If you trust the left/centrists and hate the right/populists, you should re-think your position because why did your guys adopt policies which any idiot could see they would get the right/populists elected.
If you trust the right/populists and hate the left/centrists, you should re-think your position because the left/centrists are the people who literally made your guys win.
If you trust the right/populists and hate the left/centrists, you should re-think your position because the left/centrists are the people who literally made your guys win.
@cjd I voted centrist but I would like to see the same hard stance against islamism as against neo-fashism. Otherwise I fear we will lose many centrists to the right in the near future.
What we need is politicians who are truly uninspired
Politicians with no Grand Plan, no mandate, and no crisis to resolve
Politicians who default to letting people make their own life decisions
Politicians with a healthy fear of what lies behind Chesterton's Fence
What I'm afraid of is we're just seeing a swing from globalist-communist politicians to national-socialist politicians, and they're both bad.
Politicians with no Grand Plan, no mandate, and no crisis to resolve
Politicians who default to letting people make their own life decisions
Politicians with a healthy fear of what lies behind Chesterton's Fence
What I'm afraid of is we're just seeing a swing from globalist-communist politicians to national-socialist politicians, and they're both bad.
> All the world's a stage.
So therefore I'm going to play the hipster card and distrust each and every one of them.
So therefore I'm going to play the hipster card and distrust each and every one of them.
@cjd
On top of that, there are a couple fallacies people do not grasp:
1. Governments and political parties are corporations. So are media outlets. They act for profit; if they cannot take it directly, they pay it in salaries.
2. All costs are passed directly on down to the consumer.
The two parties exist to stay in power. They have to do this. Such is the nature of democracy, and the more we raise costs, the worse it gets.
On top of that, there are a couple fallacies people do not grasp:
1. Governments and political parties are corporations. So are media outlets. They act for profit; if they cannot take it directly, they pay it in salaries.
2. All costs are passed directly on down to the consumer.
The two parties exist to stay in power. They have to do this. Such is the nature of democracy, and the more we raise costs, the worse it gets.
The big question is this: Is conservatism as it stands today something with it own basis, or is it just a reaction to progressivism?
I think the answer is "it depends who you're talking about".
In my view, a conservative who reads history and the great works of the past such as the Greek philosophers, the romans, Christian philosophers such as St. Augustine, the enlightenment philosophers, and so on, well there's a huge body of knowledge there that doesn't rely on the current zeitgeist. It is truly conservative, and trying to use the wisdom of the past to help understand the future.
By contrast, there is a brand of conservatism that is just progressivism but taken in a different direction. Most lefties won't like it, but the fact is that National Socialism and Fascism are both deeply steeped in the progressive project. After all, they both intend to implement whole new ways of doing things that have never been seen before in the name of progress. It's no mistake that Mussolini and Hitler both came from Socialist parties.
Another contrast is the current brand of conservatism which only seems to have positions in opposition to the current progressive zeitgeist. For example it can oppose wokeness, but it doesn't have much of a vision of what else could be other than just "not that".
Ironic, since the current progressive zeitgeist is in many ways as dysfunctional as it is because it is also set up as a "not that", focused on the Nazis in world war 2. Much of it is just a scramble away form one point, as if that's going to get anyone anywhere meaningful.
I think the answer is "it depends who you're talking about".
In my view, a conservative who reads history and the great works of the past such as the Greek philosophers, the romans, Christian philosophers such as St. Augustine, the enlightenment philosophers, and so on, well there's a huge body of knowledge there that doesn't rely on the current zeitgeist. It is truly conservative, and trying to use the wisdom of the past to help understand the future.
By contrast, there is a brand of conservatism that is just progressivism but taken in a different direction. Most lefties won't like it, but the fact is that National Socialism and Fascism are both deeply steeped in the progressive project. After all, they both intend to implement whole new ways of doing things that have never been seen before in the name of progress. It's no mistake that Mussolini and Hitler both came from Socialist parties.
Another contrast is the current brand of conservatism which only seems to have positions in opposition to the current progressive zeitgeist. For example it can oppose wokeness, but it doesn't have much of a vision of what else could be other than just "not that".
Ironic, since the current progressive zeitgeist is in many ways as dysfunctional as it is because it is also set up as a "not that", focused on the Nazis in world war 2. Much of it is just a scramble away form one point, as if that's going to get anyone anywhere meaningful.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
@truthbait @sj_zero @cjd
Even more, all three big baddies -- fascism, national socialism, and Communism -- are derived from the Napoleonic model.
These are inherently unstable and prone to horrors.
Bonus: so was Lincoln's government.
Even more, all three big baddies -- fascism, national socialism, and Communism -- are derived from the Napoleonic model.
These are inherently unstable and prone to horrors.
Bonus: so was Lincoln's government.