See Things for How They Are - Not How They Used to Be

[Manners Matter]

This is a screenshot I took from a video done by a politician from Idaho (?) several years ago. It's worse now. It seems some people just go along and don't step back and look at where they've been led and what they support. It wouldn't hurt to take some time and evaluate. (sorry the image is blurry but it still demonstrates the point) 

Edited August 30, 2024 by Manners Matter

[Carborendum]

It is interesting to note that the Founding Fathers thought that those of the Constitutional Convention were representative of the "balanced middle".  So, if they were centrist, mainstream America is further towards tyrannay than the Founders ever thought possible under the Constitution.

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, I never understood the popular claim that as you moved right, you went republican/conservative, then far-right/alt-right, then full on nazi.   They were pushing the notion that if I just ramped my conservatism up 200%, I'd be a fascist.  It's just not true.  If I were to strain so hard at conservatism that I burst a blood vessel, I'd end up a libertarian.  

The BLM riots is where we had masked violent people shutting down/attacking other viewpoints.  America's version of the brownshirts wore blac block not brownshirts, and it was antifa not proud boys/boogaloos.  They even tried their hand at forcing salutes, offering people violence if they didn't show their BLM support. 

 

I mean yes, Trump should have known better on Jan7.  It was no Reichstag fire, but it certainly looked like one.   Dude dang well better have learned his lesson.

Sure would have been nice for the country if Twitter hadn't banned his concession speech.  Instead, we had to wait 3 years for Musk to buy Twitter and unhide it.   

 

Edited August 30, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, I never understood the popular claim that as you moved right, you went republican/conservative, then far-right/alt-right, then full on nazi.   They were pushing the notion that if I just ramped my conservatism up 200%, I'd be a fascist.  It's just not true.  If I were to strain so hard at conservatism that I burst a blood vessel, I'd end up a libertarian.  

The problem is that people put up a one-dimensional line representing the political landscape.  The fact is that it is a two dimensional landscape.  Whether you're liberal or conservative, either one can become more anarchst or tyrannical.  Right now, the needle is being pushed further toward tyranny by Democrats than Republicans.

Ironically, the common tactic to implement tyranny is to allow anarcists to go unpunished so randomly that people will be crying out for tyranny.

Quote

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.

  -- Benjamin Franklin

[JohnsonJones]

Perhaps the confusion is between what we label as Right/Left and Conservative/Liberal.

If we label Right as going more towards less law and anarchy, Conservatives today in the US would DEFINITELY NOT qualify on that aspect, and especially not the Republican party of today.

The Republican Party in states which it controls have been placing MANY restrictive laws on what people can or cannot do (restrictions on abortion, birth control, what one can read or not read, restrictions on medical rights, restrictions on what can be taught in schools, etc..etc..etc).

Making more laws and controlling more what people can or cannot do is not going right towards less government and laws at all.

This is where the confusion between Nazi/Facism and Conservatives may be stemming from. 

Conservatives are moving more towards what we would call Authoritarianism.  This would be the rejection of other parties or political ideas and the enforcement of a particular idea with the focus on a singular authority or voice (for example, the Bible, or The Church of Latter-day Saints, or Christian brotherhoods, etc).  Many times this is more focused towards a party rather than a book or ideology. 

Facism is more traditional and thus in many instances is generated from a more Conservative slant as it emphasizes a push towards a Social Heirarchy (normally one that was felt was lost, such as pure Germans losing their property and money to others such as Jews and outsiders, or Italians who feel the new ideas that are circulating are wrong and want a return to how it was in the past...etc....make italy great again...MIGA). 

Facism is normally very Nationalistic.  It normally is also centered with one centrally strong leader.

Now, some hypothesize that Facism and Communism or Socialism cannot co-exist as normally those who are Facists decry Communism and Socialism and say that those two things are evil.  Fuirthermore Facists have traditionally taught that they are the OPPOSITE of Communism and Socialism. 

That said, I find that there are large similarities between the two at times and how they end up (communism normally ends up more as an authoritarian government rather than what Socialists and the Communist theories posit SHOULD happen) with all other ideologies being crushed, a great political push for national pride, and either an oligarchial government or a Dictator in so called Communist nations today.

That said, just because one is in a Conservative party does not mean they are going to opposite direction as Facism.  In fact, most of the examples of Facism arose from Conservative parties that were greatly patriotic, wanted to go back to a more traditional Social Heirarchy, and wanted to suppress or restrict (by force if necessary) beliefs, ideas, thoughts, and actions that went contrary to their party or own beliefs (which is why book banning, banning of certain medical ideas and practices as well as the restrictions on minorities and women, and more is common within the lead up to a Facist society). 

So, with the actions of the Republicans in the States they control, currently the needle is inching closer to Facism...but not necessarily Socialism.  On the otherhand, the TRUE Libertarians (those who actually believe in that parties ideals rather than Republicans who just want to be part of them) are probably the only true ones on the Right today (going towards that less government and more anarchy point on the line), but they don't really control any state or federal government at this point as far as I know in the US. 

PS:  In that light, a nation like North Korea which claims to be Communist is probably more a Facist nation today rather than a Communist one.  There really is no common distribution of materials to everyone as per their needs, it is more divided by those in power who have and those who are not in power who have not and live in poverty, you have a strong nationalistic push in the nation, you have one strong central leader, and you can't get much more traditional and backwards in time than where North Korea is currently stuck at with the majority of it's population.

On the otherhand, on the opposite end of the spectrum you have the Scandinavian nations, of particular note is Sweden which has universal Healthcare, a good welfare system for those who are poor, and a good distribution of goods.  However, it is not a pure Socialistic society and has many Capitalistic ideas and so you still have that division of great vast differences between the wealthy and the poor.

One of the BEST socialistic societies in the world is probably the US military.  Though you have different paygrades, if you live on base you are given a home, you are given a food allowance and even a clothing allowance.  You have free healthcare for you and your family, and you have basically everything equal between you and others of the same rank as far as what you are given.  Of course, this system could not exist without the external support of a far greater and bigger Capitalistic society in which we reside, but with that support we probably have one of the most successful socialistic societies in the world.  In this, as every military member is a taxpayer and a citizen, they literally are the ones who are paying themselves as well and with their votes have a say in what the general direction of the military may go.  They have far more say in the military direction (via their elected leaders) than most do in so called Communist nations today!

Edited September 3, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[Traveler]

Labels are a problem.  I cannot criticize too harshly because I have used labels, but the truth is – labels are more propaganda than descriptive.   Let’s start with liberals and conservatives.  Historically liberals believed in individuals exercising their prerogative and conservatives historically believed that individuals must be governed and kept within the guidelines projected by authority.  Considering the history – I would say I am a liberal.  It seems to me that the current definitions of liberals and conservatives are ambiguous such that I do not think of myself as either.

But there are other problems with conservatives and liberals.  Which is most likely to borrow money and create debt?  Are we thinking liberals?  And yet it is considered a conservative principle to borrow money to purchase a house or start a business.  I would think that liberals ought to be against money loans with compound interest.  And yet it seems that liberals are the most likely to borrow money without any consideration of interest?

What is really meant by the “left” and the “right”?  The most common answer is that the left is for more and bigger government and the right is for minimal and smaller government.  But then it would seem that everybody agrees that the Nazis were right wing?  How can that be?  The Nazis were socialists and believed in the government control of everything – including who should be able to live and reproduce offspring.

As I understand history the Romans were very good at labeling things – especially things that they did not like.  For example, the Romans called the land of Israel, Palestine and the people that lived there Palestinians.   The people in the Middle East that today call themselves Palestinians are less genetically connected to the people that the Romans gave the name to than are the Jews that are claimed to have no right to Palestinians.

Another example from the Romans is the label “Christian”.   Initially the followers of Jesus were Jews but as more and more Gentiles converted – it seems that the label of Christian was not so bad.  Jesus called those that followed him (especially in baptism) disciples.   Today many refuse to call us LDS Christians.  That is fine with me.  Knowing where the label came from in the first place – I have no problem being excluded from that label.  When I am asked concerning my religious faith – I always respond with, “I am a disciple of Jesus the Christ and a devout believer in G-d”.   Hopefully, this will clear up the ambiguity of labels and give an accurate description of how I define myself.

Politically, I have difficulty defining myself.  I very much dislike the, “I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative”.   I am kind of a Libertarian.  But mostly I believe in state rights trumping federalism.  I am mostly connected to the political philosophy Frederic Bastiat as published in his little book, “The Law”.   His concept of legal plunder is profound for our day.

 

The Traveler

Edited September 3, 2024 by Traveler