The “Far-Right” fallacy

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:26 pm

Image
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:50 pm

:lol:

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:43 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:

Although it had secured a more prominent place for the KL system in the German arms industry by 1944, the mass exploitation of its prisoners came at a cost to the SS.....Armaments Minister Speer extended his own reach over forced labor...new requests for forced labor...went...to Speer's ministry...a significant loss of power and prestige to the SS.
Private industry chipped away at SS control, too, with mangers traveling directly to concentration camps to select slaves. Page 453


Gee....that passage...really had...a lot of dots in it!



I'm following the forum rules. I can't quote large tracts from books, it violates copyright.

How convenient for you!


People have been banned for doing this because it violates copyright.


In spite of your having heavily edited the passage, it STILL doesn't even support the point you were trying to make!

They were picking out labor from a pool of slave labour created and controlled by the government. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!


Talk about not paying attention. This was also a Right-wing thing, not just Left.


Explain how it was Right-wing. And before you go down that road again, no, saying that it's Right-wing because it was done by a government you call Right-wing is not a sufficient answer.

And no, it doesn’t show that “private” industry was picking the labor it wanted, unless you’re using a broad definition of “wanted”.


The SS offered, business took advantage. Both sides profited. Can't think of anything more Capitalist than that.


You can't think of anything more capitalist than a government subsidy?! :lol: Well I guess anything less than total government control of resources would look capitalistic to someone on the Lunatic Left ...

If anything this situation constitutes a labor subsidy to the private sector, which is the sort of thing you'd expect from - you guessed it - a Leftist government.


:lol:

You really like to stretch to make your point, don't you? So, really, any government that allows private business to sign contracts to use prisoners as labor, or purchases the products they manufacture, are leftist.


Not what I said at all. Work on your reading comprehension.

So, no government has ever been Right. That's hysterical.

So, any government that's ever been at war is automatically leftist?


Not what I said either. Please go easy on the straw, if not for my sake than at least for the sake of farmers.

Wow, by this definition Mussolini, Horthy, Antonescu and Franco (they all used forced labor) were all leftist. Undoubtedly if you said something like this to them their reaction would be twofold:
1) They would laugh their asses off at you.
2) They would have you shot.

The USSR, China, North Korea, and various other communist countries also use(d) forced labor. This is perfectly consistent with their Far Left politics, because forced labor by definition does not and cannot occur in a free market.


We are actually talking about Authoritarian or Totalitarian Governments. Theses Governments can and will use forced labor. That's not exclusive to Left or Right.


I said that it was consistent with Far Left politics, not that it was exclusive to the Left as a whole. Any government that uses forced labor can only do so by directly violating the principles of individual liberty and free market capitalism. Such governments also need to expand the size of the State accordingly in order to keep that forced labor under control. All of this is antithetical to Right-wing political philosophy but not necessarily antithetical to Left-wing philosophy, so governments that use forced labor are practicing a Leftist policy even though their other policies might be mostly Right-wing.

however I will reiterate what I said earlier about assigning labels based on qualities rather than shoehorning qualities into a priori labels.


Well, good to know you try and avoid shoehorning qualities into labels.


Like I said Jeff, if you have a problem with my definitions of Left and Right then propose some alternate definitions and demonstrate why they are better. Saying something is Right-wing "because Hitler did it" or "because Mussolini did it" is simply not good enough.

You are trying to force your definition of what you consider to be "Right-Wing" to the reality of what it actually meant.
No, you are trying to force a poorly-constructed and defunct definition of “Right-Wing” so you can run away from the fact that you and your fellow leftists have a whole lot more in common with the National Socialists than we on the Right do.


No, I think the opposite is occurring.


Then you think wrong.

It bothers you that the party responsible for the European side of the bloodiest war in history (come to think about it, the Japanese Government at that time was also Right-Wing, congrats on that) was Right-Wing.


No, it bothers me that the National Socialists are mislabeled as Right-wing for Leftist propaganda purposes. It bothers me that the National Socialists get lumped in with the likes of the Tea Party, Libertarians, President Trump, Geert Wilders and Milo Yiannopoulis when in reality the National Socialists had FAR more in common with Leftists (both of their own time and our time).

Because, really, what we are talking about is the difference between Authoritarian or Totalitarian Governments and Democratic or free Governments. There are conservative and liberal Democracies but both value basic freedoms of religion, speech, etc.


A totalitarian government is, by necessity, a big government. Big government is a natural outcome of Leftist principles, and antithetical to Right-wing principles. This doesn't mean that a totalitarian government can't ever institute Right-wing policies, however to the extent that it does it undermines its own grip on power.

I associate slave labor camps with big government, market distortion, and deprivation of personal liberty rationalised by a collectivist mindset. These are all qualities of the Left. The British government, Franco and Mussolini were therefore implementing Leftist policies when they opened and operated camps, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were Leftists on the whole.


Nice squirm.


Right back at ya.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:47 am

I don't have time to bother with you right now. You will get a reply in good time.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:51 am

I'm busy laughing my ass off at your God-Emperor. It's funny how many fails he's had this week.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:52 am

OutOfBreath wrote:The Venerable one seem to need some schooling on the originof what right and left means in politics:


wikipedia wrote:The political terms Right and Left were first used during the French Revolution (1789–99), and referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president.....


Small point but that's probably not right. It's from the Roman senate, but in Latin. The people's party or "Populares" sat on the left of the senate and we have this lovely Latin word that evolved into a different meaning in English. "sinister" (left). On the right, sat the Optimates or traditional conservative land owning senators.

I will have to look up a speech by Cicero where he talks about "to my left and to my right."
Roman senate.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:53 am

So, how do you feel about your God-Emperor looking like a silly boy all week? I think it's hysterical.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:56 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: What you have demonstrated is that 1) you are prepared to resort to circular reasoning, confirmation bias and other forms of faulty thinking in order to prop up your untenable argument that the National Socialists were Right-Wing,


Well, considering that I've read more about it than you and that the historians I read all agree with me, I'd say I'm looking pretty solid.


Responding to an allegation of circular reasoning and confirmation bias with an Argument from Authority. Nice :roll:

and 2) you are unwilling and/or unable to conceive of Left and Right in anything but relativistic terms.


No, I'd say this is your problem. I look at what the Left and Right wanted at that time. I also understand that definitions are fluid and change over time.


Another one of your trademark self-contradictions. You deny looking at Left and Right in relative terms, and in the very next two sentences admit that you're looking at them in relative terms! :lol:

While the National Socialists may have been more Right-Wing - or, more accurately, less Left-wing - than the Soviets, that does not mean that the National Socialists were themselves Right-Wing.


Well, they allied themselves with the Right and they had Right-Wing goals. I think that pretty well covers it.


There was nothing "Right-wing" about their goals. They didn't want to deregulate markets, they didn't want to encourage individualism, and they certainly didn't want to reduce the size and power of government. The alliance argument is also a flop: the Americans allied themselves with the Soviets in WW2, that doesn't mean the Americans were Communists!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:59 am

Wow, he's on a tear!!!!!

Trying to salvage some pride on the anus-in-chief literally looking like an ass this week?

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:59 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Blah blah blah God-Emperor blah blah blah


Once I wade through the rest of your BS, I will post an analysis of the God Emperor's policy positions to see where he actually stands on the Left-Right spectrum.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:00 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:Blah blah blah God-Emperor blah blah blah


Once I wade through the rest of your BS, I will post an analysis of the God Emperor's policy positions to see where he actually stands on the Left-Right spectrum.


My analysis is he is a giant ambulatory anus.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:15 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: You may not be racist towards anyone, but there are plenty of Lefties who most certainly are racist - whether by way of lower expectations for non-whites in general,

Perhaps, but you can also balance this against the loony racism of Rights who consider non-whites to be subhuman. I agree that both are ridiculous.


Uh yeah, my original point was that racism doesn't inherently belong to the Left or the Right. Remember??

It isn't so much "sick and bizarre" as it is excessive. The data shows that Muslims are in fact responsible for most of the terrorist activities in the world,


Well, you have to give them time. They are just trying to catch up.


They've been "catching up" for most of the past 1400 years! Islam is responsible for the slaughter and oppression of hundreds of millions throughout the Old World, going right back to the days of Mohammed himself. The Muslim world had a brief lull in their blood-drenched quest for world domination between the fall of the Ottoman Empire and 9-11, which not coincidentally is the same period during which Islam's influence over societies in the Muslim world was at an all-time historic low.

that blacks are responsible for a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime in the US,


But not in primarily white countries. My understanding is that most of the violent crimes in Russia, Sweden, Scotland, Ireland an England are committed by white people. You can correct me if I'm wrong.


The US is a primarily white country Jeff. Blacks make up 12% of the population and commit about 50% of the violent crimes. That makes them disproportionately responsible for violent crimes in the US. You would expect "most" violent crime to be committed by white people in mostly white countries for the very reason that those countries are mostly white! Do you know what "disproportionate" means, Jeff?

and that illegal Hispanic immigrants steal job opportunities from working class white (and black, and legal Hispanic) people.


I don't think anyone besides illegals are really lining up to pick cantaloupes for 2.00 an hour.


No I don't imagine they would be Jeff. Especially considering that it's the illegals who drive the rate down to that level in the first place!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:17 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:Blah blah blah God-Emperor blah blah blah


Once I wade through the rest of your BS, I will post an analysis of the God Emperor's policy positions to see where he actually stands on the Left-Right spectrum.


My analysis is he is a giant ambulatory anus.


I wouldn't expect any less of an analysis from you. And I certainly wouldn't expect any more either...
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:49 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:He finished off uber-religious too, he just changed his faith from Christianity to Marxism.
Matthew Ellard wrote: That was Trotsky and the Comintern. Stalin rejected Marxism's international predictive claims in 1924 as a counter to Lenin's weakening of pure Marxism in the New Economic Policy of 1921.
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:And some Christians reject the idea of a literal 6-day Creation, doesn't mean they're not Christian.


You're a total idiot aren't you? :lol:

How was Lenin's NEP and reintroduction of moderate capitalism and peasant markets, following Marxism?

How was Stalin's 1924 denial of Marx's international prediction of international communism, Marxist?


You're just really dumb AND ignorant.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:25 am

OutOfBreath wrote:The Venerable one seem to need some schooling on the originof what right and left means in politics:

wikipedia wrote:The political terms Right and Left were first used during the French Revolution (1789–99), and referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Ancien Régime.[15][16][17][18] The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[4]:693 The use of the expression la droite (the right) became prominent in France after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists.[19]


So your argument against my definitions of Left and Right is to propose even more antiquated definitions than Jeff?? :lol: Well you can do that if you really want to, but if you do then you're effectively saying that groups like the Tea Party are Left-wing! Back in those days the Left did not stand for the working class, they stood for the Bourgeoisie and free market capitalism. Socialism didn't even become part of the European political landscape until well after the French Revolution.

"Right-wing" politics had nothing Reaganesque or even "small state" about it until, well Reagan, basically.


The Right as I have defined it goes back through the Austrian School of economics through to the likes of Bastiat, de Tocqville and even Adam Smith. The Republicans were in favor of limiting government power decades before Reagan came onto the political scene.

"Right-wing" meant sticking to the old authorities (religious and royal mostly) and upholding the power arrangement as it was, protecting the entrenched elites that benefited off it. Which is why they are also often labelled "conservative" (meaning conserving the status quo). Right has traditionally meant respect for the authorities-that-be.


MEANT being the operative word, and we are talking about a period long before both our time and the Third Reich's time. The National Socialists had no interest in sticking to the old religious and aristocratic authorities, rather they wanted to create their own new authorities much as the Communist Soviets and Chinese did. I have already explained that the conservative element of Right-wing philosophy primarily relates to social and cultural matters, whereas political (i.e. pro-aristocracy) conservatism is in conflict with the rest of the Right's core beliefs.

Under no circumstances should you project the pretty peculiar current US right-wing to have anything to do with former right-wing regimes and parties. (Well except for the religious slant)


"Pretty peculiar" bit aside (see above), you are actually agreeing with the key point of my argument: you can't categorize the National Socialists, French Royalists, and the Republican Party all as "Right-wing" without rendering the term functionally meaningless. All it does is obscure the substantial - and often irreconcilable - philosophical differences between these groups, thereby turning "the Right" into a convenient dumping ground for any points of view deemed to be disagreeable.
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:38 am, edited 3 times in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:He finished off uber-religious too, he just changed his faith from Christianity to Marxism.
Matthew Ellard wrote: That was Trotsky and the Comintern. Stalin rejected Marxism's international predictive claims in 1924 as a counter to Lenin's weakening of pure Marxism in the New Economic Policy of 1921.
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:And some Christians reject the idea of a literal 6-day Creation, doesn't mean they're not Christian.


You're a total idiot aren't you? :lol:

How was Lenin's NEP and reintroduction of moderate capitalism and peasant markets, following Marxism?

How was Stalin's 1924 denial of Marx's international prediction of international communism, Marxist?


You're just really dumb AND ignorant.


Did it ever occur to you that the megalomaniac Stalin might have seen himself as a prophet of his adopted faith??
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:42 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: Did it ever occur to you that the megalomaniac Stalin might have seen himself as a prophet of his adopted faith??
No. I simply consider you a total right-wing, Trump supporting, idiot who knows nothing about Russian history and the CPSU.

Иди нахуй сам

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:38 pm

I'd expect more grumpiness from Venerable after Trump's epic fail.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:41 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:I'd expect more grumpiness from Venerable after Trump's epic fail.

He expects the Grim Old Party to obey his every whim. Ain't gonna happen. We've got four years of failed presidentialish programs ahead of us.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:45 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I'd expect more grumpiness from Venerable after Trump's epic fail.

He expects the Grim Old Party to obey his every whim. Ain't gonna happen. We've got four years of failed presidentialish programs ahead of us.


Trump is blaming Democrats for not getting behind the bill.

:nuts:

Why on earth would he think the Democrats would get behind the bill? Their "no" was a given.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:04 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I'd expect more grumpiness from Venerable after Trump's epic fail.

He expects the Grim Old Party to obey his every whim. Ain't gonna happen. We've got four years of failed presidentialish programs ahead of us.


Trump is blaming Democrats for not getting behind the bill.

:nuts:

Why on earth would he think the Democrats would get behind the bill? Their "no" was a given.

T.rump said it.
I believe it.
End of story.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:10 pm

:lol:

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:10 am

Is President Donald Trump Far Right?

President Donald Trump often gets labelled as or associated with the Far-Right by the establishment media. It is no secret that the left-leaning establishment media has a clear bias against President Trump, but does this bias extend to mischaracterizing his position on the political spectrum? Let’s find out by looking at President Trump’s policies, as outlined in his Contract with the American Voter which was released by his Presidential campaign a few weeks prior to Election Day in 2016.
Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:
FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health).

THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.

FOURTH, a five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.

FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.


The first three measures are about limiting government power and reducing red tape, and as such are clearly Right-wing.

The 4th, 5th and 6th measures don’t really limit government power but they do limit individual liberties of lobbyists and ex-officials. They are however aimed at ensuring common good and greater equality of outcome for non-lobbyists and non-ex-officials in the political process. Hence these measures are Left-wing.

So far we have 3 Right-wing policies, 3 Left-wing policies, and 0 policies that are neither Left nor Right-wing.

Seven actions to protect American workers:

FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.

SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

THIRD, I will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.

FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.

SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fi x America’s water and environmental infrastructure.


The first four actions are Left-wing because they are decidedly protectionist. The fifth and sixth actions are about reducing government regulation, and are clearly Right-wing. The seventh action cancels government spending in one area but redistributes it to other areas, so it works out to being neither Left nor Right.

This brings our running totals to 5 Right-wing policies, 7 Left-wing policies, and 1 policy which is neither.

Five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.

SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

THIRD, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.

FOURTH, begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.

FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.”


The first three actions are Right-wing because they are about limiting government in accordance with the Constitution and eliminating government spending. The fourth and fifth actions however are Left-wing, because they involve government impositions on the liberties of individuals in the interests of public safety.

We now have 8 Right-wing policies, 9 Left-wing policies, and 1 policy which is neither.

Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act
An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with two children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate.

Tax cuts. Definitely Right-wing.

End the Offshoring Act
Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

Protectionism. Definitely Left-wing.

American Energy and Infrastructure Act
Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years. It is revenue neutral.

This is a Right-wing proposal because it involves tax incentives and it is revenue neutral despite leveraging private-public partnerships.

School Choice and Education Opportunity Act
Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends Common Core and brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and makes two- and four year college more affordable.

Overall this is Right-wing proposal because it is about giving people greater freedom to make decision about their children’s education, introduces greater market competition to the education sector, and reduces the influence of the Federal Government over education. However like the American Energy and Infrastructure Act, it also contains seemingly Left-wing elements (e.g. expanding technical and vocational education).

[Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act
Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.

Clearly Right-wing as it enhances the freedom of the health insurance market, reduces government intervention and obstruction in the health sector, and devolves power to the States.

Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act
Allows Americans to deduct childcare and eldercare from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services and creates tax-free dependent care savings accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.

Also a Right-wing as it primarily revolves around using tax reductions to incentivize certain behaviours, however there is a somewhat Left-wing flavour to the intent of the proposal.

End Illegal Immigration Act
Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a five-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.

We have already established that being anti-immigration is neither Right nor Left wing, a there can be both Left and Right wing justifications for it. However the measures included in this policy proposal are clearly about expanding the size of government and restricting individual liberties for the common good, therefore this proposal is Left-wing on the whole.

Restoring Community Safety Act
Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a task force on violent crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

Also Left-wing, because it expands the size and spending of government.

Restoring National Security Act
Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.

This too is a Left-wing measure, as it involves an expansion of government spending and restrictions on individual liberties for the common good.

Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act
Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

Neither Right nor Left wing, as strong arguments for reducing government corruption can and have been made by both sides of the political spectrum.

Factoring in these proposed pieces of legislation give us a final tally of 13 Right-wing policies, 13 Left-wing policies, and 2 policies which are neither.

Conclusion: President Donald Trump is not Far-Right as often portrayed by the establishment media and his (other) detractors, rather he is a Centrist.
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: Did it ever occur to you that the megalomaniac Stalin might have seen himself as a prophet of his adopted faith??
No.


Didn't think so. That would be a synapse too far for you.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:26 am

Venerable is back. It's gonna be a bad week for the Trump.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:22 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Did it ever occur to you that the megalomaniac Stalin might have seen himself as a prophet of his adopted faith??
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Didn't think so. That would be a synapse too far for you.
That's not what I wrote was it? tsk tsk tsk....you naughty, lying, right-wing, Trump supporter. :lol:

I actually had to explain to you the basics of Russian history, because you were totally unaware of any CPSU history.

Stalin denied Marxist international doctrine when he changed policies in 1924 to Socialism in one country.

Lenin denied Marxism when he reintroduced capitalistic peasant markets in the 1921 New Economic Policy

Trotsky was the only person who continued to follow Marxist doctrine by working with the Comintern.


You really are a totally ignorant idiot. :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:25 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Venerable is back. It's gonna be a bad week for the Trump.
His friends on Stormfront are confused why the Russian SVR is running Trump....so he thought he'd come back here for advice. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:36 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:President Donald Trump often gets labelled as or associated with the Far-Right by the establishment media.

Trump appears on Alex Jones Infowars and tells five lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJqLAleEnKw

KKK "The Premier voice of White Resistance" endorses Trump / Trump does not dismiss support.
KKK Newspaper.jpg

Is "The Crusader : The Premier voice of White Resistance" and "Infowars" established press?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5850
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:38 am

:lol:

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:58 am

How does he square Flynn's job working for Turkey if they're connected to ISIS (according to himself) and which T. Rump is the "sworn enema" of? :lol:
Hi, Io the lurker.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 31, 2017 4:16 am

Is Marine Le Pen on the Far Right?

Marine Le Pen is the candidate for the Front Nationale party in the upcoming 2017 French Presidential Election. Marine and the Front Nationale are often described as Far Right, but is this actually the case? We can answer this by looking at the 144 Presidential Commitments that comprise her campaign platform. For the sake of brevity, I will only quote the categories under which the commitments are listed, rather than the commitments themselves.

TO RESTORE TO FRANCE ITS SOVEREIGNTY
TO MOVE TOWARDS A EUROPE OF INDEPENDENT NATIONS, SERVING THEIR PEOPLES

There is only one commitment in this first category, and it revolves around reducing the influence of the European Union. This is a move toward smaller government, and is therefore Right-wing.

INSTITUTIONAL REFORM: TO GIVE THE PEOPLE A VOICE AGAIN AND ESTABLISH A DEMOCRACY OF PROXIMITY

Five commitments, 3 Right and 2 neither. The Right-wing commitments are about reducing the size of government and creating checks and balances on government power.

TO MAKE AGAIN FRANCE A COUNTRY OF FREEDOMS

Five commitments, 3 Right and 2 neither. The Right-wing commitments involve protecting individual rights to privacy, free speech, and parents’ ability to choose how to educate their children.

TO RESTORE REPUBLICAN ORDER AND THE RULE OF LAW EVERYWHERE AND FOR EVERYONE

Five commitments, 2 Right and 3 Left. The Right-wing commitments are about protecting individual freedoms and cutting red tape for police, while the Left-wing commitments are about gun control and increasing funding for police and intelligence services.

A FIRM AND FAST JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO CRIME

Seven commitments, 1 Right, 3 Left and 3 neither. The Left-wing commitments involve imposing stronger sentences for crime (i.e. greater imposition of the State in the legal system), and increasing the number of judges.

TO RE-ESTABLISH REAL BORDERS THAT PROTECT US AND PUT AN END TO UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION

Five commitments, 1 Right, 3 Left and 1 neither. The Left-wing commitments involve reducing the size of government by renouncing EU control of immigration, imposing greater restriction on immigration numbers, and imposing tighter conditions for citizenship.

TO ERADICATE TERRORISM AND BREAK UP ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST NETWORKS

Five commitments, 2 Left and 3 neither. The Left-wing commitments involve the State extending its power to punish people for criminal offenses and increasing the Prime Minister’s control over intelligence services.

A NEW PATRIOTIC MODEL IN FAVOUR OF EMPLOYMENT

Ten commitments, 1 Right, 8 Left and 1 neither. Most of these measures involve forms of protectionism, government stimulus spending, and/or creating a new government body.

TO SUPPORT COMPANIES BY GIVING PREFERENCE TO THE REAL ECONOMY

Eight commitments, 4 Right, 1 Left and 3 neither. The Right-wing commitments are about tax and regulation reduction.

TO GUARANTEE THE WELFARE STATE

Six commitments, 1 Right and 5 Left. As the name suggests, these measures all consolidate or expand the welfare state in some way or another.

TO ACT TO BOOST PURCHASING POWER

Seven commitments, 5 Left and 2 neither. The Left-wing commitments include raising the old age pension, supplementing low-income people, reducing regulated prices for gas and electricity, protecting consumer purchasing power, and to keep the 35 hour working week.

LET’S PROTECT FRENCH PEOPLE’S HEALTH 100%

Nine commitments, 1 Right, 5 Left and 3 neither. The Left-wing commitments are about guaranteeing social security for all French people, increasing domestic doctor numbers, imposing requirements on trainee doctors, increasing hospital staff numbers, and creating a fifth branch of Social Security.

TO MAKE THE TAX SYSTEM FAIRER

Seven commitments, 4 Right, 2 Left and 1 neither. The Right-wing commitments are about reducing tax rates, preventing tax rate increases, and simplifying the tax system.

TO ENABLE EVERYONE TO FIND THEIR PLACE

Ten commitments, all Left. These commitments are about government measures to guarantee employment, increasing civil servant pay, imposing restrictions on surrogacy, raising disability benefits, and auditing children’s centres and care homes for abuses.

TO DEFEND FRENCH UNITY AND THE NATIONAL IDENTITY

Ten commitments, 3 Right, 4 Left and 3 neither. The Right-wing commitments are about preserving cultural traditions and ending affirmative action (“positive discrimination”), while the Left-wing commitments are about government regulating political culture and raising pensions.

A FRANCE THAT TRANSMITS AND IS TRANSMITTED

Seven commitments, 1 Right, 4 Left and 2 neither. The Left-wing commitments involve increasing regulations on the education system and developing work training schemes.

A FRANCE THAT CREATES AND SHINES

Ten commitments, 7 Left and 3 neither. The Left-wing policies are variously related to increasing regulations around education, culture, employment and training.

TO ENSURE FRANCE IS RESPECTED

Four commitments, 1 Right and 3 Left. The Left-wing commitments are about increasing defence spending and governmental support of the French military-industrial complex.

TO MAKE FRANCE A MAJOR WORLD POWER AGAIN

Three commitments, 1 Right and 2 Left. The Right-wing commitment is about greater respect of the rights of other countries, while the others are about government effort to strengthen ties with other French countries and providing aid to African countries.

FRANCE, AN AGRICULTURAL POWER PROVIDING HEALTHY FOOD

Six commitments, 1 Right and 5 Left. Most of these commitments are protectionist in some way or another.

THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY TRANSITION: FRANCE MUST AIM FOR EXCELLENCE

Seven commitments, all Left. These measures are about protectionism, increasing government spending on home insulation and the energy sector, banning fracking and restricting sale of GMOs, and imposing regulations to protect animal welfare.

GUARANTEE EQUALITY EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY AND IMPROVE ACCESS TO HOUSING

Seven commitments, 1 Right, 5 Left and 1 neither. The Left-wing commitments involve guaranteeing access to public services, home loan and rental assistance, increasing and guaranteeing public housing, renationalising motorway operators and refusing to privatize strategic assets.

Marine Le Pen has a total of 30 Right-wing policy commitments, 84 Left-wing policy commitments, and 30 policy commitments that are neither Right- nor Left-wing. In other words, Marine Le Pen has almost 50% more Left-wing policies than she does non-Left-wing policies, and almost three times more Left-wing policies than Right-wing policies.

Conclusion: Far from being Far Right, Marine Le Pen is in fact moderately Left-wing.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:29 am

VKTW, since your definition of right and left are : right=good, left=bad, it is no wonder that you are constantly wrong about political identities.

Nationalism of any sort is right-wing, since the Left to Far-left is about the unity of all workers globally, without regard for borders. Protectionism against other economies is right-wing. Racism is right-wing.

Le Pen ticks all those boxes.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:37 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Did it ever occur to you that the megalomaniac Stalin might have seen himself as a prophet of his adopted faith??
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Didn't think so. That would be a synapse too far for you.
That's not what I wrote was it? tsk tsk tsk....you naughty, lying, right-wing, Trump supporter. :lol:

I actually had to explain to you the basics of Russian history, because you were totally unaware of any CPSU history.

Stalin denied Marxist international doctrine when he changed policies in 1924 to Socialism in one country.

Lenin denied Marxism when he reintroduced capitalistic peasant markets in the 1921 New Economic Policy

Trotsky was the only person who continued to follow Marxist doctrine by working with the Comintern.



And as I had to explain to you, rejecting of one point of doctrine does not equate to a rejecting the ideology in its entirety!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:44 am

ElectricMonk wrote:VKTW, since your definition of right and left are : right=good, left=bad, it is no wonder that you are constantly wrong about political identities.


Those aren't my definitions at all. Please put some more effort into crafting your Straw Men.

Nationalism of any sort is right-wing, since the Left to Far-left is about the unity of all workers globally, without regard for borders. Protectionism against other economies is right-wing. Racism is right-wing.


Wrong. Nationalism is neither Left nor Right wing in and of itself, which is why it has been exhibited by both Left and Right wing regimes alike. Yes you can point to a fringe subset of the Left which is anti-nationalism (i.e. the Communists), but there are also fringe subsets of the Right who are anti-nationalist (i.e. anarcho-capitalists and some libertarians). Protectionism is all about government intervention in the free market, which is both profoundly antithetical to the Right-wing belief in free markets and highly compatible with Left-wing goals to regulate and redistribute economic resources.

EDIT: As I have already discussed, racism is NOT inherently Right-wing, nor is it inherently Left-wing.
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby OutOfBreath » Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:04 am

For the venerable:
Image

This is a decent chart for positioning various modern ideologies along the economical and libertarian axis. You can find it as a decent app "Vote 1 - political spectrum" with more in-depth descriptions. (This was just an image of it I found to share. My position is in the social democracy/green social democracy corner pretty much on the "Green" dot)

And although I agree there is such a thing as "left nationalism" it is in Europe and US a far more common trait on the right-wing of politics.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:47 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Wrong. Nationalism is neither Left nor Right wing in and of itself, which is why it has been exhibited by both Left and Right wing regimes alike.


You are mistaken, since you fail to distinguish between history and governing ideology: in the post-Westphalian order, every nation developed an identity, which often became the basis of nationalism. Changes in the political system and ideology happen orders of magnitude faster than in feelings of national and/or ethnic identity.

The basic tenet of the Marxist ideology is the Internationale, a union of workers in all nations as the explicit mean to overcome nationalism as a means to split the power of workers everywhere. Left ideology is intrinsically non-nationalistic.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Yes you can point to a fringe subset of the Left which is anti-nationalism (i.e. the Communists), but there are also fringe subsets of the Right who are anti-nationalist (i.e. anarcho-capitalists and some libertarians). Protectionism is all about government intervention in the free market, which is both profoundly antithetical to the Right-wing belief in free markets and highly compatible with Left-wing goals to regulate and redistribute economic resources.


You make the mistake of thinking that regulation and redistribution are protectionist and nationalist measures, but they are only that if enacted on a the level of the nation-state alone: but the EU set up its rules on a super-national level, and socialists like Bernie Sanders want Global financial regulation, not just US regulation: anti-IMF, WTO and Wall Street protests all want the same rules for everyone all other the globe, not just their own country.

In contrast, Nationalism has always been about one rule for Us and another for the rest of the world. And Trump wants to be the embodiment of that principle.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:22 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Did it ever occur to you that the megalomaniac Stalin might have seen himself as a prophet of his adopted faith??
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:And as I had to explain to you, rejecting of one point of doctrine does not equate to a rejecting the ideology in its entirety!


Are you really that stupid? If Stalin drops international Marxist doctrine to adopt Socialism in one country, how does that make him a prophet of his own adopted faith? He is rejecting Marxism. Marxism isn't a political system, it is a predictive number of steps leading towards international communism.

Have you actually ever read Marx?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26378
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:29 am

ElectricMonk wrote: The basic tenet of the Marxist ideology is the Internationale, a union of workers in all nations as the explicit mean to overcome nationalism as a means to split the power of workers everywhere.
Thank you Electric Monk.

It is obvious to me that VKTW has the knowledge and education of a Kansas farmhand and it is a complete waste of time trying to educate him. He endlessly spammed his pro-Trump propaganda on our forum and called us Libtards and a Libtard echo-chamber. I think he should return to and stick to forums with his own peers, like Stormfront.
:D

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby TJrandom » Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote: The basic tenet of the Marxist ideology is the Internationale, a union of workers in all nations as the explicit mean to overcome nationalism as a means to split the power of workers everywhere.
Thank you Electric Monk.

It is obvious to me that VKTW has the knowledge and education of a Kansas farmhand and it is a complete waste of time trying to educate him. He endlessly spammed his pro-Trump propaganda on our forum and called us Libtards and a Libtard echo-chamber. I think he should return to and stick to forums with his own peers, like Stormfront.
:D


Tsk tsk... please don`t denigrate Kansas farm hands like that. True, some may not have completed primary education nor ever learned to read, but even these are far ahead of VKTW in knowledge of how the real world works.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: The “Far-Right” fallacy

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:President Donald Trump often gets labelled as or associated with the Far-Right by the establishment media.

KKK "The Premier voice of White Resistance" endorses Trump / Trump does not dismiss support.


I've already explained that racism is no more a characteristic of the Right than the Left, so your insinuation that this white resistance group is Right-wing is crudely disingenuous at best. As for claim that President Trump didn't dismiss this particular group's support, even IF this is true it doesn't tell us squat; it is not his job to renounce - and thereby dignify - every single instance of support expressed by every single obscure fringe group or person. Nor can such an endorsement be regarded as an indication of pro-white racism on his or the Republicans' part when the Democrats are so blatantly prejudiced against white people.

Is "The Crusader : The Premier voice of White Resistance" and "Infowars" established press?


Is The Crusader Right-wing? You have provided exactly zero evidence that it is.

Is Infowars Right-wing? Yes, but so what? Donald Trump has given scores of interviews to all sorts of media outlets since he entered the 2016 Presidential race, and one interview given to one Right-wing media outlet does not make him Far Right. Even if said Right-wing media outlet called him Far-Right (and it didn't), this still doesn't tell us anything because the only way to determine where he lies on the political spectrum is to actually look at his policies.
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex


Return to “Politics and Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest