As someone who is classed as 'Extreme Left-wing', an Anarchist: Of course I would say the 'Far-Right'.
But no, lets be honest... Extremists are extremists; they have a lot more in common on opposite sites of the political spectrum than they think.
I'd say this a good example: Fascism is being equated with the Far-Right (Is not correct: Fascism is neither Left nor Right Wing... as the Political compass shows). Fascism has no clear Economical Policies... the Left/ Right divide is about the Economy: Communism on the Far-Left, Free-market Economy (Capitalism) on the Far-Right. This concept dates back to 17th or 18th century France when the Free-Market thinkers were sitting on the 'Right' of the King.
But what about Stalinism/ Maoism then?
There are people... and I most certainly agree with them on that... who says Stalinism, and its Chinese offshoot Maoism, are both 'Red Fascism'.
The Characteristics of Fascism are: Authoritarianism, Militarism, Nationalism.
The USSR had that; the People's Republic of China has it... Same as Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.
The only reason why I strongly feel Left-wing is better than Right-Wing is because Right-Wing is about 'I' and Left-wing is about 'Us'. What's so wrong about a good, healthy public sector which looks after the most vulnerable of society? Tax needs to be paid to fund that Private sector. Is it really that bad to receive medical treatment Free at the Point of Delivery? People who cannot work for various reasons receiving State benefits so they ca survive? Education largely free and when people leave University their Study debt is far lower than it is in the US, for example? Left-wing isn't necessarily about abolishing Capitalism, is about regulating it that everyone can benefit from an increase in wealth when the economy grows instead of the wealthy hoarding at the top.
Also I think a circle might be a good diagram as well. Stalin and Hitler were like twins on either side of crazy extreme. And moderate politicians agree on like 99%.
Yeah, Stalin and Hitler were both brutal murderers who purged everyone who dared to oppose them. The difference in death toll between the 2 of them doesn't differ that much. The reason why Hitler stands out is because Hitler did it all in +/- 10 years; Stalin took his time and his murder spree covers most of his time in power.
And the Circle also makes sense. That's always what I say about 'Love' and 'Hate'; they are not each others opposites. They are both very strong emotions with lay close to each other; Hate can easily turn into Love, and also vice versa.
Most political divides serve only 1 purpose: To divide.
Before a Karl Marx worked on his Socialist/ Communist Ideology, and his colleague 'Moses Hess' deviated from that and formulated a 'Socialist' Ideology centred around Race... There was no 'Left' nor 'Right'; there were the 'Haves' and 'Have Nots'
Moses Hess is the founding father of Secular, Labour, Zionism and his racial theories have formed the base of National Socialism, Nazism, in Germany through German Philosophers. By the time societies like the Thule society and parties like the DAP (predecessor of the NSDAP) had adopted the Race theories, no one remembered who Moses Hess was. He is a rather obscured person, and some digging is required to find out more about the man.
Moses Hess and Marx/ Engels parted ways because of a disagreement:
"Hess became reluctant to base all history on economic causes and class struggle (as Marx and Engels did), and he came to see the struggle of races, or nationalities, as the prime factor of history."
The 'Establishment' knows damn well that we, ordinary people, are the 'Masses' and that they are 'few'; They've applied one of the oldest tactics in the book: Divide and Rule. Let the 'Plebs' fight amongst each other, and they will not have to worry about us turning on them.
There is this meme going around of a King worrying because the population has risen up in anger. The king's advisor suggests:
"Oh, you don't need to fight them - You just need to convince the Pitchfork people that the Torch people want to take their pitchforks"
That’s interesting. It’s funny how no one thinks of Hegel when casting dispersions on socialism. But there were a lot of crazy world views from 1800s to ww2. And it’s unfort eugenics was thought of by Darwin’s cousin.
I can't say I am overly familiar with his philosophies... But Marx (Socialism), Gentile (Italian Fascism) and Hess (Zionism) have all been influenced by Hegel.
You may have heard of the 'Young Hegelians'? That's the Hegelian 'school of thought' Marx, Gentile and Hess ascribed too... Though Marx later in life rejected Hegelianism.
Hegel's philosophies have been influenced by the Dutch, Sephardim ('Spanish-Jew'), Portuguese Philosopher 'Baruch Spinoza'; and Moses Hess was a devoted 'Spinozist'.
It was Spinoza who first started to question Judaism and advocated for reforms. He felt that it was the 'Jewish Ancient Laws' which were preventing Jews from gaining any kind of status and political standing in the European societies which hosted them. Jewish societies were completely isolated from the hosting European societies and not, as is being claimed, due to rampant 'Ani-Semitism' (of course Anti-Semitism, at times, played a role... but not as big as is being claimed), because they saw themselves as refugees who would some day be allowed to return to their 'promised land'. Refugees do not integrate because one day they will return. Jews believed that by religiously studying the Holy Books and worshipping Yahweh that that was going to happen.
He suggested that Judaism would reform itself and become more akin to 'Protestantism' and would abandon the ancient laws. However, he did bring up one other solution: Jews had to create their own state so they could retain their ancient laws and still gain political standing. He never theorised on how that was supposed to happen because he simply didn't think it was feasible and preferred integration.
Baruch Spinoza got excommunicated by the Rabbinical class which has held a stranglehold on Jewish societies for centuries; since Roman times when the 'Pharisees', you may have heard of them (The ones who handed Jesus over to the Romans), came out as the dominant force within Judaism after the 'Zealot Temple Siege' of 68CE which brought the Romans into war with the Jews (First Roman-Jewish War 70CE).
But 200 years later, during Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah)... Some Jewish thinkers picked up on the idea of a Jewish State and formulated their ideologies.
Moses Hess was not the first and only Jewish person who worked on ideologies regarding a Jewish State; Moritz Steinschneider is being labelled a 'Proto-Zionist'.
"In Lowy's room in 1838 they inaugurated among intimate (and lifelong) friends, a proto-Zionist society called "Die Einheit". The society's objective was to promote the welfare of the Jewish people, and in order to realize this objective, they advocated the settlement of Palestine by Austrian Jews."
"The origin of "antisemitic" terminologies is found in the responses of orientalist Moritz Steinschneider to the views of orientalist Ernest Renan. Historian Alex Bein writes: "The compound anti-Semitism appears to have been used first by Steinschneider, who challenged Renan on account of his 'anti-Semitic prejudices' [i. e., his derogation of the "Semites" as a race]
Yes, I found it very hard... They are theories, not hard proven facts; I, try to, deal in facts, things I can prove or reenforce with supporting material.
But I fully understand that it is very important.
I am struggling anyway a lot currently due to physical and mental health problems... But History, for example, makes sense... I can make the connections and can read the articles without continuous needing to deviated to other articles to get a better picture of it all.
It's the same with Political Ideologies, while I can make a lot of them... once an ideology starts to split up in so many sub ideologies, I can't 'see the forest for the trees', as is being said in the US, or I can't 'see the wood for the trees', as is being said in the UK.
I am an Anarchist, and, even without including 'Right-wing' Libertarianism, which is mainly a US ideology (Libertarianism is really just Left-Wing; Right-wing Libertarianism was based on Ayn Rand's theories, but she was not a Libertarian, she was a Capitalist-Simp) there are so many variations on the Left too that I get lost in detail. Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin... I don't care about them; they are people from the past. We need to look for ways to apply Anarchy in a modern setting.
For me it is simple: I oppose Authority, or better said how in our current world Authority is being exhibited. I do not accept our justice systems, I play along with the rules, laws, which I feel are right (which is most of them)... I want as much personal freedom as possible; I feel I should be able to do whatever I want *as long as I do not hurt other people or destroy other people's property*. It's none of anyone business what I do with my life and my body.
Anarchy and Peace is all I want... No bloody, violent revolution because that will only cause counter-revolutions. Mass Civil Disobedience is the way. Anarchy does not equate Chaos, and I abhor senseless vandalism
The Left-wing part is simply that I feel society has a duty to look after the most vulnerable of society; I do not oppose people becoming wealthy, I feel a certain level of equality needs to be maintain; I prefer to see our monetary system being abolished, but I can live with it if it is somewhat being retained (no Inflation, no Interest though).
I think I have give a fairly good explanation of where I stand.
Crass, with the song 'Bloody Revolution' explains well why I am opposed to a 'Bloody Revolution'
Personally I think both sides are mostly wacked out psychos with a delusional viewpoint of the topics they fight over. I think it's about time we throw out the current government entities and start new enforcing the original belief that the government ought be fully self supporting declining all outside contributions and made completely for the people by the people and properly representing the people instead of being influenced and controlled by the large business conglomerates as it is and has been for over a hundred years now... but I digress allowing the fools and idiots, who have turned holding a political office into a carreer and influenced by the big money instead of properly representing the full body of their constituents, to influence whether I openly voice my disdain for the corruption filled so called government we currently have. It used to be that a representative of any political party was allowed 2 consecutive terms in office in a lifetime and once those terms were completed they were no longer allowed or eligible to run for or hold any political office thereafter. That all changed in 1908 when the banking industry bailed out the then bankrupt government and took control over how the government was run thereafter.
gee... probably the side that conducts the most riots, lootings, assassinations, online cancel culture from shutting down social media to shutting down bank accounts, false imprisonment of rivals and private executions
the side that glorifies transitioning of minors, glorifies deleting unborn babies, glorifies acting like degenerates in public, pushes for open borders, pushes for the destruction of families, pushes for releasing dangerous criminals into the streets, creates false narratives and hoaxes like global warming and a systemically racist patriarchy that supposedly oppresses 97% of the global population and favors only 3% of the global population
the side that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people throughout history and nearly billions when you include unborn babies to the death toll
and guess what the most extreme part of them is? you can't criticize them at all without being labeled a sexist, racist, fascist, misogynist, xenophobe etc.
all your shooters happen to be liberal from the thugs in Chicago and Baltimore doing drive-by gang shootings to Thomas Matthew Crooks who tried to assassinate Trump and ended up killing a firefighter instead
lol Jan 6 pales in comparison to all the BLM and ANTIFA riots across the nation
George Floyd was murdered, the election wasn't stolen.
Assholes 25 million protesting Americans as cover to riot is not the same as a mob storming the Capitol based on lies from their leader about the election.
Nobody told BLM protesters they should attack anyone, Trump's mob was called to DC and sent to fight!, fight!, fight! at the Capitol (and went straight home when he finally told them to).
AntiFa basically ceases to exist when there are no fascists to counter. You'd probably never heard of them until Charlottesville.
@goaded Trump’s mob as you call them, were told to remain peaceful, no violence, no violence, respect the men and women in blue, and support the capitol police and law enforcement.
@Sasahara Those tweets were written at 2:38pm and 3:13pm EST, after the Capitol had already been overrun and around the time Babbitt was shot a quarter hour after he painted a target on Mike Pence: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"
"Here’s what President Trump did not do: He did not call any relevant law enforcement agency to ensure they were working to quell the violence. He did not call the Secretary of Defense; he did not call the Attorney General; he did not call the Secretary of Homeland Security. And for hours on end, he refused the repeated requests—from nearly everyone who talked to him—to simply tell the mob to go home."
@Sasahara Of course Jan 6 was far worse. Jan 6 was instigated at the highest levels of power and intended to steal the presidency, ending American democracy. BLM (over months and made up of millions of Americans) was to protest murders of black people by police.
Trump waited until 6pm to tell people to go home, after the Capitol had been secured and he knew he'd lost.
"However, arson, vandalism, and looting that occurred between May 26 and June 8 caused approximately $1–2 billion in insured damages nationally, the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U. S. history, and surpassing the record set during the 1992 Los Angeles riots." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests www.axios.com/...-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html For example
@Sasahara Could BLM possibly have ended American democracy? No. Was Jan 6 the first time in American history that a losing president didn't hand over power peacefully and speak to bring the country together? Yes.
Jan 6 was far worse, especially with the lies and deceit leading up to it and continuing to this day.
@goaded BLM caused more damage. Did Jan 6 end democracy? No. BLM was worse than the "mob" that were told to remain peaceful, no violence, no violence, respect the men and women in blue, and support the capitol police and law enforcement.
@Sasahara Yes, rioters using BLM as an excuse caused more damage to property, over months (clearly far less damage per person, though). Saying "be peaceful" to people you'd already sent to the Capitol (knowing they were armed) after they had violently taken it over is just covering your ass.
If Trump had succeeded in staying in the presidency with the aid of the traitors in Congress, that would have been the end of American democracy. If rioters using BLM as cover had done 1000 times the damage, it still wouldn't have affected the government.
@goaded Overall BLM caused more damage. And the mob were told to remain peaceful, no violence, no violence, respect the men and women in blue, and support the capitol police and law enforcement. Which I have been arguing.
Fiery riots and causing the biggest insured damages in US history is not worse than protesters who were told to remain peaceful, no violence, no violence, respect the men and women in blue, and support the capitol police and law enforcement, and were so succsessfull you as a American citizen have rhe ability to vote for Democrats if you wish to do so.
@goaded the constitution and American democracy is fine. Americans like Odd have the abilty to vote for Democrats if they wish to do so instead of voting for Trump. (Who lies so often according to leftists, they should be unable to trust anything he says they can use to paint him as bad) Considering how succsessfull the "coup" was that Odd can vote Harris or whover actually represents the Democrats this election, darn right I think BLM is worse.
@Sasahara It may be now, but it was on a knife's edge on Jan 6 2021. And now Trump is openly saying (to Christian Nationalists) "In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not gonna have to vote."
People did vote for Biden in 2020, in extraordinary numbers, Jan 6 was intended to ignore their votes, and now they've had a practice run.
@goaded And leftists thinks Trump is such a liar they are obviously not going to trust Trump if he actually said that. As Odd put it "but he does lie every other sentence." Do you think Agenda 47 is different from Project 2025? ↗ So if Trump actually said what you claim, leftists like Odd is not going to belive him, since he thinks Trump is such a liar.
I maintain the stance that BLM was worse than Jan 6. BLM caused more damages, and the Jan 6 protests did such a great job that Odd is able to vote Democrat if he wish to do so.
@Sasahara Well, Trump is a liar. Are you saying he's not? That doesn't mean he doesn't sometimes tell the truth.
He's on video explaining how the Heritage Foundation are (in 2022) compiling the plan for the next Republican presidency. That's exactly what Project 2025 is. It's intended to take the US back a hundred years or more, without the informed consent of the governed, and to keep minority rule forever.
Just because they failed once doesn't make Trump, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation (with their billionaire supporters) any less dangerous. They're even more dangerous now because they've had practice. Read about 1930's Germany some time.
@goaded I’m saying that the type of people who belive Trump lies as much as every other sentence obviously can’t trust anything he says. Including stuff they can use to paint him as bad.
And I maintain BLM is worse than the Jan 6 protest.
@goaded If Trump said what that question claims, people who belives he lies as often as every other sentence can’t trust it. If you were to claim people who say Trump lies that much are not sane, maybe I would agree with you, but I’m going to hold Odd to the idea that since he thinks Trump lies every other sententence, that includes whats in that question if Trump actually said it, and therefor he can’t trust it.
@goaded I know thats your question yes, I linked to it because thats where I read Odd claiming Trump lies every other sentence. I belive Trump probably lies sometimes, but I sure as hell does not belive he lies as often as all the time or every other sentence. And I’m not stupid enough to belive a politician never lies ever. Odd claimed Trump loes every other sentence, so I’m holding him to that. I’m agreeing with @exitseven ‘s answer to that "did you know Trump told the truth" question. I can’t answer or reply in that question because msc545 have blocked me.
@Sasahara I'll play. Thanks for admitting Trump lies, at least. In the Biden debate, he lied about 50 times in 45 minutes. That may not be every other sentence, but it's serious. Biden's "lies", in comparison, included saying $15 instead of $35 and $200 instead of $2000 or $3000, while the caps he was talking about passing were real.
@goaded You don’t have to play, you already admitted I’m right about everything. You said "You're just as right about everything else" because I’m holding Odd to the "but he does lie every other sentence." Comment in his answer in your question. I’m not holding you to that, I’m holding Odd to that because he made the claim.
@Sasahara Now that's playing stupid. You thought the question I asked was written by @OddBeMe, and you're just as right (totally wrong) about everything else.
@goaded I linked your question because of @OddBeMe ‘s answer to it. I even quoted the relevant part in the replie where I linked to your question. "but he does lie every other sentence." Read his answer to your question and you will see he ended it with what I quoted. So own up to it, he said that and you think I’m right about everything. I also archived the question just in case you feel like deleting his answer. https://archive.ph/TWDrk
@Sasahara Why would I delete anyone's answer? FFS, a single opinion with zero responses, and you take it literally? 50 lies in 45 minutes is lying all the time, no?
@goaded I archived just to be sure, I have had leftists delete answers before. Yes absolutely going to take his opinion seriously. He has written a lot of things I think is stupid, I have no reason not to belive Odd belives Trump lies that much, so I’m holding him to it. I used his argument as an example of people who belive Trump lies every other sentence as he said, so he can’t trust that other Trump quote you mentioned if he thinks Trump lies as much as he claimed. Anyhow, you already think I’m right about everything. So you can go read Odds answer to your question amd own up to you admitting I’m right. And no, its not necessary lying all the time.
@OddBeMe And you are free to stand by it, I have just stubbornly said you said it, and now for the forseeable future as I was able to prove it I’m going to hold Goaded to his comment about me being right about everything. at least for as long as I remember he wrote it and I have a fairly decent memory.
No, they're not. They're calling for a stop to the killing of innocent civilians. You can be against the Israeli government without being anti-Semitic.
Both. Any ideology can be extreme as the other. But ya know I rarely hear someone on the Right state this. I am sure it's because such people are less loud online really living their own lives than weirdos online like us.
If your speaking leaders Trump is of course more extreme than Biden, and is more so than Harris. But that don't equate to all followers who vote for him are extremists a lot are going to be average folks who don't really watch his speech's and just vote for whatever side they are on.
I think or like to hope at least Americans are more sound of mind and it's just the radicals who speak the loudest online or go to rally's. I imagine most people don't actually go to them rally's and they are the ones who aren't extreme.
Obviously each side is going to say the other side. So I'll just point out before the citizens united ruling the idea of a convicted felon who tried to start a civil war being a real nominee for a major political party whose plan for all to see is a literal dictatorship would have been considered sloppy fantasy writing. And the far right is responsible for the citizens united ruling.
it turns out that masks did nothing and vaccine mandates are unconstitutional. Biden got around the constitution by prohibiting people who lost their jobs from collecting unemployment.
That is hoe Biden enforced vaccine mandates. People who got fired would just collect unemployment for a year and hopefully it would have blown over. Biden prohibited people from doing that thereby forcing people to put a drug into their bodies thay did not want. This was very anti Constitutioal. The constitution states that we are secure in our bodies. To Biden the Constitution is an inconvenience
They are both insane they stopped making politics about the people and just made it an us versus them mentality our government should never work like that it should always be what can we do together
Like increasing border security, building more wall at the southern border, and increasing the number of professionals tasked with expelling failed asylum seekers so that cases would have taken months rather than years?
That was a January bipartisan agreement that was negotiated, only to be scuppered on Trump's orders.
What they need to do and this is going to sound cruel but to those who come over the border illegally lock them up. Sorry that's just how it is. They don't want to listen to us. They didn't want to take the legal route and I know how the legal route is slow as hell. Sorry but that's just how it is and for those who want to come over legally they need to have people fix their fucking website and fix their fucking app and have a bigger office down there at the border to vet and interview those who do want to come through hell even to hire more people for the fucking job. Train them if you need to. Geez
The way it's supposed to work is that both sides negotiate a compromise in exchange for (some of) their votes. Republicans largely stopped doing that before the turn of the century. Nowadays, they vote en bloc against good legislation, then take credit for the good it does. "Voting no and taking the dough."
So when trump was running for the first time and every one was jumping on the crazy train mitt Romney made a beautiful speech about how his Republican party has changed for the worst and is nothing like it was a shadow of its former self now if mitt was running for president now i would vote for him in a heart beat ( and no that bill would not work out well then it would just be whats in it for them in there state alienating the majority which would be the people of the US. )
All the moderate Republicans have been run out of the party (and the people left over say they disagree with 60% of their own voters). That's also what happened to the "socialists" in the Nazi Party, albeit less bloody.
The question was just a thought experiment; if there are no negative consequences to voting against the "other side's" bill, what would induce you to vote for it? You get an amendment into a bill, you should be required to vote for it. in my opinion.
They're the state's representatives. The people of the state can decide next election if they'd prefer the one voting to improve their situation or the one voting against because they'd rather not have, I don't know, abortion rights included in the bill by the majority.
It like feminists who are also leftist, who want to get more and more from men. The thing is that the right some women and blacks in it's ranks, how is that extreme in any way?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're rich or don't run the risk of needing an abortion, there might be no down side to voting Republican (unless you want another chance to vote).
1) it’s an opinion, but cool 2) these few people were 17 or above when surgery was sought. 3) regretful trannies is such a low number it’s practically a myth.
Sure. The Weather Underground and Bader-Meinhof (Red Army Faction) were dangerous left wing extremists, but that was 50 years ago, and they weren't supported by any major political parties. No "Stand back and stand by" commands from people in power.
I think I am wasting my time with you. I can see both sides. You are here to address your agenda and to reinforce beliefs that you might doubt about in your subconscious mind. You are smart like Fredo; a man needs to know his limitations. I know mine. Good Luck Bro.
Nay…I have an agenda of being a lefty rep in a large right wing site (based in Russia?). But I don’t lie, and if I’m wrong I try to publicly make it right.
"Speaking Friday in at the Turning Point Action Believers’ Summit in Florida, the former president said, “Get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years it will be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”
It turns out that it's likely that Republicans have gamed the system to steal the next election. If not all counties certify their votes, their state can't certify their vote. If states can't certify their results, the presidency gets chosen by the House, on a one vote per state basis. There are more Republican states than Democratic ones.
There are at least 70 election denialists working as county election officials in at least six swing states.
@goaded like I told you, I'm not American... I'm quite familiar with the American election system tho.. what you're seems very shady!.. and tbh Trump seems like has embraced his cult leader persona lately... it definitely doesn't look good.. but I'm pro Trump because he was actually a president before, and it was a much better time.. did he turn into a crazy cult leader for the crazy far right minions? Who knows!.. only time can tell..
Most things have been better than 2019 under Trump for quite a while, now, even inflation is returning to normal levels (and, even at their highest, they were below where they were for years in the 1980s), and at least under Democrats they can be sure that there will be 2026 and 2028 elections.
If you look at the economic indicators, most had been heading in the same direction for years before Trump took office, he hardly affected them at all, but he did blow up the deficit with his tax cuts that benefitted the rich most of all.
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
1 y
1 y
Opinion Owner1 y
