Quote: (04-05-2017 01:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:
Extreme right wing views and beliefs would be advocating for a slave state with strict military hierarchy, like Sparta.
On my spectrum if there is no slavery involved, then it cannot be called "extreme" right or left. Communism, for example, had slave camps. As did Hitler. Islam has slavery, the American South had slaves. The Romans had slaves. Etc. That's what extreme looks like. Important to keep perspective, a lot of people think deporting illegals makes you an "extreme right winger," which is nonsense.
Spot on as usual. Any form of extremism pretty much guarantees extreme disenfranchisement, wanton murder and purges, and complete and utter subjugation.
Guys like Peterson are typical of your everyday general philosopher trying to comment or postulate on political philosophy. Those guys tend to think in terms of things without boundaries. As a result their political views float around with the winds of popular views of that day. Political philosophers tend to create boundaries in either direction of thought.
The reason why is because they know that human beings have limits in terms of social interactions. They can take an economists viewpoint because politics is the study of who gets what, and how much. An economist knows that the pie is only so large. There is no 110% of a pie. Just 100% of it. Figuring out the right formula or benefit to society based upon political capital and assets, is what makes up Political Science as a whole.
In 30 years, a blue haired feminist, with hairy armpits, advocating social benefits for natural births of children instead of test tubes, might be called a right wing extremist.
These labels often change over time to fit political expediency and to be used as weapons against rivals and opposition.
Quote: (04-05-2017 08:54 AM)Suits Wrote:
I'd like to proffer the suggestion that any full support of any political leader in a democracy is an example of an experience position and dangerous support to offer. It's one thing to have full confidence that you have voted for the best candidate. It's another thing entirely to believe that any man (or woman) won't potential disappoint us at the end of the day. Our leaders do their best work when we hold them accountable.
The left is currently the most dangerous threat to Western civilization. And there is no question that Western civilization is mankind's most worthwhile creation. It is worth retaining.
That doesn't mean that the elements of the right couldn't also be dangerous, even if they aren't so extreme as to advocate slavery. No one seems to want to talk about this, but George W. Bush got a massive amount of support from the right. There may have been some libertarians who disagreed with the decision to enter an expensive war for unproven and controversial reasons. The vast majority of Republican voters at that time refused to even discuss the issues, simply lamenting, "He's our president, we have to support him" or "He has access to intelligence that that average person hasn't seen. We have to trust him." Of course, those views ended up being confirmed as absolute garbage after a few years went by, but at the time, there was no way to change anyone's mind on the right. It was like arguing with a fence post.
At the time I was just in 10th grade and didn't have the knowledge or experience to explain why the decision to attack Iraq seemed wrong, but I was convinced that it was. In fact, it was this period of history that caused me to lean in a strongly liberal direction for the next decade. At that point in time, the mainstream media gave W. Bush a ton of support and only CNN challenged him (just enough, in order to appeal to their market segment). Fox dealt purely in lies, exaggerations and BS at that time.
In fact, many of the talking heads that are current day Trump apostles were at that time making defenses of George W. Bush that were purely embarrassing.
This is when the Daily Show became very popular with young people. It was the only entertainment or media outlet that was willing to do God's work by cleaning breaking down and explaining the lies of The Right, of which there were many at that time.
The Daily Show got itself into trouble later by overpromising on Obama as a solution to everything. Rather than be willing to admit their mistake in supporting Obama, the staff doubled down on him and the show is now a useless joke, but there was a time when it was very necessary and very relevant.
I currently see a ton of support, even what I would coin blind support, for Trump. Like any man with a penis and a brain, I would choose Trump over Hillary any day. But that does not mean that I have complete faith in the man. Without the benefit of a crystal ball, I can't see the future, so I have no comment on how likely his odds of improving America are, but I'd rather nurse a healthy level of skepticism and be prepared to hold my leaders accountable.
I firmly believe that once the election results are in, strong support of any political figure is a mistake and we need to remain objective and hold our leaders accountable, no matter who they are.
I've seen the danger of rigid support of a president on both sides of the political spectrum (George W. Bush, Barrack Obama) and I'm hoping that the same mistake isn't being made with Trump.
I have been focusing my energies in the last few years on building a business to ensure my financial and geographical freedom, so I'm not in a position to successful argue any political points. However, if history is any clue, what may seem like completely reasonable and objectively correction opinions at the present time could be proven very wrong given 10 or 20 years later. It's happened already in my lifetime.
I've seen statements made here on RVF that strike me as extreme. For example, members have advocated for the removal of all legal immigrants from the US. If you need an explanation on why I see that is incredibly extreme, feel free to PM me.
I don't think that support of slavery is the only right-wing view that falls in the category of extreme. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that blanket support for a president is an extreme position. Presidents are fallible just like all human beings. To be able to do their jobs well, they depend on our cynicism just as much as they need our votes.
The biggest problem with your post is that you assume Bush was conservative to begin with. Obama can be arguably not a liberal on foreign policy alone. Social policy wise, he was only slight left before his second turn, then turn a sharp left afterwards.
Also there is the issue of did either person truly work for who voted for them, and if that muddled their alleged political ideology. Oligarchy and corporatism pollute American politics very badly. Hyper capitalism and consumerism do not help clarify things either. Neither liberal nor conservative are mutually exclusive in regards to Oligarchy or similar systems. Both serve to meet the ends of the oligarchical system that sustains them. Christians realized that Bush did not actually care about them at the end of his terms. Blacks (many, but certainly not all) realized that Obama did not care to help them either.
Blanket support for a president is a natural human behavior. People look up to others. For us to berate others from looking for rolemodels in others is inhumane in a way, or just being a Christian, since only Christ has no faults. They all disappoint and fall short. We all do. That is the human experience being a born sinner. Trump could be the next George Washington or whatever. He still might make the military industrial complex worse like the last 5+ before him did and get us into a nuke war with N. Korea.
Also, slavery does not always need to be ball and chain, or have whips anymore. Financial/class/political slavery works better with the technological advancement of mankind. Machinery makes physical slavery woefully unnecessary. Wealth discrepancy and opportunity is becoming less available worldwide. There are much more losers than winners, than ever before. Liberals and conservatives worldwide notice it nowadays and want to stop it, but no one has a good answer for it, although we here know that stopping globalism to a degree helps locals at least a little bit more. Before globalism, wealth discrepancy still existed, so that is not a panacea at all. The bible says that the poor will always be many. That's a wisdom that is showing itself to be always true.
Dating Guide for Mainland China Datasheet
TravelerKai's Martial Arts Datasheet
1 John 4:20 - If anyone says, I love God, and hates (detests, abominates) his brother [in Christ], he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, Whom he has not seen.