not just in right wing ideology. Under the loosest definition I have seen, white people intermarrying are, in effect, supporting the persistence of white supremacy.
Edit:
I meant “white people INTRAmarrying…”
-->
@cristo71
I meant “white people INTRAmarrying…”
Inbreeding leads to lack of access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concept and ego.
Biodiversity began with biologic/life on Earth, and spread to humans later on.
Inter-breeding leads to diversity of species. What we are witnessing is the browning of humanity.
All for say Yay! All against say Nay! Just I expected the Yays have it.
-->
@RationalMadman
Copy that RM, a continuation of killing off of indigenous native inidan peoples handicapped, poor etc.
White conquistadors > slaughter indians
wiki..."The Acoma Massacre refers to the punitive expedition by Spanish conquistadors at Acoma Pueblo in January 1599 that resulted in the deaths of around 500 Acoma men killed in a three-day battle, along with 300 women and children. "
One of many such acts in south america Sad :--(
-->
@Double_R
Even the FBI recognizes that there's no denying it.
That's like saying "Even RT thinks there are nazis in Ukraine", the FBI is a subversive democracy toppling propaganda and psychological warfare instrument. An enemy of the people.
The only question to answer when presented with a claim from the FBI is "Why do they want us to think that?"
Was the republican party far left in 1860?
The Republican party was the leftist party in 1860. "Far left" is a red herring since that term later in the 19th century. Far left in the US means anti-capitalist, in Europe far left means left of socialism.
The test the French Assembly used to separate Left was Right was straightforward and still defines the dividing point today: The Left WIng prioritizes humans rights over property rights, The Right Wing prioritizes property rights over human rights.
There were four major party tickets in 1860:
The Republican Party promised that no US territory or new state would permit slavery.
The Democratic Party promised that no state would adopt slavery against the majority will.
The Constitutional Union party promised to avoid civil war by avoiding the issue of slavery.
The Southern Democratic Party promised to secede from the Union if slavery wasnot contstiutionalyy protected
Of these, the Republican party prioritized humans rights over property rights to a more substantial degree than the other three parties and is properly characterized as the leftmost paty on the 1860 ticket.
The Republicans remained the left-most major party ticket in every election until 1892. After 1932, the Republican Party was the right-most party in every general election except '48 and '68.
1892
I aint no bigot. I'm the first guy to say, "It ain't your fault that yous are colored.”
-->
@RationalMadman
-->@<<<oromagi>>>Anything democratic is Liberal definition. Democracy is the Liberal form of government.Every single corrupt nation that happens to have elections already disproves you here.
Daft. All human government suffers from corruption. There's no such thing as an uncorrupt polticial systems.
Corruption doesn't disprove that Democracy is the Liberal form of government.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
-->
@<<<oromagi>>>
Post socialism
Leftism is not a post-socialist word. The meaning of words ought not to change as the needs of propagandists change. Those propagandist should come up with new words. To the extent that socialists prioritize human rights over property rights, classic socialists are Leftist.
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.Moving the goal post. You injected inheritance where "wikipedia's" definition did not.
- I regret that you lack the perception to apprectiate how the word inheritance is an apt shorthand for social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition.
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.
I do. You inject "inherently" where it was not required by the definition you gave.
- I regret that you lack the perception to apprectiate how the word inheritance is an apt shorthand for social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition.
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.
Not an argument, ignored.
- I regret that you lack the perception to appreciate how when only one's man ideology counts in politics, the relevance of other people ideology becomes moot. (i.e. so what if you're a pacifist, Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, ideology is the ideology that counts in this autocracy.
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
Then republicans have never been in favor of social hierarchy. You attempt equivocation.
- The topic is why are all White Supremacists Right WIngers. All White Supremacists now vote Republican but that does not imply that all Republicans are Right-WIngers.
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"
I did not comment on your definition of white supremacy but "right wing politics" which did not contain "inheritance" or "inherent". Moving the goalposts.
- I regret that you lack the perception to appreciate how the word inheritance is an apt shorthand for social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition.
Anything democratic is Liberal by definition. Democracy is the Liberal form of government.
The tyrranny of the majority is the consequence of Liberalism. The question is not whether government is necessary for human happiness or whether every form of government is imperfect, corrupt, tryannical. Any government contrary to one's values will feel like tyrranny. The question is whether the mob or one man is more likely to represent the interests of the majority and act to that majority's benefit. That is not perfect freedom for everybody always, it is only more free than any other system of government.
-->
@Intelligence_06
I mean, what is "right" and what is "left" is defined by who is associated with it, possibly.
I don’t think it means any particular policy. I would want to get rid of the terms and replace it with single issue parties that form coalitions. If you’re pro BLM, that shouldn’t stop you from opposing vaccine mandates for example. The 2 issues have nothing to do with each other. But most BLM advocates support vaccine mandates because they are both left wing talking points.
Post socialismLeftism is not a post-socialist word.
yet the definition you gave is, which was the point.
- I regret that you lack the perception to apprectiate how the word inheritance is an apt shorthand for social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property or tradition.
You regret that I can't be cowed into reading bizarre extra meaning into words as that would allow the framework you advanced to make a tiny bit of sense.
he 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
Then republicans have never been in favor of social hierarchy. You attempt equivocation.
- The topic is why are all White Supremacists Right WIngers.
The tattered remains of your definition of "right winger" is the subtopic at hand.
The question is not whether government is necessary for human happiness or whether every form of government is imperfect, corrupt, tryannical. Any government contrary to one's values will feel like tyrranny. The question is whether the mob or one man is more likely to represent the interests of the majority and act to that majority's benefit. That is not perfect freedom for everybody always, it is only more free than any other system of government.
Arguments as to whether democracy brings more liberty are irrelevant to your error.
Democracy and liberty are not the same thing. Democrat and liberal are not synonyms.
Your claim that democratic is liberal by definition or that liberal is democratic by definition remains false.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Your claim that democratic is liberal by definition or that liberal is democratic by definition remains false.
False.
Democracy { democrats } is broad base of support ergo liiberally applied government just as paint is liberally applied with a broad brush.
Republicans are much much more narrowed mind ergo the more narrow-minded, mostly white and higher income base.
-->
@ebuc
Democracy { democrats } is broad base of support ergo liiberally applied government just as paint is liberally applied with a broad brush.
rofl, "liberally applied with a broad brush" refers to a tolerance for excess quantity (> /\/\/\ <). It has absolutely nothing to do with moral/political liberty )?(.
Text book equivocation.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
yet the definition you gave is, which was the point.
- false
You regret that I can't be cowed into reading bizarre extra meaning into words as that would allow the framework you advanced to make a tiny bit of sense.
- false
The tattered remains of your definition of "right winger" is the subtopic at hand.
- false
Arguments as to whether democracy brings more liberty are irrelevant to your error.Democracy and liberty are not the same thing. Democrat and liberal are not synonyms.Your claim that democratic is liberal by definition or that liberal is democratic by definition remains false.
Democracy is the Liberal's choice of government. American ideology is Liberal by definition: "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal"
There is no doubt democracy allows for more freedom than any other form of government.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The basic tenet of a pure leftist is that any individual worker is not allowed to own what they produce.
There is no doubt democracy allows for more freedom than any other form of government.
Many people in:
Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Philippines, Venezuela, Belarus, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Thailand, and Ethiopia would disagree.
People there have objectively had more freedom and civil rights under other forms of rule.
Milton Friedman, the renowned economist and Nobel laureate, argued that a free market is necessary for liberty, not Democracy. He believed that a free market system, where individuals and businesses are free to engage in voluntary transactions without government interference, is the most efficient and effective way to allocate resources and promote economic growth. True choice, opportunity, and individual freedom can only be realized in a free market.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Few white people with college degrees are white supremacist. It’s the red necks, yokels and working poor that tend to be white supremacist because they have status anxiety.
-->
@oromagi
American ideology is Liberal by definition: "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal"
That is not the liberal part. The liberal part is "...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
I continue to reject and scoff at any definition of liberal which is not essentially equivalent to: holding liberty to be a primary or supreme value
There is no doubt democracy allows for more freedom than any other form of government.
There no doubt this is a red herring. It does not matter what form of government may lead to the most freedom. Freedom and any particular form of government are not by definition identical.
There are many ways to cook an egg, and one may be most suited to an egg, but an egg will never be "poaching" or "frying" by definition.
-->
@Greyparrot
The basic tenet of a pure leftist is that any individual worker is not allowed to own what they produce.
All collectivists make moral calculation based on collections of people instead of individuals. Be it class, race (genetics or inheritance of any kind), religion.
Whether it is deprivation of property rights (including the right to one's own body) or any other form of tyranny the excuse is always of the same form "Individual X doesn't have this right because of collective Y he or she belongs to"
In the socialist line of collectivism the are no protected individuals what so ever. Everyone (who is allowed to live depending on the flavor of the socialism) is enslaved to everyone. It's all for the greater good, so it doesn't matter if any particular person gets any benefit.
Antebellum Democrat collectivism was racist, rights were deprived with the excuse being race but the individuals or the favored race were allowed some rights.
None of this has anything to do with the debate between the french liberals and the french monarchists in the late 18th century. They both agreed on the nature of property and that moral calculations could only be done on an individual basis. One side simply claimed that a family owned the whole country.
-->
@Double_R
Conservatism is about conserving the status quo.
Status quos the conservatives don’t support:
1) Roe V Wade
2) Vaccine mandates
3) The US debt
4) The income tax
Define conservative differently, because being pro status quo is the position of a moderate, it a conservative.
The status quo in America is that white people own nearly everything and maintain the power.
The solution would be to encourage minorities to build up their own wealth. If you build a house and are the only one out of 5 people to own a house, you own all the houses in your group. But rather than give your house to the other people, they should build their own house. The way to promote more wealth ownership among different races is to encourage non whites to build their own wealth.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Status anxiety.
I like that.
The basic tenet of a pure leftist is that any individual worker is not allowed to own what they produce.
The basic tenant of the GRU stool pigieon is to never tell the truth, even when telling lie is unnecessary.
Many people in: Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Philippines, Venezuela, Belarus, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Thailand, and Ethiopia would disagree.
- Many people, sure, but not most people. Most people would prefer freedom.
People there have objectively had more freedom and civil rights under other forms of rule.
- Only certain kinds of people and always a minority.
Milton Friedman, the renowned economist and Nobel laureate, argued that a free market is necessary for liberty, not Democracy.
- Friedman correctly describes himself a true Liberal in the classical sense but not a Leftist. Friedman was clear that he thoughts that property rights should take priority over human right.
- Only a substantial democracy can uphold a free market. You can't have a free market if that market is not protected from state interference. Trump's random, senseless, destabilizing tarriffs are a good example. A market is not free if the King can wander down from his palace and subject prices and tarriffs to political weaponization. A free market needs to be free to shed inefficient redundancies like coal mines, you can't have autocrats keeping coal mine opens for political support.