Evolution, Darwin, and the alt right

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 4, 2017

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views:

While the Confederate cause in the Civil War has been the subject of much chatter, the modern racial right owes far more to Charles Darwin than to Robert E. Lee.

That’s a takeaway from a pre-print study, “A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right,” by two social psychologists, Patrick S. Forscher and Nour S. Kteily of the University of Arkansas and Northwestern University respectively. Their news peg, predictably, is the 2016 presidential election.

…

Much of what they found is no surprise, but the frankness of their questioning about evolution is refreshing …

You won’t be startled to hear that alt-right believers were more inclined to dehumanize, in evolutionary terms, their disfavored racial and ethnic groups, rating “White people” as more “evolved” than, say, “Mexicans, Nigerians, and Blacks.” Or rather you won’t be startled if you’ve been paying attention to our reporting here on the role of evolutionary thinking among racist right-wingers. (The left has its own racialists, but that’s a different discussion.) More.

Possibly, the researchers asked frank questions because they wanted to find out what is really going on. That happens to the best of them, despite all efforts to stop it.

Some of us think that the alt right scare is way overblown. The average alt-rightist is probably an unemployable gamer Occupying his mom’s basement while seeking legal aid for charges for minor offences. He does not even have the status of a serious threat.

But he’s big in traditional media. Just imagine, a way of interesting people in their currently deficient coverage at last! But we shall see.

See also: The alt right, Donald Trump, and – oddly enough – Darwin. Anyone not committed to Darwinian survival of the fittest cannot be ‘alt right’.

and

Christian racism? Election years bring dangerous creatures from the shadows

Comments

KF, Please, keep us updated on the situation in Montserrat regarding the hurricane. We pray for you, your family and all the residents in those beautiful islands. Rev 22:21Dionisio_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Folks, Mr Coyne's remarks are so over the top that it is in order to clip Matthew Henry on Rom 1:28, where because rebellious cultures lock God out of what they acknowledge as knowledge, God in judgement gives such over to a reprobate, debased, depraved mind:
[1.] They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. The blindness of their understandings was caused by the wilful aversion of their wills and affections. They did not retain God in their knowledge, because they did not like it. They would neither know nor do any thing but just what pleased themselves. It is just the temper of carnal hearts; the pleasing of themselves is their highest end. There are many that have God in their knowledge, they cannot help it, the light shines so fully in their faces; but they do not retain him there. They say to the Almighty, Depart (Job xxi. 14), and they therefore do not retain God in their knowledge because it thwarts and contradicts their lusts; they do not like it. In their knowledge--en epignosei. There is a difference between gnosis and epignosis, the knowledge and the acknowledgement of God; the pagans knew God, but did not, would not, acknowledge him. [2.] Answerable to this wilfulness of theirs, in gainsaying the truth, God gave them over to a wilfulness in the grossest sins, here called a reprobate mind--eis adokimon noun, a mind void of all sense and judgment to discern things that differ, so that they could not distinguish their right hand from their left in spiritual things. See whither a course of sin leads, and into what a gulf it plunges the sinner at last; hither fleshly lusts have a direct tendency. Eyes full of adultery cannot cease from sin, 2 Pet. ii. 14. This reprobate mind was a blind scared conscience, past feeling, Eph. iv. 19. When the judgment is once reconciled to sin, the man is in the suburbs of hell. At first Pharaoh hardened his heart, but afterwards God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Thus wilful hardness is justly punished with judicial hardness.--To do those things which are not convenient. This phrase may seem to bespeak a diminutive evil, but here it is expressive of the grossest enormities; things that are not agreeable to men, but contradict the very light and law of nature. And here he subjoins a black list of those unbecoming things which the Gentiles were guilty of, being delivered up to a reprobate mind. No wickedness so heinous, so contrary to the light of nature, to the law of nations, and to all the interests of mankind, but a reprobate mind will comply with it. By the histories of those times, especially the accounts we have of the then prevailing dispositions and practices of the Romans when the ancient virtue of that commonwealth was so degenerated, it appears that these sins here mentioned were then and there reigning national sins. No fewer than twenty-three several sorts of sins and sinners are here specified, v. 29-31. Here the devil's seat is; his name is legion, for they are many. It was time to have the gospel preached among them, for the world had need of reformation. First, Sins against the first table: Haters of God. Here is the devil in his own colours, sin appearing sin. Could it be imagined that rational creatures should hate the chief good, and depending creatures abhor the fountain of their being? And yet so it is. Every sin has in it a hatred of God; but some sinners are more open and avowed enemies to him than others, Zech. xi. 8. Proud men and boasters cope with God himself, and put those crowns upon their own heads which must be cast before his throne. Secondly, Sins against the second table. These are especially mentioned, because in these things they had a clearer light. In general here is a charge of unrighteousness. This is put first, for every sin is unrighteousness; it is withholding that which is due, perverting that which is right; it is especially put for second-table sins, doing as we would not be done by. Against the fifth commandment: Disobedient to parents, and without natural affection--astorgous, that is parents unkind and cruel to their children. Thus, when duty fails on one side, it commonly fails on the other. Disobedient children are justly punished with unnatural parents; and, on the contrary, unnatural parents with disobedient children. Against the sixth commandment: Wickedness (doing mischief for mischief's sake), maliciousness, envy, murder, debate (eridos--contention), malignity, despiteful, implacable, unmerciful; all expressions of that hatred of our brother which is heart-murder. Against the seventh commandment: Fornication; he mentions no more, having spoken before of other uncleannesses. Against the eighth commandment: Unrighteousness, covetousness. Against the ninth commandment: Deceit, whisperers, back-biters, covenant-breakers, lying and slandering. Here are two generals not before mentioned--inventors of evil things, and without understanding; wise to do evil, and yet having no knowledge to do good. The more deliberate and politic sinners are in inventing evil things, the greater is their sin: so quick of invention in sin, and yet without understanding (stark fools) in the thoughts of God. Here is enough to humble us all, in the sense of our original corruption; for every heart by nature has in it the seed and spawn of all these sins. In the close he mentions the aggravations of the sins, v. 32. 1. They knew the judgment of God; that is, (1.) They knew the law. The judgment of God is that which his justice requires, which, because he is just, he judgeth meet to be done. (2.) They knew the penalty; so it is explained here: They knew that those who commit such things were worthy of death, eternal death; their own consciences could not but suggest this to them, and yet they ventured upon it. It is a great aggravation of sin when it is committed against knowledge (James iv. 17), especially against the knowledge of the judgment of God. It is daring presumption to run upon the sword's point. It argues the heart much hardened, and very resolutely set upon sin. 2. They not only do the same, but have pleasure in those that do them. The violence of some present temptation may hurry a man into the commission of such sins himself in which the vitiated appetite may take a pleasure; but to be pleased with other people's sins is to love sin for sin's sake: it is joining in a confederacy for the devil's kingdom and interest. Syneudokousi: they do not only commit sin, but they defend and justify it, and encourage others to do the like. Our own sins are much aggravated by our concurrence with, and complacency in, the sins of others.
So, we should not be surprised to see the rampant, rotten fruits of a benumbed conscience and an endarkened mind pretending to deep ethical and intellectual insights. Only, to be heading over the cliff. Civilisational suicide by march of willful, stubborn, brazen folly; just as we see all around us. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

JAD @ 24: Coyne is a marginalized a/mat nut job. He is a dangerous human being who should never get too close to the levers of power. As for religion disappearing, that will only happen if a/mats successfully remove free will from humanity, either through genetic manipulation or merger with machines. None of us are truly safe so long as Coyne and his ilk are roaming the earth...seeking whom they may devour.Truth Will Set You Free_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Here are some very provoking thoughts from evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. .
Coyne makes the… claim that since we euthanize our sick pets, we should also kill seriously ill and disabled babies. He then explains why he thinks the reasons we resist that meme are wrong, and indeed, irrational. From his blog: “The reason we don’t allow euthanasia of newborns is because humans are seen as special, and I think this comes from religion—in particular, the view that humans, unlike animals, are endowed with a soul. It’s the same mindset that, in many places, won’t allow abortion of fetuses that have severe deformities. When religion vanishes, as it will, so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.” Well, no. As I have written repeatedly, human exceptionalism can include religious views, but it definitely does not require them. As Coyne’s advocacy proves, once we reject human exceptionalism, universal human rights becomes unsustainable, and we move toward the manufacture of killable and exploitable castes of people, determined by the moral views of those with the power to decide.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449557/does-darwinism-lead-infanticide-acceptance Coyne’s thinking is the same kind of thinking which led to the Nazi led holocaust, which began with the medical euthanization of “undesirables,” not long after the beginning of WW II. The slippery slope which began with the forced sterilizations in the U.S. and some other countries ended with Nazi Germany going off the cliff. However, I think I do agree with Coyne about one thing. Once you get rid of the religious basis for morality and ethics, which in western society is predominantly Judeo-Christian, you get rid of any basis of human rights. If there are no human rights then there is no basis at all for any kind of democracy. On the other hand, who is Jerry Coyne tell everyone else what to think and believe? If there is no transcendent basis for human rights then there are no human rights. And if that is true for everyone else then Jerry Coyne doesn’t have any rights either, not even the right to express his opinion. Apparently he has been able to fool himself into thinking he does. What do you call a person who so can so easily fool himself?john_a_designer_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Definitely turning: Sep 05 21:00 GMT 17.1° -59.8° 185 mph 926 mb Hurricane Cat 5 Also, first (low speed) gusts and rain over about the past hour. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Looks like it's turning: Sep 05 18:00 GMT 16.9° -59.1° 185 mph 926 mb Hurricane Cat 5 That's + 0.7 degree W and 0.1 N in three hours for the eye. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Those who have expressed concern and prayers for Montserrat and others in harm's way just now, thank you. Word is, they expect the long awaited turn to start this evening. We shall see by later tonight. When winds hit 50 - 60 mph, the utility will turn off electric power on this island and we will go incommunicado as a result. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

JAD, precisely. The inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism leads directly to undermining ethical thought and behaviour. It has no cogent answer to the IS-OUGHT gap, and too often those caught up in it distract attention -- including their own -- from it by using the rhetoric of distraction, distortion and denigration especially of traditions that are rooted in ethical theism. The hostility and contempt verging in too many cases on hate, speak volumes. If you doubt me, look at any number of Youtube comment threads. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

The key question here is whether any naturalistic or materialistic worldview can provide any kind of basis for universal human rights? Keep in mind exactly what that means. A universal human right applies to all people living at all times. In other words, you naturally or intrinsically have rights because you are human and only human beings have those rights. A Darwinian “survival of the fittest” approach at best leads us to a form of tribalism which views a particular group think and herd morality as better or more privileged than another group think. (Isn't that what we have on both the "far left" and "far right"?) That is not a basis for universal human rights because it is the group that grants its members their rights. If you look at the so-called progressive movement (think of the eugenics movement) which came into existence in the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century it was very Darwinian in its thinking and outlook.john_a_designer_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Prayers for you KF. News, really well said.tribune7_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Charles: For two days it has been E of us, moving W, now it is about 3 - 4 degrees longitude away [~ 200 mi?], moving W still I think; clouds, slight wind, noticeably hot, seas disturbed. Models say, it should hook right and hit Barbuda with the eye (due to Coriolis forces), about 80 - 100 mi away. If it does, we may see 70 - 80 mph winds. If not: IRMA Sep 05 15:00 GMT 16.8° -58.4° 180 mph 931 mb Hurricane Cat 5 Not good for anybody in its direct path. KFkairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

For some of us, the main problem is as follows: Back when I was a cub writer, there were white power goons. But because they were not influential or increasing in number (if anything, the opposite), the media usually did not cover them much. I don't suppose there was ever a time when media were terribly responsible, but some common sense sometimes prevailed. We realized that if we gave the yobs much publicity, counter-yob mobs would form and the resulting street-fighting would make the first group of yobs important. I mean, we could just not cover White Power if nothing much was happening. But we couldn't fail to cover a riot resulting in fatalities, etc. It's the same with any potential ethnic or gang conflict: Responsible (sort of) media do not themselves sponsor the conflict by giving it a rush of oxygen. Thus I can't help suspecting that shrinking importance and readership have caused some media to decide to sponsor things they could just as easily have ignored. The small numbers attracted to white power rallies provide a clue as does the fact that Klan leader David Duke is hardly succeeding as a politician. Well, this too shall pass; traditional media may no longer be able to afford the bus fare to the next such event. Deprived of attention, it'll all start to shrink back to a resigned fester.News_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

There is no left-wing nor right-wing, no alt-left nor alt-right.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
-- Ronald Reagan A Time for Choosing -- Oct 27. 1964 Read the entire modern day prophecy: http://reagan2020.us/speeches/A_Time_for_Choosing.aspawstar_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, my prayers for your protection and provision if/when "Irma" passes near you. Are you safe, relatively? CharlesCharles_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

FYI:
What is Left? What is Right? What Is Left? What Is Right? It is extremely unfortunate that the writers on political philosophy today have undertaken to measure various issues in terms of political parties instead of political power. No doubt the American Founding Fathers would have considered this modern measuring stick most objectionable, even meaningless. Today, as we mentioned, it is popular in the classroom as well as the press to refer to "Communism on the left," and "Fascism on the right." People and parties are often called "Leftist," or "Rightist." The public do not really understand what they are talking about. These terms actually refer to the manner in which the various parties are seated in the parliaments of Europe. The radical revolutionaries (usually the Communists) occupy the far left and the military dictatorships (such as the Fascists) are on the far right. Other parties are located in between. Measuring people and issues in terms of political parties has turned out to be philosophically fallacious if not totally misleading. This is because the platforms or positions of political parties are often superficial and structured on shifting sand. The platform of a political party of one generation can hardly be recognized by the next. Furthermore, Communism and Fascism turned out to be different names for approximately the same thing ~ the police state. They are not opposite extremes but, for all practical purposes, are virtually identical. The American Founding Fathers Used a More Accurate Yardstick Government is defined in the dictionary as "a system of ruling or controlling," and therefore the American Founders measured political systems in terms of the amount of coercive power or systematic control which a particular system of government exercises over its people. In other words, the yardstick is not political parties, but political power. Using this type of yardstick, the American Founders considered the two extremes to be anarchy on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. At the one extreme of anarchy there is no government, no law, no systematic control and no governmental power, while at the other extreme there is too much control, too much political oppression, too much government. Or, as the Founders called it, "tyranny." The object of the Founders was to discover the "balanced center" between these two extremes. They recognized that under the chaotic confusion of anarchy there is "no law," whereas at the other extreme the law is totally dominated by the ruling power and is therefore "Ruler's Law." What they wanted to establish was a system of "People's Law," where the government is kept under the control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people. The 5,000 Year Leap - W. Cleon Skousen
Heartlander_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

> so if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the alt-right is Left Wing? Exactly! The far right and the far left are virtually indistinguishable. Come join me in my centrist utopia.Mung_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

vmahuna @ 1 - so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the alt-right is Left Wing?Bob O'H_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

FTR, Wiki summary Communist Manifesto: Too long and not listed in points so, >>Synopsis The Communist Manifesto is divided into a preamble and four sections, the last of these a short conclusion. The introduction begins by proclaiming "A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre". Pointing out that parties everywhere—including those in government and those in the opposition—have flung the "branding reproach of communism" at each other, the authors infer from this that the powers-that-be acknowledge communism to be a power in itself. Subsequently, the introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to "meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself". The first section of the Manifesto, "Bourgeois and Proletarians", elucidates the materialist conception of history, that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority living under the thumb of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the "common ruin of the contending classes". The bourgeoisie, through the "constant revolutionising of production [and] uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions" have emerged as the supreme class in society, displacing all the old powers of feudalism. The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves and accumulating capital. However, in doing so, the bourgeoisie serves as "its own grave-diggers"; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie. "Proletarians and Communists", the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists' party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world's proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities. The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, including claims that it advocates "free love" or disincentivises people from working. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society. The third section, "Socialist and Communist Literature", distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the time—these being broadly categorised as Reactionary Socialism; Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism; and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. While the degree of reproach toward rival perspectives varies, all are dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognise the pre-eminent revolutionary role of the working class. "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties", the concluding section of the Manifesto, briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland, and Germany, this last being "on the eve of a bourgeois revolution", and predicts that a world revolution will soon follow. It ends by declaring an alliance with the social democrats, boldly supporting other communist revolutions, and calling for united international proletarian action—Working Men of All Countries, Unite!.>>kairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

FTR, Kirk: http://www.kirkcenter.org/detail/ten-conservative-principles >>It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims. In various editions of my book The Conservative Mind I have listed certain canons of conservative thought—the list differing somewhat from edition to edition; in my anthology The Portable Conservative Reader I offer variations upon this theme. Now I present to you a summary of conservative assumptions differing somewhat from my canons in those two books of mine. In fine, the diversity of ways in which conservative views may find expression is itself proof that conservatism is no fixed ideology. What particular principles conservatives emphasize during any given time will vary with the circumstances and necessities of that era. The following ten articles of belief reflect the emphases of conservatives in America nowadays. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics. Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order. It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise. Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired. Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity. For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few. The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state. Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate. Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old. Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation. Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought. Other principles of equal importance might have been discussed here: the conservative understanding of justice, for one, or the conservative view of education. But such subjects, time running on, I must leave to your private investigation. The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.>>kairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

FTR, 3: Vox Day, a decade later, is regarded as one of the leading voices of the so-called Alt Right. Here are his sixteen points: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html >>What the Alternative Right is In the interest of developing a core Alternative Right philosophy upon which others can build. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation. TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests. The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal." This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.>>kairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

FYI 2: It is probably a clue as to what is going on that the Fascist Manifesto as I can find it, is best accessible from Vox Day's translation for WND: http://www.wnd.com/2004/06/25291/ >>Italians! Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice. For the political problem: We demand: a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women. b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years. c) The abolition of the Senate. d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the State. e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers. For the social problems: We demand: a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers. b) A minimum wage. c) The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions. d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants. e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries. f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age. For the military problem: We demand: a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities. b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories. c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world. For the financial problem: We demand: a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth. b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor. c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein. As with National Socialism and Communism, it is easy to see that far from being a right-wing ideology, fascism is simply another variant of leftist worship of the State. I found the first plank in the above platform to be particularly amusing, as last week on my blog, Vox Popoli, a five-day debate sparked by a post on the historical consequences of women’s suffrage caused some hysterical leftists to label me a fascist. And yet, the only serious question is if it is more ironic to tar a libertarian or a member of the Religious Right with the fascist brush, as one seldom hears James Dobson calling for the government seizure of all church-owned property. In 1925, Mussolini encapsulated the heart of fascist philosophy in a memorable phrase: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato. This means “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Now, I ask you, in the Year of Our Lord 2004, does that sound more like a Libertarian, a Republican or a Democrat?>>kairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

FYI, The actual Nazi programme from February 1920 on: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm >>The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party 1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples. 2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated. 3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population. 4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman. 5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens. 6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen. We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness. 7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich. 8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately. 9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties. 10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. Therefore we demand: 11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. 12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts. 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. 15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. 16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities. 17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. 18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race. 19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law. 20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. 21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young. 22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army. 23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand: (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens. (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language. (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich. Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved. 24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD 25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations. The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states. The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.>>kairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Folks, let us pause and turn down the voltage then think again. We are in an era of spin, outright big lie deceit, turnabout accusatory projection, distract- distort- demonise, foment rage-driven mobs etc, and if Christians do not understand, the more or less standard perception among the radicalised is that we are right-wing, theocratic Christo-Fascists. So, I suggest the first three things we need to do before looking at any controversial subject where big slices of the big media . . . too often, little more than paid liars these days . . . are in lockstep, is to
[1] look at worldview roots (so we can know what the real alternatives and foundational issues are), to [2] address sound history [yes, history . . . learn from the past or be doomed to make the same mistakes over and over] and to [3] straighten out the agit-prop mess fostered by a media populated by those of reprobate mind and driven by dubious agendas. This includes on the manipulation of science, education, popular science, news and even policy makers' summaries.
That holds for the brouhaha on "fascism" or "nazism," it holds for "separation of church and state," it holds for climate debates -- and I say this with a cat 5 Irma bearing down, hoping the predicted hook will veer it away -- and it holds for the so-called alt right as well as whoever is deemed "right." My fundamental point here would be, we live in a day when Stalin's propaganda has triumphed and Fascism and national Socialism have been transferred from being actually far left . . . just, not as far as Stalin . . . to the nebulous "right." I suggest, the Left can be more or less defined still but "right" has become essentially meaningless, save as a term of abuse and distortion. Yes, there are a lot of racists -- absolute numbers, percentages are probably tiny [what is 1/10 of 1% of 100 millions, but 100,000?] -- being profiled and used to say that is the right, anti marriage equality [as in some imagine mere words under false colour of law can change what marriage is by naturally evident Creation order of the two sexes], Christofascists and more. I suggest, there is a significant amount of residual racism, some of it hides under IQ tests and population trends [remember how Eugenics was once the "scientific" consensus . . . oh, they did not teach that in school as a cautionary tale, no prizes for guessing why Virginia], there are debates over culture, heritage and history, demographic manipulation, invasion by immigration and more. Some of this is valid, say, given the history of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, invasion and cultural/community disintegration by immigration and settlement jihad are actually documented issues. Much of it is agit-prop bunk, one way or another -- right and left alike. (If you imagine the blackshirts of the left in the street calling themselves anti-fascist are not totalitarian street thugs directly in the line from Hitler's Brown Shirted SA, something is wrong. The major media failed a huge test here. And some folks need to ponder if statue toppling has taken over from book burning in our day.) I suggest it would be more profitable to make a study of core worldview alternatives, in that context to address straight vs spin in the media [and education, sadly], and to learn some hard lessons from sound history, as opposed to the manipulation that has been going on for far too long. One thing that strikes me, is that we need to look long and hard at ethical foundations as part of the worldviews assessment. I am currently realising that even reasoning is critically dependent on ethical controls and conscience being more than a delusion: absent the urge to truth and soundness being recognised as valid and objectively binding, mind and reasoning power simply become amoral weapons of deceit, spreading the fires of falsity and raqe-driven folly across the world. When it comes to the Christian Faith, I suggest that Christofascist or the like is a patent, hate-driven smear. if you think it is a true, fair and responsible summary, you need to think again. Likewise, I think there are many who have swallowed talking points meant to dismiss the Christian Faith as being little more than a fairy tale. Such need to think again, starting with the historical anchorage for the gospel. And more. (And if you doubt that these themes are connected go glance at Youtube comment chains -- I am utterly appalled.) KF PS: ES, we have our first communist monarchy, with a dynasty now in its third despot, the latest Kim. In Cuba, the handing over from Fidel to Raul speaks for itself on where such monarchies come from. PPS: VM, In the outdated days of the French Assembly, the Monarchists sat to the right. Left wing has evolved since, especially post Marx and now with the Cultural Marxists and their agendas to utterly change our civilisation beyond recognition, having first worked to isolate it from its roots. Right wing is largely meaningless, post cold war. I have suggested we need a new analysis, on a spectrum from totalitarian autocracy to utter anarchy, with constitutional democracy and linked rule of law as the unstable but valuable middle that needs to be buttressed and protected from both extremes. That middle has been feasible only since the late C17.kairosfocus_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

@vmahuna Left wing is pro-government and pro-monarchist? You must be one of those home-schooled types, basic history a hopeless mess.E.Seigner_{September 5, 2017
September
09
Sep
5
05
2017
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

vmahuna,
That is, The Left Wing is pro-government, regardless of the form of government. When the term was first created, it applied to the pro-Monarchist forces in the French parliament.
You have it precisely backwards. In the National Assembly, it was those that wanted to limit the power of the monarchy that were on the Left, and included those who supported the American system of government. The traditional, conservative, pro-royalist people who wanted to maintain a monarchy with absolute power, sat on the Right.goodusername_{September 4, 2017
September
09
Sep
4
04
2017
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Richard Spencer Margaret Sanger Same http://billlawrenceonline.com/grilled-italian-sausage-labor-day-meal/tribune7_{September 4, 2017
September
09
Sep
4
04
2017
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Um, this ain't a description of what I had been led to believe is the "Alt-Right". As far as I know, the Alt-Right are Trotskyites, pro-government intellectuals who desire constant wars because wars cause the government to spend LOTS of tax money on war toys. And so the mess in the greater Iraq-Syria region is a favorite place to turn up the heat. As is the quagmire called Afghanistan. High school educated, blue collar kinda guys are naturally Conservative and believe in SMALL government, no wars (unless we plan to WIN, openly and without qualification). They lean Libertarian, and of course the Alt-Right HATES Libertarians. That is, The Left Wing is pro-government, regardless of the form of government. When the term was first created, it applied to the pro-Monarchist forces in the French parliament. And the Left Wing naturally crystallized an opposition that was clearly the Right Wing, which pursues individual rights and defends private property. Fascists are, and always were, LEFT Wing Socialist groups. Until Lenin threw Mussolini out of the club for coming out as an Italian Nationalist, instead of supporting the entirely imaginary International Workers movement in WW1, Mussolini was one of the world's leading LEFTISTS. And so he remained. The National Socialist German Workers Party was, as the name proclaims, an organization of SOCIALIST nationalists. Some place in the 1930s, Moscow created a propaganda campaign, parroted by all of the Communists in the West, that the Fascists (i.e., ANY Socialist organization that refused to follow orders from Moscow) were "Right Wing". So it was OK to be a Left Wing pro-Communist Socialist, but was EVIL to be a "Right Wing" ANTI-Communist Socialist. Even anti-Communist monarchists were suddenly Right Wing instead of Left Wing. And so the names lost all meaning. "Right Wing" is now used SOLELY as a suggestive but ill-defined insult. But the Alt-Right are solidly Leftists.vmahuna_{September 4, 2017
September
09
Sep
4
04
2017
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply