Politics Made Simple

[PoliticalChic]

1. Or, perhaps more accurately put, ‘politics for the simple-tons.’

It has often been my premise that Democrat/Liberal voters are complexly clueless about what they stand for, what they vote for when they pull that lever for Democrat candidates.
The premise is easily proven, by asking how said voters explain a sample of Democrats doctrines and desires.



2. But it occurs to me that the easiest way to explain the great political divide is to provide what government school hides: the philosophical basis for Left and Right….that would be John Locke, versus Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Locke influenced the American Revolution.

Rousseau was the godfather of the French, and Russian Revolutions.




3. “…political philosophy, or more accurately, political visions can be boiled down to Locke versus Rousseau. The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, that his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign, that the government exists because men of free will cede certain authorities to it in order to best protect their lives and property.

The Rousseauian vision holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.

Fascism, like Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist isms are all based on the Rousseauian vision of the group, the tribe, the class taking precedence over the individual.” Rousseau: The Worldwide Tour | National Review



Soooo…-are you a Lockean or Rousseau-Marx-Mao-Obamunist?

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. The Left includes Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism, and Nazism.
The Democrat Party fits one or more of those categories, depending on the day of the week.

The opposition would be the Founders, classical liberals (not what are called Liberals today), and conservatives.





5.All Leftism stems from Rousseau and the French Revolution.

“If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.“ French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror




If you support the Left, the Democrat Party, it would be incorrect call yourself American.

Soooo…-are you a Lockean or Rousseau-Marx-Mao-Obamunist?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. All political debate can be boiled down to Locke vs Rousseau
Americans ascribe to Locke's beliefs.....
....Leftists to Rousseau's.



Let's prove it:



a. Locke: sovereignty of the individual while Rousseau gave all power to the collective, and the ‘general will’ as superior to one’s conscience.

b. Locke saw man as sinful, hence the need for checks and balances, while Rousseau viewed man as ‘the noble savage.’

c. Locke claimed our rights come from God, while Rousseau said government would determine what rights we have, and for how long.

d. Locke said that private property and the fruits of our labor are synonymous with liberty, while Rousseau said that property is the original sin of civilization, and that all property must be commonly held and regulated by government for the common good.

e. Locke believed in equality before the law, but not necessarily of equality of wealth, while Rousseau saw economic inequality as the source of all social ills.
See Jonah Goldberg, “Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy,” chapter five.



It's clear whose views the Democrat Party aligns with.




Soooo…-are you a Lockean or Rousseau-Marx-Mao-Obamunist?

 

[HenryBHough]

Now if we can get all that reduced to five words on a bumper strip maybe one or two liberals might read it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. John Locke was the third most quoted expert, by our Founders. If our major political party eschews the views of our Founders, and embraces the wholly foreign views of Rousseau and Marx, well, how can one vote for the party that is the very antithesis of American thought?


“The notion of human equality was always a hard sell, because experience teaches us that we are so unequal in so many ways, and because making one's self superior is so tempting that Lincoln called it "the old serpent, you work I'll eat."

But human equality made sense to our Founding generation because they believed that all men are made in the image and likeness of God, because they were yearning for equal treatment under British law, or because they had read John Locke.” Angelo Codevilla, Conor Friedersdorf and the Straussian Time-Warp





The Founders, having read Locke, recognized the relationship between private property and prosperity.

Property rights precede liberty.
Perhaps some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence, John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.” Property Rights Have Personal Parallels

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. ""Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.... Locke argued in his Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".


a. The Founders carried through Locke's views:

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Virginia Declaration of Rights" Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia





9. "A number of times throughout history, tyranny has stimulated breakthrough thinking about liberty. ...John Locke....expressed the radical view that government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel." John Locke Natural Rights to Life Liberty and Property The Freeman Foundation for Economic Education




“…when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel."



And that rebellion took place, November 8, 2016

 

[dudmuck]

While its useful to know the difference between Locke and Rousseau. For a complete understanding, Hobbes and Montesquieu must also be included.

To know Rousseau & Russia, one need only to start looking at what happened to Ka
sparov and Nemtsov. No doubt Trump is envious of such conditions, considering h
ow much he admires Putin.

4. The Left includes Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism, and Nazism.

Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others. See far-
right politics.
Liberalism is neither left or right, ie Neoliberalism

Its great to make things simple, but it has to be correct first, then simple.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While its useful to know the difference between Locke and Rousseau. For a complete understanding, Hobbes and Montesquieu must also be included.

To know Rousseau & Russia, one need only to start looking at what happened to Ka
sparov and Nemtsov. No doubt Trump is envious of such conditions, considering h
ow much he admires Putin.

4. The Left includes Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism, and Nazism.

Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others. See far-
right politics.
Liberalism is neither left or right, ie Neoliberalism

Its great to make things simple, but it has to be correct first, then simple.

"Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others
See far-
right politics."


First and foremost.....there is no Far Right in this country.

Now, for your education on Leftism....


Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. The thesis of communism can be summarized in one sentence: the abolition of private property.

Which of the six also reflect the thesis of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism are both forms of socialism...the former international socialism, the latter, national socialism.

The other three fit between.




How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.

 

[dudmuck]

While its useful to know the difference between Locke and Rousseau. For a complete understanding, Hobbes and Montesquieu must also be included.

To know Rousseau & Russia, one need only to start looking at what happened to Ka
sparov and Nemtsov. No doubt Trump is envious of such conditions, considering h
ow much he admires Putin.

4. The Left includes Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism, and Nazism.

Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others. See far-
right politics.
Liberalism is neither left or right, ie Neoliberalism

Its great to make things simple, but it has to be correct first, then simple.

"Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others
See far-
right politics."


First and foremost.....there is no Far Right in this country.

Now, for your education on Leftism....


Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. The thesis of communism can be summarized in one sentence: the abolition of private property.

Which of the six also reflect the thesis of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism are both forms of socialism...the former international socialism, the latter, national socialism.

The other three fit between.




How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.

Nazism: a form of fascism. Anti liberal-democracy, anti-parliment, eugenics, racism. They have a seething hatred for Communists and Jews (duh).

Communism: A social-economic order structured upon common ownership. A society without social classes. Ideologically opposed to money, and even the state.

Socialism: A social-economic order structured upon social ownership and democratic control. Social ownership can mean any of 1) cooperative ownership 2) employee ownership 3) public ownership by citizens.

Fascism: authoritarian nationalism. Dictatorship; control of commerce & industry. Forced supression of opposition. The opposite of liberalism, marxism, anarchism.

Progressivism: advocates for improvement of society. Improve human condition by advancing economic development, science & technology.

Liberalism: based on liberty and equality. i.e. gender equality, freedom of speech/press, free markets, freedom of religion, civil rights. (you might notice that nazis hate these people)

If its on the far-right list, then its far right.

No Far right in USA? See Matt Gaetz. Invited alt-right to SOTU.
See what they were thinking about the Florida shooting survivors. Just two easy examples.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While its useful to know the difference between Locke and Rousseau. For a complete understanding, Hobbes and Montesquieu must also be included.

To know Rousseau & Russia, one need only to start looking at what happened to Ka
sparov and Nemtsov. No doubt Trump is envious of such conditions, considering h
ow much he admires Putin.

4. The Left includes Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism, and Nazism.

Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others. See far-
right politics.
Liberalism is neither left or right, ie Neoliberalism

Its great to make things simple, but it has to be correct first, then simple.

"Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others
See far-
right politics."


First and foremost.....there is no Far Right in this country.

Now, for your education on Leftism....


Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. The thesis of communism can be summarized in one sentence: the abolition of private property.

Which of the six also reflect the thesis of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism are both forms of socialism...the former international socialism, the latter, national socialism.

The other three fit between.




How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.

Nazism: a form of fascism. Anti liberal-democracy, anti-parliment, eugenics, racism. They have a seething hatred for Communists and Jews (duh).

Communism: A social-economic order structured upon common ownership. A society without social classes. Ideologically opposed to money, and even the state.

Socialism: A social-economic order structured upon social ownership and democratic control. Social ownership can mean any of 1) cooperative ownership 2) employee ownership 3) public ownership by citizens.

Fascism: authoritarian nationalism. Dictatorship; control of commerce & industry. Forced supression of opposition. The opposite of liberalism, marxism, anarchism.

Progressivism: advocates for improvement of society. Improve human condition by advancing economic development, science & technology.

Liberalism: based on liberty and equality. i.e. gender equality, freedom of speech/press, free markets, freedom of religion, civil rights. (you might notice that nazis hate these people)

If its on the far-right list, then its far right.

No Far right in USA? See Matt Gaetz. Invited alt-right to SOTU.
See what they were thinking about the Florida shooting survivors. Just two easy examples.

"No Far right in USA?"

That's correct.....no Far Right in this country.

Not only will I prove it....but I will challenge you, and you will be speechless.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."

"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)


Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com




So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.



I can provide lots of similar examples....but you will fail this challenge:
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Double dog dare ya'.

 

[Tax Man]

New day same lame shit from the reich. How much do you get paid to post this propaganda?

 

[PoliticalChic]

New day same shit from the reich. How much do you get paid to post this propaganda?

Re-post sans the vulgarity....you know, as if you were an adult....and I'll provided the beating you deserve.

 

[dudmuck]

While its useful to know the difference between Locke and Rousseau. For a complete understanding, Hobbes and Montesquieu must also be included.

To know Rousseau & Russia, one need only to start looking at what happened to Ka
sparov and Nemtsov. No doubt Trump is envious of such conditions, considering h
ow much he admires Putin.

4. The Left includes Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism, and Nazism.

Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others. See far-
right politics.
Liberalism is neither left or right, ie Neoliberalism

Its great to make things simple, but it has to be correct first, then simple.

"Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others
See far-
right politics."


First and foremost.....there is no Far Right in this country.

Now, for your education on Leftism....


Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. The thesis of communism can be summarized in one sentence: the abolition of private property.

Which of the six also reflect the thesis of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism are both forms of socialism...the former international socialism, the latter, national socialism.

The other three fit between.




How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.

Nazism: a form of fascism. Anti liberal-democracy, anti-parliment, eugenics, racism. They have a seething hatred for Communists and Jews (duh).

Communism: A social-economic order structured upon common ownership. A society without social classes. Ideologically opposed to money, and even the state.

Socialism: A social-economic order structured upon social ownership and democratic control. Social ownership can mean any of 1) cooperative ownership 2) employee ownership 3) public ownership by citizens.

Fascism: authoritarian nationalism. Dictatorship; control of commerce & industry. Forced supression of opposition. The opposite of liberalism, marxism, anarchism.

Progressivism: advocates for improvement of society. Improve human condition by advancing economic development, science & technology.

Liberalism: based on liberty and equality. i.e. gender equality, freedom of speech/press, free markets, freedom of religion, civil rights. (you might notice that nazis hate these people)

If its on the far-right list, then its far right.

No Far right in USA? See Matt Gaetz. Invited alt-right to SOTU.
See what they were thinking about the Florida shooting survivors. Just two easy examples.

"No Far right in USA?"

That's correct.....no Far Right in this country.

Not only will I prove it....but I will challenge you, and you will be speechless.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."

"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)


Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com




So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.



I can provide lots of similar examples....but you will fail this challenge:
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Double dog dare ya'.

Focus on specific positions is not the correct approach.
3 years ago there was data collected on the polarization of congress. Thomas Mann from brookings showed how republicans have moved further from the center than democrats have.
And more recently, how the republican party has become pathological.

But, i think its demonstrated better by Matt Gaetz inviting alt-right to STOU. Or that crimes are no longer disqualifying to be candidate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While its useful to know the difference between Locke and Rousseau. For a complete understanding, Hobbes and Montesquieu must also be included.

To know Rousseau & Russia, one need only to start looking at what happened to Ka
sparov and Nemtsov. No doubt Trump is envious of such conditions, considering h
ow much he admires Putin.

4. The Left includes Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism, and Nazism.

Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others. See far-
right politics.
Liberalism is neither left or right, ie Neoliberalism

Its great to make things simple, but it has to be correct first, then simple.

"Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others
See far-
right politics."


First and foremost.....there is no Far Right in this country.

Now, for your education on Leftism....


Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. The thesis of communism can be summarized in one sentence: the abolition of private property.

Which of the six also reflect the thesis of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism are both forms of socialism...the former international socialism, the latter, national socialism.

The other three fit between.




How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.

Nazism: a form of fascism. Anti liberal-democracy, anti-parliment, eugenics, racism. They have a seething hatred for Communists and Jews (duh).

Communism: A social-economic order structured upon common ownership. A society without social classes. Ideologically opposed to money, and even the state.

Socialism: A social-economic order structured upon social ownership and democratic control. Social ownership can mean any of 1) cooperative ownership 2) employee ownership 3) public ownership by citizens.

Fascism: authoritarian nationalism. Dictatorship; control of commerce & industry. Forced supression of opposition. The opposite of liberalism, marxism, anarchism.

Progressivism: advocates for improvement of society. Improve human condition by advancing economic development, science & technology.

Liberalism: based on liberty and equality. i.e. gender equality, freedom of speech/press, free markets, freedom of religion, civil rights. (you might notice that nazis hate these people)

If its on the far-right list, then its far right.

No Far right in USA? See Matt Gaetz. Invited alt-right to SOTU.
See what they were thinking about the Florida shooting survivors. Just two easy examples.

"No Far right in USA?"

That's correct.....no Far Right in this country.

Not only will I prove it....but I will challenge you, and you will be speechless.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."

"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)


Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com




So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.



I can provide lots of similar examples....but you will fail this challenge:
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Double dog dare ya'.

Focus on specific positions is not the correct approach.
3 years ago there was data collected on the polarization of congress. Thomas Mann from brookings showed how republicans have moved further from the center than democrats have.
And more recently, how the republican party has become pathological.

But, i think its demonstrated better by Matt Gaetz inviting alt-right to STOU. Or that crimes are no longer disqualifying to be candidate.

I can provide lots of similar examples....but you will fail this challenge:
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.







Clearly, you have failed the challenge.


This is due to the following reasons:

a. rather than being able to engage in critical thinking, you do what so many government school grads do......accept whatever the Left tells you to accept.



b. because, as always, I am correct, and there is no Far Right in this country.




Now, slither on away.

 

[Norman]

1. Or, perhaps more accurately put, ‘politics for the simple-tons.’

It has often been my premise that Democrat/Liberal voters are complexly clueless about what they stand for, what they vote for when they pull that lever for Democrat candidates.
The premise is easily proven, by asking how said voters explain a sample of Democrats doctrines and desires.



2. But it occurs to me that the easiest way to explain the great political divide is to provide what government school hides: the philosophical basis for Left and Right….that would be John Locke, versus Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Locke influenced the American Revolution.

Rousseau was the godfather of the French, and Russian Revolutions.




3. “…political philosophy, or more accurately, political visions can be boiled down to Locke versus Rousseau. The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, that his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign, that the government exists because men of free will cede certain authorities to it in order to best protect their lives and property.

The Rousseauian vision holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.

Fascism, like Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist isms are all based on the Rousseauian vision of the group, the tribe, the class taking precedence over the individual.” Rousseau: The Worldwide Tour | National Review



Soooo…-are you a Lockean or Rousseau-Marx-Mao-Obamunist?

To me both sound like idiots. "Rights" are only what people let you get away with. Usually the dominant people establish a governance, but I wouldn't go as far as say rights come from the government.

The leftists are simply morons who are inferior in every way. As such their strategy is to spread chaos, deceit and lies and attempt to take control of the government so that the superior people can be brought down. This is their only way to procreate, otherwise their genes are killed for good.

In summary, the left are losers, while the right are winners.

 

[dudmuck]

While its useful to know the difference between Locke and Rousseau. For a complete understanding, Hobbes and Montesquieu must also be included.

To know Rousseau & Russia, one need only to start looking at what happened to Ka
sparov and Nemtsov. No doubt Trump is envious of such conditions, considering h
ow much he admires Putin.


Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others. See far-
right politics.
Liberalism is neither left or right, ie Neoliberalism

Its great to make things simple, but it has to be correct first, then simple.

"Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others
See far-
right politics."


First and foremost.....there is no Far Right in this country.

Now, for your education on Leftism....


Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. The thesis of communism can be summarized in one sentence: the abolition of private property.

Which of the six also reflect the thesis of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism are both forms of socialism...the former international socialism, the latter, national socialism.

The other three fit between.




How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.

Nazism: a form of fascism. Anti liberal-democracy, anti-parliment, eugenics, racism. They have a seething hatred for Communists and Jews (duh).

Communism: A social-economic order structured upon common ownership. A society without social classes. Ideologically opposed to money, and even the state.

Socialism: A social-economic order structured upon social ownership and democratic control. Social ownership can mean any of 1) cooperative ownership 2) employee ownership 3) public ownership by citizens.

Fascism: authoritarian nationalism. Dictatorship; control of commerce & industry. Forced supression of opposition. The opposite of liberalism, marxism, anarchism.

Progressivism: advocates for improvement of society. Improve human condition by advancing economic development, science & technology.

Liberalism: based on liberty and equality. i.e. gender equality, freedom of speech/press, free markets, freedom of religion, civil rights. (you might notice that nazis hate these people)

If its on the far-right list, then its far right.

No Far right in USA? See Matt Gaetz. Invited alt-right to SOTU.
See what they were thinking about the Florida shooting survivors. Just two easy examples.

"No Far right in USA?"

That's correct.....no Far Right in this country.

Not only will I prove it....but I will challenge you, and you will be speechless.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."

"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)


Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com




So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.



I can provide lots of similar examples....but you will fail this challenge:
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Double dog dare ya'.

Focus on specific positions is not the correct approach.
3 years ago there was data collected on the polarization of congress. Thomas Mann from brookings showed how republicans have moved further from the center than democrats have.
And more recently, how the republican party has become pathological.

But, i think its demonstrated better by Matt Gaetz inviting alt-right to STOU. Or that crimes are no longer disqualifying to be candidate.

I can provide lots of similar examples....but you will fail this challenge:
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.







Clearly, you have failed the challenge.


This is due to the following reasons:

a. rather than being able to engage in critical thinking, you do what so many government school grads do......accept whatever the Left tells you to accept.



b. because, as always, I am correct, and there is no Far Right in this country.




Now, slither on away.

The most prominent far right group in USA is alt-right.
Proof of how far right we've gone: Sebastian Gorka is given a speaking platform in so many places.

Policies? Perhaps the best example is that the GOP used to be known as "law & order" party, but now thats nowhere to be found. considering the Cohen pay-to-play activity, and the threats against 1st amendment freedoms.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Fascism and Nazism cannot be dropped into the same pile as the others
See far-
right politics."


First and foremost.....there is no Far Right in this country.

Now, for your education on Leftism....


Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. The thesis of communism can be summarized in one sentence: the abolition of private property.

Which of the six also reflect the thesis of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism are both forms of socialism...the former international socialism, the latter, national socialism.

The other three fit between.




How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.

Nazism: a form of fascism. Anti liberal-democracy, anti-parliment, eugenics, racism. They have a seething hatred for Communists and Jews (duh).

Communism: A social-economic order structured upon common ownership. A society without social classes. Ideologically opposed to money, and even the state.

Socialism: A social-economic order structured upon social ownership and democratic control. Social ownership can mean any of 1) cooperative ownership 2) employee ownership 3) public ownership by citizens.

Fascism: authoritarian nationalism. Dictatorship; control of commerce & industry. Forced supression of opposition. The opposite of liberalism, marxism, anarchism.

Progressivism: advocates for improvement of society. Improve human condition by advancing economic development, science & technology.

Liberalism: based on liberty and equality. i.e. gender equality, freedom of speech/press, free markets, freedom of religion, civil rights. (you might notice that nazis hate these people)

If its on the far-right list, then its far right.

No Far right in USA? See Matt Gaetz. Invited alt-right to SOTU.
See what they were thinking about the Florida shooting survivors. Just two easy examples.

"No Far right in USA?"

That's correct.....no Far Right in this country.

Not only will I prove it....but I will challenge you, and you will be speechless.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.

The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."

"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)


Let's take as an example, traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage..
....which is the radical position?
Hence, Far Left.

Need convincing? Well, a common social reference is 'the nuclear family.' It has always meant:
" a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children" Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY


How about 'traditional family'?
"A traditional family is a family structure that consists of a man, woman and one or more of their biological or adopted children. In most traditional families, the man and woman are husband and wife." Traditional Family: Definition & Concept | Study.com




So....as far as the concept of marriage and family, where do we find the radical position?
The Left.
Hence, 'Far Left.'
So far, far from the center, that they cannot point to a single philosopher, sage, or religious leader throughout history who has endorsed homosexual marriage.



I can provide lots of similar examples....but you will fail this challenge:
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Double dog dare ya'.

Focus on specific positions is not the correct approach.
3 years ago there was data collected on the polarization of congress. Thomas Mann from brookings showed how republicans have moved further from the center than democrats have.
And more recently, how the republican party has become pathological.

But, i think its demonstrated better by Matt Gaetz inviting alt-right to STOU. Or that crimes are no longer disqualifying to be candidate.

I can provide lots of similar examples....but you will fail this challenge:
If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.







Clearly, you have failed the challenge.


This is due to the following reasons:

a. rather than being able to engage in critical thinking, you do what so many government school grads do......accept whatever the Left tells you to accept.



b. because, as always, I am correct, and there is no Far Right in this country.




Now, slither on away.

The most prominent far right group in USA is alt-right.
Proof of how far right we've gone: Sebastian Gorka is given a speaking platform in so many places.

Policies? Perhaps the best example is that the GOP used to be known as "law & order" party, but now thats nowhere to be found. considering the Cohen pay-to-play activity, and the threats against 1st amendment freedoms.

Back, for another chance to redeem yourself??OK, OK.....quit beggin'....


As magnanimous as I am, and fully expecting you to fall on your face again, …..go for it.


Here, the simple parameters of the argument:

1. There is no "Far Right" in this country.
As is always important when dealing with Leftists, Liberals.....let's define terms.


The terms far right and far left are relative to some understood center.

To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.


The premise here is that, if I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means "especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)




2. Let's take another example,.....

How about 'prayer' in the public arena?


"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday narrowly upheld the centuries-old tradition of offering prayers to open government meetings, even if the prayers are overwhelmingly Christian and citizens are encouraged to participate.

The 5-4 ruling, supported by the court's conservative justices and opposed by its liberals, was based in large part on the history of legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution."
Supreme Court upholds prayer at government meetings



See this? "... legislative prayer dating back to the Framers of the Constitution."

Clearly this is at the center of American tradition.


But... "Lawless Judges Have Created an America Where Praying Gets a Man Suspended from His Job
Yesterday, Joe Kennedy, an assistant high-school–football coach in Bremerton, Wash., was suspended. His offense? Kneeling for a short on-field prayer after football games. According to multiple news reports, for the last several years Kennedy has waited until each game ends and the players leave the field before walking to the 50-yard line and offering a quiet prayer for his students. He never asks anyone to join him, nor does he stop anyone who wants to do so."
Football Coach Suspended for Praying: How Lawless Judges Empower Censorship of Christians | [site:name] | National Review






So....as far as the concept of prayer in the public arena, where do we find the radical position?

Hence, far left.



Once again.....here's your chance:
.... see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.



If you can't......I win again: there is not Far Right, and the use of the phrase is Leftist propaganda to hide their iniquity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Or, perhaps more accurately put, ‘politics for the simple-tons.’

It has often been my premise that Democrat/Liberal voters are complexly clueless about what they stand for, what they vote for when they pull that lever for Democrat candidates.
The premise is easily proven, by asking how said voters explain a sample of Democrats doctrines and desires.



2. But it occurs to me that the easiest way to explain the great political divide is to provide what government school hides: the philosophical basis for Left and Right….that would be John Locke, versus Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Locke influenced the American Revolution.

Rousseau was the godfather of the French, and Russian Revolutions.




3. “…political philosophy, or more accurately, political visions can be boiled down to Locke versus Rousseau. The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, that his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign, that the government exists because men of free will cede certain authorities to it in order to best protect their lives and property.

The Rousseauian vision holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.

Fascism, like Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist isms are all based on the Rousseauian vision of the group, the tribe, the class taking precedence over the individual.” Rousseau: The Worldwide Tour | National Review



Soooo…-are you a Lockean or Rousseau-Marx-Mao-Obamunist?

To me both sound like idiots. "Rights" are only what people let you get away with. Usually the dominant people establish a governance, but I wouldn't go as far as say rights come from the government.

The leftists are simply morons who are inferior in every way. As such their strategy is to spread chaos, deceit and lies and attempt to take control of the government so that the superior people can be brought down. This is their only way to procreate, otherwise their genes are killed for good.

In summary, the left are losers, while the right are winners.

"Rights" are only what people let you get away with."

Gee, Norm....you're usually able to see the correct view.....not this time.

What you are allowing is government that can end free speech....

...tell you what religion to believe in....

....determine where to live and with whom to live.....




I wonder if the following might make you reconsider....

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.
6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.
7. It is a grave error to believe that rights evolve due to societal changes, and expand to include free education, shelter, a minimum wage, healthcare…even wireless Internet access.
   1. Whereas the right to bear arms and free expression require nothing but governmental promise of protection, fake rights entail government coercive redirection of private resources.
   2. Thus, material benefits do not meet the basic standards of a right.
8. Realize, expanding the concept of a right to cover desires represents theft, peculation, as the natural and timeless rights of people must be subordinated to the power of government.
9. One way of hiding the theft is to invent the cover of ‘collective rights.” It is the favored method of the Left, co-opt the language.

Richard Lorenc, “Reinventing The Right,” p.33-34.

 

[Norman]

1. Or, perhaps more accurately put, ‘politics for the simple-tons.’

It has often been my premise that Democrat/Liberal voters are complexly clueless about what they stand for, what they vote for when they pull that lever for Democrat candidates.
The premise is easily proven, by asking how said voters explain a sample of Democrats doctrines and desires.



2. But it occurs to me that the easiest way to explain the great political divide is to provide what government school hides: the philosophical basis for Left and Right….that would be John Locke, versus Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Locke influenced the American Revolution.

Rousseau was the godfather of the French, and Russian Revolutions.




3. “…political philosophy, or more accurately, political visions can be boiled down to Locke versus Rousseau. The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, that his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign, that the government exists because men of free will cede certain authorities to it in order to best protect their lives and property.

The Rousseauian vision holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.

Fascism, like Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist isms are all based on the Rousseauian vision of the group, the tribe, the class taking precedence over the individual.” Rousseau: The Worldwide Tour | National Review



Soooo…-are you a Lockean or Rousseau-Marx-Mao-Obamunist?

To me both sound like idiots. "Rights" are only what people let you get away with. Usually the dominant people establish a governance, but I wouldn't go as far as say rights come from the government.

The leftists are simply morons who are inferior in every way. As such their strategy is to spread chaos, deceit and lies and attempt to take control of the government so that the superior people can be brought down. This is their only way to procreate, otherwise their genes are killed for good.

In summary, the left are losers, while the right are winners.

"Rights" are only what people let you get away with."

Gee, Norm....you're usually able to see the correct view.....not this time.

What you are allowing is government that can end free speech....

...tell you what religion to believe in....

....determine where to live and with whom to live.....




I wonder if the following might make you reconsider....

1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
   1. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.
6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.
7. It is a grave error to believe that rights evolve due to societal changes, and expand to include free education, shelter, a minimum wage, healthcare…even wireless Internet access.
   1. Whereas the right to bear arms and free expression require nothing but governmental promise of protection, fake rights entail government coercive redirection of private resources.
   2. Thus, material benefits do not meet the basic standards of a right.
8. Realize, expanding the concept of a right to cover desires represents theft, peculation, as the natural and timeless rights of people must be subordinated to the power of government.
9. One way of hiding the theft is to invent the cover of ‘collective rights.” It is the favored method of the Left, co-opt the language.

Richard Lorenc, “Reinventing The Right,” p.33-34.

This is factually incorrect. Right is whatever you are let to get away with by others.

What you meant to say is you would LIKE for rights to be constructed in the way you described. But they aren't, it's a fairytale.

All the left needs to do is to vote in all that free shit, and they got those rights. That's the reality. This makes the threat real... they will end all civilization if not stopped. It's in their interest to do so.

They can grant themselves any number of rights at the expense of yours... the reality.