The essence of Rightism?

Except that neither Conservatism (Republicanism) nor Liberalism (Democratism), are functions of racial superiority, and that is what distinguishes Nazism as an aberration. Fascism will never work as either a political, ideological or social construct. In that regard it is little different from classic Communism-without the racial superiority angle; which is probably the most bizarre premise which Hitler laboured under.

 

Fear



There is no issue or policy stance of the Right that is not based on being afraid of something. None.

 

There is no such thing as nationalism without racial supremacy.

In addition, fascism does not have any principles but one. If racial supremacy won't work we can replace it with something else.

 

And you will thus continue to fail, as fascism has always done, until you run out of ideas.

 

Fascism cannot be said to fail because it isn't an ideology. It is an affirmation of power.

 

Libertarianism is a pretty broad category of political ideologies as well. The article you linked I find relevant to most libertarians in the United States: the Libertarian Party, Milton Friedman types, but it does not apply to anarchist Rothbard types. Let me explain why.

"Libertarians want the average man to have more autonomy" "Advocating greater civil liberties and open borders in our current situation will only make things worse"

Statements like these are typical of the article. Libertarianism as practiced by non-aggression principle Libertarians has no concern for consequences. We aren't bothered by lives lost, by a decline in society, etc - so long as the conditions of the NAP are met. In this case we view these consequences as perfectly legitimate. This is because rather than collective wellbeing we place as the ultimate end our conception of liberty.

That's the prime difference between deontological libertarians like Rothbard and Rand, and consequentialist libertarians like Friedman and Gary Johnson. We fundamentally disagree on pretty much everything, because we have different ultimate ends.

 

The NAP is a negation of politics. Full acceptance of it is a political position in the same way nihilism is a philosophy or ignorance is an education.

 

Or in that Atheism is a religion, yes I tend to agree. It's more of a personal ethic that extends to all our actions, including those political.

 

So you see, it was just a simple reversal of polarity that turned me into a fascist.

 

"Affirmation" is simply a word. The reality is that fascism failed and always will. Fascism ignores the will of the people, and instead relies on the myth of power. People are more powerful than myths. The world's people spoke, and they said they refused to be dictated-to. Nazism will always be viewed as one of the less savoury episodes in history, and history is where Nazism will remain.

 

Right and conservatism aren't synonymous. I might have made it appear so, but I didn't mean it. I'm laying forth the thesis that rightism is essentially masculinity in politics and from that come libertarianism and fascism and all in between. They still all adhere to masculinity in different ways. Conservative isn't the opposite to liberal. I wouldn't ever use 'conservative' when talking about sugar on cereal but if one's conservative about it would be preserve sugar. It makes little sense in that case. Conservatives are in favour of restricting and limiting many things, but that's not the essence of it.

 

Sorry? Explain the thought process a bit more if you don't mind

 

The NAP is an axiom. There is nothing stopping you from accepting its negation.

 

I think right and conservative are synonymous, but that is not really your point anyway I think. I rather think the idea of masculine and feminine is interesting and wish to note that almost all children to teens are Liberal or Left to start out and many shift to Right or Conservative when they mature. Children cannot understand why Billy next door has a new bicycle and why the Wilsons across the street get to stay up late and watch TV. To a child everybody is supposed to have the same things and there is no need for rules and order, at least on the surface. Its interesting to note how many children grow up and learn with age to appreciate the discipline that the Father instilled early on.

 

We want low taxes because we're afraid of what?..

 

Sure, that's why I say it's a personal ethic.

 

Worst case of testosterone poisoning I've ever seen! Imagine that! A real live nazi on the net. But then you admit on your profile that you're just an artificial troll trying to get a rise by pushing other peoples buttons.

 

Facism and Communism, contemporary right and left, theocracies and secular statism...these are the spectrums you can squeeze any political behavior into, and after that, just discredit one, or both ends of that spectrum.

Here is an example of squeezing.....the American Civil War.....first, one can say liberals tend to embrace change, and conservatives tend to embrace tradition. One could say the south embraced tradition by wanting to preserve the the tradition of slavery, making them the conservatives. One could also say the south embraced change by wanting to form a new type of government.

 

As I said earlier I believe both libertarianism and fascism stem from masculine values, only that they think of them in a little different way. Libertarianism emphasise self reliance, strength, and responsibility on a personal level whilst fascism will interpret that as that the nation should be strong with responsible citizens of strong moral character. They are polar opposites in some things but can be said grouped together like this. Interesting idea?

 

Nationalism isn't inherently racial. It's just that there's a people who see them selves as a nation, and that they should have the right to a state. What common thing the people identify with, and thus be the basis of the nation, can be anything like religion, language, race, or just citizenship. Look up civic nationalism for a nationalism without racism.

Fascism isn't inherently racial either.

- - - Updated - - -

It's an ideology.

 

I think it is a mistake to lump Fascism in with conservative. Fascism is basically a King. A strong man seizes power. This is not really an ideology. Frankly Stalin In the USSR and Hitler in Germany were cut from the same cloth yet these are supposed to opposite ends of the spectrum in some people's minds. These were plain out and out dictators.

 

No, not synonymous at all. The right is the bunch of ideologies on the right side, such as fascism and libertarianism, and conservatism, is just one of those ideologies. It's impotrant to note that not everything on the right is conservative, though most have some element of it. It depends on what one means by conservative though. Are nazis conservative? One the one hand they have the hardcore conservative positions on gay marriage and homosexuality, but on the other they're revolutionary in many aspects and certianly don't want to go about any gradual change. They're a mystery.

Indeed, I agree with that about the children. Says something about our human nature doesn't?

 

Assuming we're using the classic Nolan Chart definition of "right" and "left":

I used to be right there with you man. You could have called me a socialist, in fact. But gradually, I interacted more with government and became more and more infuriated with how it was interfering with things I just thought I should be able to do. I mean, I thought, as long as what I'm doing isn't interfering with anyone, why can't I do it? Just because the government says so? It was at that moment I realized exactly what the principle of freedom actually was. And the more I thought about it, the more I applied it to other issues, and I realized that some of the things I'd once been all for, like government-controlled healthcare, heavy financial regulation, the welfare state - they were just wrong. They now felt completely morally wrong to me, once I realized what I truly valued. It makes sense now - I've never been a groupie kind of person, I've always done what I want, never because someone else wanted me to join in with what they were doing. And I also valued fairness, which is why initially I was socialist because it claims to be fair. But now I realize how completely unfair it is.

What happened to you is you found your true principles, and by following through the logic of those principles you reached a set of political conclusions that, surprise surprise, were aligned to the right. The same thing happened to me, though I must ask: you say you're "right", but what do you mean? Do mean American-style "conservative" (they're only part conservative actually)? Do you mean a definition conservative? Because I'm actually libertarian, not conservative, though "liberals" (technically, I'm the liberal, they're actually socialist) will call libertarians conservative or right wing.

 

I suppose my thread is somewhat about introducing a new definition of right, or atleast explain what the ideologies commonly though of as 'right' really have in common.

I used to be naive and couldn't understand why righties were so opposed to state run things. Until I got a 'job' at the municipality which was really just me playing grand theft auto for three weeks and getting 450 bucks for it. One of those fake jobs for young people they finance with taxes. Bloody waste of money, but it really was an eye opener.

My thesis is that the american right and european right are really the same, but that since there's different established traditions in america and europe they are by virtue of being conservative going to differ. classical liberalism is the established way in america, monarchy and welfare is established in europe. And since conservatism is about preserving the old.. yeah you get it. I explained it earlier that both positions can still be justified in term of still being masculine values. The american right emphasises self reliance more, the european can justify the welfare state with that the strong should help the weak. It still doesnt deviate from the masculine principles.

 

Well Hitler was from the socialist party in Germany so from this are we supposed to assume Right? When in power he abolished all sorts of free enterprise elements of the government. If totalitarianism is a function of the Right (which I wholeheartedly disagree with) then how is Stalin not a Fascist? What specifically is different about how Stalin assumed power and ran things different than how Hitler did?


I think putting Nazis and Fascists in a category of Right is not at all correct. If you look at what Conservatives and Righties hold near and dear it is freedom of the individual. That is what you are trying to say is it not? Freedom to rise or fall on one's own efforts or lack there of. Fascist take all power and tell you what to think and do. That is not a political ideology. You can be a Communist and do that or you can be a territorial Warlord and do that.