I dislike the Right wing...

reply to post by ANOK


Your comments are spot on. I looked at your stats, no wonder, you're from back in the day when ATS was not over run by fundamentalist, superstitious, war-hawk, tea bag fashioning folk. I just recently came back after a long break. A year or so ago, I remember seeing about 20 birther threads created in the matter of hours, frustrated, I ended up leaving for awhile & I remember a lot of smart people like yourself, who had interesting well thought out, well sourced comments who also just got plain sick and tired of all the stupid crap and ended up leaving for good. Which is the sad thing about the internet in that people tend to surround themselves with people who are like minded, who will simply agree & confirm what they already believe. Its rare for people to challenge their beliefs, and even rarer for people to willingly engage, honestly engage, with those of a different perspective. That is what I always appreciated about ATS, is that it always had a good diversity of people, all walks of like, and all perspectives. And in general lying, BSing and otherwise blindly repeating political talking points was frowned upon, people demanded fact and evidence based arguments. Yet, in the past several years, it had come to look more and more like a talk radio echo chamber (not ALL threads, but many), and fewer and fewer people wrote the type of well sourced researched comments like what I have seen from you. Miss that.

So, anyway, I do appreciate you sticking around, and your thoughtful comments, and you're patience in trying to explain the truth here to people.

On the subject of the political spectrum, the political "mind". Have you ever read "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer. I posted the link the other day in a thread where people were ranting about socialism. I think you would enjoy the book. It's free online. The professor who wrote it actually considers himself sort of an "old school" Republican (but pro-civil rights). He has been studying traits of authoritarianism and political ideologies for decades. He had the help of John Dean, a Nixon advisor (wrote "Conservatives without Conscience"), but both men were motivated by what they saw as a threat from authoritarian features in u.s. politics. He studied people's political beliefs & tendencies toward authoritarianism ("the authoritarian personality"). What he found was interesting in that he found no significant correlation with left wing political ideologies and a high correlation of authoritarian personality traits with those who fall on the right wing of the political spectrum. Reason being, had precisely to do with the very definition of "conservative" (i.e. the desire to preserve the establishment, deferment to authority figures, and the prevention of change) is authoritarian in nature.

One of my favorite accounts from the book is how he takes three groups of subjects, one made up of of high RWA scores (he calls it "right wing authoritarian personality") another group with low/non existent authoritarian scores (left side on the political spectrum), as well as a mix of persons for control. He had each group run what was essentially a "model world" type scenario with various goals and tasks. He ran these scenarios many times over with different groups of subjects and getting consistent results each time for the high RWA subjects who each time managed to lead their scenario into one of rapid arms-build up, global starvation/disease, world wide war and eventual mutually assured destruction for all countries involved. The non-authoritarians and the mixed groups had their own problems, but none as consistent and as stark as the authoritarian group. What is interesting from his account of these scenarios, is that a lot of what was demonstrated in the model scenario, is worryingly similar to what we see from certain politicians (i.e. rabid nationalism, mistrust of others, hostility toward compromise, blind faith, etc.).

There are plenty of other good studies and surveys in the book, and lots of good analysis. For me it helped explain a lot about the authoritarian/right wing mindset, how authoritarian tendencies develop and what it means for society. There is also interesting discussion of history, and as you covered, on people's misinformed beliefs on concepts like "socialism", "communism", "conservatism", "left / right wing" etc. (He actually goes back to the old english definition of "right" in his discussion of conservatism! cool!). I should also say, Bob has a good deal in the book that analyzes political stereotypes and is successful at keeping these stereotypes and bias out of his research, I found it well written & o. Anyway...I could go on (maybe someday I will start a thread to discuss the matter). But, I'll end it here with the link.

home.cc.umanitoba.ca...

Again, thanks for bringing your brain to this forum!

reply to post by ANOK


One more thing. Not sure who is originally responsible for this chart or if it has an official name (I located it through the google search) But I found it to be fairly helpful in showing political spectrum to others. Probably a bit overgeneralized? So maybe some people would disagree with parts of it, for example, like I mentioned in my previous comment Altemeyer could not find any real life or historical examples of true "left wing authoritarianism" (by definition he label left wing as generally being anti-authoritarian), so maybe this would more accurately be called "liberal authoritarianism"? I don't know, the rest seems fairly accurate as I understand it)

reply to post by Jordan River


But you are Union...

You gotta go. Times have changed.

reply to post by meeneecat


You start out bashing those who you do not agree with, particularly the Tea Party, and the then claim that those that think like you are free-thinkers?

You fit the very paradigm that you espouse to dislike.

And then your own next post contradicts you earlier posted. So which is it?

Party politics are a diversion. Demographics are the key.

reply to post by meeneecat


That chart is just confusing. There is no such thing as "left authoritarian", that was just a lie sold by authority to weaken the power of the working class. So called "left authoritarians" were using left-wing terms for their own agendas, all authority lies on the right.

The true definitions of left and right are the original definitions. That chart comes after 1950 when the right was appropriating left wing terms. It simply shows the confusion created by the state through the MSM.

Originally posted by meeneecat
reply to post by ANOK

 

Your comments are spot on. I looked at your stats, no wonder, you're from back in the day when ATS was not over run by fundamentalist, superstitious, war-hawk, tea bag fashioning folk. I just recently came back after a long break.

On the subject of the political spectrum, the political "mind". Have you ever read "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer.

Thanks for the kind words. I am surprised I'm still here myself, as like you said most left leaning folk seem to either get banned or disappear.

I have not read that but will take a look, thanks for pointing it out. Hope you stick around this time mate.

Left leaning, very vocal, and still around!

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by meeneecat

 

You start out bashing those who you do not agree with, particularly the Tea Party, and the then claim that those that think like you are free-thinkers?

You fit the very paradigm that you espouse to dislike.

And then your own next post contradicts you earlier posted. So which is it?

Party politics are a diversion. Demographics are the key.

Please point out where I even mention the term "free thinker". Oh, No? You put that in their yourself. Well, then, thanks for the bonus. Because I am not talking about opinions, thoughts or subjective beliefs.

And if you bothered to read any of this thread you would notice that some of us here are not lamenting about people's opinions, thoughts or beliefs. I was referring to the DEFINITIONS of words, facts, evidence, things that can be determined objectively outside of political ideology. In other words, lamenting the idea that people, (yes, *certain* people more than others) cannot seem to agree to a set of objective facts that are accepted generally by the majority of the world. And therefor they cannot hope to aspire to anything like a reasonable rational discussion if the basis for their "knowledge" is make-believe. Again, objective facts. Not people's opinions. Definitions of words. The # of calories in a 12 oz. coke. The economic system used in the U.S. Stuff that can be objectively, independently verified. Did you even read the post I was replying to? The one talking about the definition of socialism. Hmmm, which group of people seem to be in a chronic state of confusion about the definition of this word, hmmm, is it soccer players? Olympic athletes? oh, wait. @_@. And then there's the problem, that on top of refusing to accept a set of objective facts, people will further separate themselves, isolate themselves, so that they will never have to be challenged in this set of falsified fantasy "facts". It's pretty basic. One cannot have a reasonable conversation about, the topic of apples if one person accepts that apples grow on trees, are a fruit, contain vitamins, etc. while the other person "believes" that apples move around on two legs, contain magic fairy dust and are made by horses pooping out a dinner from IHOP. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates the idea. One party is arguing in fact, evidence, objective truths, while the other party is arguing in make believe. Those believing in their made up facts don't want to be challenged or proven false, so they will tend to surround themselves with people who won't challenge these beliefs, people who also believe that apples come from horses' butts. It's happy times in bizarro world because these people will never have to worry about someone telling them they have their facts messed up. They go to their apple horse poop gatherings and their apple horse poop websites, reading their apple horse poop articles, never having to acknowledge that apples do in fact grow on trees. It isn't until the person tries to interact with society as a whole that this make-believe apple fantasy becomes apparent, since most rational people will spot the BS in a second. No amount of repeating, or hoping or praying is going to make apples come from horse butts, nor will it make the earth 2000 years old, nor will it change the definition of the word "socialism". (and maybe it's just a coincidence, but the whole "BLARGH!!! SOCIALISM!!! BE AFRAID!!!" thing didn't start until after the TP started to become popular, and started walking around with all those "OBAMA = SOCIALIST HITLER" signs.)

And where exactly does the graph in my second post contradict anything in my first post because the two are not really related, but separate issues, be specific and give examples. Thank you.

And for the record, you do not know nearly enough about me or my beliefs or my personal life which would qualify you in making judgements about which supposed "paradigm" I may or may not fit into.

reply to post by ANOK


Like I said that is the part that I don't agree with in that chart, and to which Altemeyer also talks about. By definition there is no such thing as left-authoritarianism because left wing ideology is anti-authoritarianism by definition. Actually, the main reason I put it up is just to illustrate what you said earlier about fascism falling under "right wing", and that Hitler (who they like to call socialist/communist etc.) was actually anti-communist / anti-socialist and falls under right-wing / fascist ideology. (I couldn't find a better chart that showed that particular point). But I agree parts are incorrectly shown.

reply to post by meeneecat


I get ya mate, I re-read that post again.

This one is a bit better I think...



It only needs to be a single line, left to right, least state authority to most state authority, as the original meaning was.

Doesn't mention fascism or anarchism, but they would be at the extreme of right and left.

yawn.

reply to post by Jordan River


You do know Detroit is heavily run by Democrats and has been for a long time? I'm also struggling to figure out how you rationalize making broad racial generalizations about people based on skin color and not consider yourself a racist?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill

Food for thought...

He also said this...

"Liberalism is not socialism and never will be"

...in 1908 as Liberal Party candidate for Dundee, Scotland.

Salutations Anok, at least provide the entire context for the quote... please

Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and its own aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.

Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right.

Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference.

Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass.

Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly.

These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals. Don't think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a philosophy to which there is no expanding future. As long as the world rolls round Liberalism will have its part to play - a grand, beneficent, and ameliorating part to play - in relation to men and States.

The Churchill Centre Museum/
Liberalism And Socialism-May 4, 1908. Kinnaird Hall, Dundee

Originally posted by ANOKLiberalism came from the right wing establishment as a compromise for socialism. The establishment needed a way to control the dissent, and creating a social safety net was it. The liberals were mostly upper middle class, and even started appropriating the term 'socialism' in the 1800's. Their goal was to replace left-wing working class socialism with liberalism, a way to protect capitalism and appease the people, and make them pay for it. A win-win for the capitalist establishment. Capitalism with a social safety-net. [

To begin, modern Liberalism predates both the contemporary "right wing establishment" and the 19th century evolution of Socialism into accepted political dogma. Liberalism is rooted in the 17th century "Age of Enlightenment" and played an influential role the ideologies of both the American and French revolutions.

The U.K.'s idea of Social liberalism and , as referenced in Churchill's Liberal Party speech, was only just becoming a cohesive idea by the late 19th century.

I do agree that the motivations you have cited by the British upper middle class (which is entirely different from the modern U.S. upper middle class) in championing the creation of a working class social safety net sound reasonable.

Finally, you are inferring that Winston Churchill, one of the most effective political figures in shaping the post war modern world did not understand the correct definition of Socialism?

Your previous argument has been that National Socialism is a far right ideology and socialist in name only. was In the post you also stated that Adolph Hitler and the architects of the NSDAP did not understand the correct definition of Socialism and had misused the term when naming their new political ideology National Socialism.

I would also point out that when your further pronouncement of fascism and socialism being mutually exclusive was refuted by the examples of Stalinist Soviet Union and Castro's post revolution Marxist Cuba, your answer was to denounce both as not being actual Socialist governments.

Do you know enough about late early 20th century/ post history to know that 1920's Germany's neutered government was much more desperate for a "Social Safety net" to care for the needs of millions left to the economic ravishes of the Versailles Treaty?

Historically, Winston Churchill says that the post industrial U.K. government has a responsibility to provide for the basic well being of its Labor class who cannot. When he says he is a liberal, not a Socialist you use the quote as an example to illustrate that he was wrong and was preaching a form of diluted Socialism.

Historically, Adolph Hitler says that post war, debt burdened Germany has a responsibility to enact an even more progressive social program than Churchill proposed 15 years later, they name the new political party the National Socialist German Workers' Party. You use the Nazi's Governments heavily State controlled privatised industry, a trait shared by Britain, to say that the NSDAP was Socialist in name only.

Seriously?

Four of the most effectual leaders of the 20th century and all architects of various permutations of the Socialist state are all wrong in favour of Anok's pet fringe mechanism of "Social anarchism" as being the correct and only definition?

Serious question, did your education in political theory came from the same school as your education in classical physics? (meaning if you cant dazzle with brilliance just make some stuff up?)

In closing, extra credit points if you can tell us what were Joseph Stalin's views on Anarchists?[

I don't like the majority of the right wing views in this country, especially the views of the Republican party.

Republicans have a huge racist base, you can see it with all the racism on their media outlets and from party members. Along with the whole rise of the birther movement. They tend to be hateful towards gays and muslims as well. They're really just one huge big ball of bad energy.

Their own party leaders admit it...

Sen. Lindsey Graham Says Republicans ‘Not Generating Enough Angry White Guys’,

“The demographics race we’re losing badly [sic],” the senior senator from South Carolina explained. “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They harp on and on about welfare but have no problem increasing military spending and dishing out corporate welfare. The whole party is one huge joke. They want to force their religious views on everyone and really believe that the USA is a Christian nation while claiming to be constitutionalists.

Well, I'm from Michigan as well, and I have to say I can't agree with you. Just my opinion and it's ok to be different.

Heck, we will just cancel each others vote right?

Re read you thread 3 more times, I agree with your title, but am confused by your post. eh.

Not a whole lot of time today, but for a broad overview of the meaning "conservative", I think this covers most definitions.

Conservatism.

Clearly, the term (as is true with "liberal") is meaningless without a specific reference point to a place or time or issue.

Good for you OP.
And good for you bringing up Jesus Christ.

Any of you republicans think Jesus would vote for
President Romney VP Ryan and holy ghost Ayn Rand?
Between the two parties, it's no contest at the moment.

Unless there is a "pulling yourself up by your sandal straps" parable I'm missing?
Or shoot, since you're in Detroit, maybe a "let the Chariot makers fail" parable?
Nope. No Jesus for Romney/Ryan.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I don't like the majority of the right wing views in this country, especially the views of the Republican party.

Republicans have a huge racist base, you can see it with all the racism on their media outlets and from party members. Along with the whole rise of the birther movement. They tend to be hateful towards gays and muslims as well. They're really just one huge big ball of bad energy.

Their own party leaders admit it...

Sen. Lindsey Graham Says Republicans ‘Not Generating Enough Angry White Guys’,

“The demographics race we’re losing badly [sic],” the senior senator from South Carolina explained. “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They harp on and on about welfare but have no problem increasing military spending and dishing out corporate welfare. The whole party is one huge joke. They want to force their religious views on everyone and really believe that the USA is a Christian nation while claiming to be constitutionalists.

edit on 6-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

RealSpoke, I'm amazed at your commitment and am so glad you are
a member of ATS. Most of our views are in the minority here at ATS,
but thankfully in the majority as a nation. Good solid work as always.
You are an info machine !

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Jordan River

 

But you are Union...

You gotta go. Times have changed.

Union saves jobs. I've heard none union people getting pink slips for no reasoning, other than profit for there company and downsizing. (saving profit) union is good.

or are you joking lol

Either way, both parties are both at fault, and ron paul is out. Either side is bad, this i know

Originally posted by bjax9er
obama has destroyed the "middle class".
take a look around you.

you do realize you have to pay for obamacare right?
and health insurance cost more than it did before obamacare.
what has he done for single mothers? nothing.
mortgages?
democrats orchestrated the mortgage collapse in the first place.

this is how communism is achieved,
destroy the middle class, then pit the rich against the poor.

pay your fair share. ring a bell?

you didn't build that. ring a bell?

don't believe me ?

read the book...
it's authors are
karl marx, and friedrich engles.


and the kkk was the terrorist arm of the democrat party.

I thought it was capitalism that ruined America, wait a second