Far-Right Ideology in the 21st Century

[Old Hippy]

There is no constituency for this. Secessionism looks like the end game.

you snipped '' thou personally I am waiting for the day my country'' thus changing what I was saying
the full statement was
thou personally I am waiting for the day my country has constitutional reform and we become a republic''
In case you have not noticed you are a republic and that there is a strong groundswell amongst the right for constitutional change after 2020... if or when Trump is re- elected

 

[Naskra]

my country

How would I know what that is?

 

[Old Hippy]

How would I know what that is?

good point ... I assumed you follow threads like this and that if someone was waiting for their country to become a republic they could not possibly be referring to the US ... my bad
just incase this debate goes on... it's Australia... thou I am seriously considering becoming a refugee ... and claim asylum in the US so I can vote there...

 

[Naskra]

someone was waiting for their country to become a republic they could not possibly be referring to the US

US began as a federation of republics, but then...... Be careful what you wish for. Truthfully, your ignorance of constitutional law made me suspect you to be American.

 

[Old Hippy]

US began as a federation of republics, but then...... Be careful what you wish for. Truthfully, your ignorance of constitutional law made me suspect you to be American.

thanks for your help...I have many tabs open educating myself to international standards

 

[onejayhawk]

US began as a federation of republics, but then...... Be careful what you wish for. Truthfully, your ignorance of constitutional law made me suspect you to be American.

The US is currently a representative republic.

It's in the Constitution--two houses of Congress with a separate Executive and Judiciary.

J

 

[Hamid.H]

Far-right ideology in the 21st century appears to be various forms of monarchism? OP evidently believes that the Shah of Iran did nothing wrong and we've got someone here arguing the Tsar was okay?

i dont see what the shah has to do with this thread, but since you brought it up i will offer my honest opinion - the shah was very progressive and especially so when you consider the economic, political, and cultural structures of Iran during that time. also, he championed many liberal causes that are still being fought for in western countries today. granted, the shah was a poor coalition builder, but no one can sincerely argue that he was worse for Iran than his predecessors, or the current Iranian regime.

i also hope the intent of this comment wasnt to insinuate that i am "far-right" because i am an admirer of the shah and his vision for Iran. i dont see what him being a monarch has to do with his values, or how that would make him "far-right."

some american liberals like to refer to muslims as being "far-right" then also decry some of the most progressive leaders to come out of the muslim world in the same breath. which often makes me wonder if we are simply being used as a pawn against their enemies in a larger game of demographic change? white liberals tend to dislike religious peoples, so perhaps i am not far off.

hh

 

[Hamid.H]

anyhow, more moderate gains for fascists in the eu. i see us ceding more ground with no vision for any sort of practical resistance in sight.

hh

 

[Estebonrober]

anyhow, more moderate gains for fascists in the eu. i see us ceding more ground with no vision for any sort of practical resistance in sight.

hh

Yea I actually agree with this sentiment and I'm curious how best to fight xenophobia with people who have become irrationally xenophobic. Case in point Hungary. They have almost zero immigration yet it completely dominates their politics. At least in the US we have immigration.

The New World Order is falling apart and I'm not sure how to get people back on the " we are all humans, let's work on human and civil rights together while trying to solve real world problems". We are getting mired in the "mine mine mine" fight again.

 

[Ajidica]

dont see what the shah has to do with this thread,

PROTIP: You might want to avoid having the Shah as your avatar to avoid having similar misunderstandings in the future.

 

[Hamid.H]

PROTIP: You might want to avoid having the Shah as your avatar to avoid having similar misunderstandings in the future.

how is my avatar relevant to any discussion? you dont see me or anyone else discussing yours...

i assume that lexicus' comment was referring to an earlier thread that was moved to a different section of the forum, which is why i brought into question the relevancy of his post.

hh

 

[Hamid.H]

Yea I actually agree with this sentiment and I'm curious how best to fight xenophobia with people who have become irrationally xenophobic. Case in point Hungary. They have almost zero immigration yet it completely dominates their politics. At least in the US we have immigration.

The New World Order is falling apart and I'm not sure how to get people back on the " we are all humans, let's work on human and civil rights together while trying to solve real world problems". We are getting mired in the "mine mine mine" fight again.

certainly, and this sentiment isnt being communicated in an effective manner by any of the so-called liberal leaders in the west. until this changes i see the situation continuing to worsen.

hh

 

[Ajidica]

how is my avatar relevant to any discussion? you dont see me or anyone else discussing yours...

i assume that lexicus' comment was referring to an earlier thread that was moved to a different section of the forum, which is why i brought into question the relevancy of his post.

hh

Yeah, but my avatar isn't a picture of the Shah.

 

[Hamid.H]

Yeah, but my avatar isn't a picture of the Shah.

old hippy has an avatar of gandhi but youre not discussing gandhi so there must be some other motivation at play if youre choosing to discuss my avatar. perhaps it's because you have more in common with some of the liberals i described than youd care to admit.

im sorry, but i still really dont see how anyone's avatar is a worthy topic of discussion or is at all relevant to this thread.

hh

 

[Ajidica]

perhaps it's because you have more in common with some of the liberals i described than youd care to admit.

I mean, I consider my politics to be solidly within the Social Democratic framework, so make of that what you will.

 

[Modder_Mode]

How are they socialist? Does the Far Right want to dismantle all private property?

Socialism does not prohibit private property.

unless stating that white privilege

Are you racially profiling to assume that because someone is white they have privilege?


Dissecting some of the left leaning commentaries on here it seems fascism arises when sections of society come to realize that the leftist totalitarians destroying it from within can't be reasoned with and will never stop with their "progressions". The left has long attacked bourgeois institutions like family, church and property, whilst fascism has apparently made its peace with all three. Some people like their churches, like their families and like their property and if these things are to be attacked then there are those who will in turn defend them. Does that make one a fascist or a fighter of leftism's reflexive totalitarianism?
It seems bizarre to me that organizations like antifa who want to violently shutdown people and groups that it deems as "fascists" instil their own dosage of terror, violence, hatred, oppression and propaganda with the intention of replacing it with their own dictatorial totalitarian society.

There's nothing wrong with providing less fortunate people welfare, but it really comes down to the way you go about it and how hard you go about it.

 

[Estebonrober]

Dissecting some of the left leaning commentaries on here it seems fascism arises when sections of society come to realize that the leftist totalitarians destroying it from within can't be reasoned with and will never stop with their "progressions". The left has long attacked bourgeois institutions like family, church and property, whilst fascism has apparently made its peace with all three. Some people like their churches, like their families and like their property and if these things are to be attacked then there are those who will in turn defend them. Does that make one a fascist or a fighter of leftism's reflexive totalitarianism?
It seems bizarre to me that organizations like antifa who want to violently shutdown people and groups that it deems as "fascists" instil their own dosage of terror, violence, hatred, oppression and propaganda with the intention of replacing it with their own dictatorial totalitarian society.
t.

Except nowhere currently are leftists attack family, church, property and yet still the evil phoenix is rising in slow motion in front of our faces. Maybe that is because your thesis is wrong. I like my Church, family, and what little property I own the left doesn't threaten any of those.

Antifa has been discussed a lot of places, I think you are not understanding their purpose.

 

[Modder_Mode]

Except nowhere currently are leftists attack family, church, property and yet still the evil phoenix is rising in slow motion in front of our faces. Maybe that is because your thesis is wrong. I like my Church, family, and what little property I own the left doesn't threaten any of those.

Antifa has been discussed a lot of places, I think you are not understanding their purpose.

I do understand their purpose for the most part, but I don't understand a lot of their targets and who they deem as fascist. I disagree on their use of the word fascist and what they think it means.
Donald Trump for one has been labeled a Nazi, the same Donald Trump that supports Israel, Jews and the first president to actually stand by an election promise and move the US embassy to Jerusalem, he must really hate the Jews and believe wholeheartedly in the Aryan race. If you want to argue he's a fascist go ahead (which I will still not agree with) but a Nazi, come on!?

 

[Lexicus]

I do understand their purpose for the most part, but I don't understand a lot of their targets and who they deem as fascist. I disagree on their use of the word fascist and what they think it means.
Donald Trump for one has been labeled a Nazi, the same Donald Trump that supports Israel, Jews and the first president to actually stand by an election promise and move the US embassy to Jerusalem, he must really hate the Jews and believe wholeheartedly in the Aryan race. If you want to argue he's a fascist go ahead (which I will still not agree with) but a Nazi, come on!?

Israel is an apartheid state. Many open Nazis including Richard Spencer have expressed admiration for Israel's "ethnonationalist" character and policies of apartheid.

 

[Socrates99]

i dont see what the shah has to do with this thread, but since you brought it up i will offer my honest opinion - the shah was very progressive and especially so when you consider the economic, political, and cultural structures of Iran during that time. also, he championed many liberal causes that are still being fought for in western countries today. granted, the shah was a poor coalition builder, but no one can sincerely argue that he was worse for Iran than his predecessors, or the current Iranian regime.

i also hope the intent of this comment wasnt to insinuate that i am "far-right" because i am an admirer of the shah and his vision for Iran. i dont see what him being a monarch has to do with his values, or how that would make him "far-right."

some american liberals like to refer to muslims as being "far-right" then also decry some of the most progressive leaders to come out of the muslim world in the same breath. which often makes me wonder if we are simply being used as a pawn against their enemies in a larger game of demographic change? white liberals tend to dislike religious peoples, so perhaps i am not far off.

hh

American liberals tolerate all religions being practiced in one's personal life as long as it's not breaking other laws (ie spousal abuse, polygamy, etc). What they have no tolerance for is using religion to craft theocratic laws (ie banning same sex marriage, imposing religious dress codes, promoting gender inequality, etc).

So a liberal will defend an individual's right to practice Islam but they'll intervene if you force someone else to adhere to its teachings. It has to be voluntary. So if a woman practices Islam and wants to wear hijab liberals will defend her. If she doesn't practice but her husband forced her to wear hijab then theres a problem.

Same thing goes for the gay marriage bans with Christians. If a Christian decides not to be gay, more power to them, fine. Just dont try and use laws to prevent someone else from leading the life they want to lead.