Traditionalist, New Right and Conservationist texts

I've been reading a fair number of these and have to admit, the idea of escaping right/left dichotomies is appealing to me.

 

We're already out of the right/left spectrum. No one's views fall directly all onto one side, it just simplifies talking about politics.

 

Someone on another forum posted a cool left/right chart

 

Conservationist

Have you ever been able to defend your ideas?

I mean here are a few of your threads in politics – in fact they might just be all the threads you’ve started in politics –

Stop Intelligence-Based Discrimination
Social role determines political role
New Realism
The Realist Party
Liberals are just secular Christians

And do you know what – you haven’t been able to defend you ideas in even one of them.

Why do you believe in ideas that you can’t even defend?

*

But then I’vebeen going through the other places Amerika, Corrupt, etc and it seems to be the same, there is BS, rhetoric and lots of posturing, but the ideas seem rather swallow and therefore not easily defended.

I mean take this freespeechproject website it’s a pantomime horse trying to pretend it’s a stallion, in other words a pompous and rather idiotic joke. It seems to be an example of that childish belief that if you list things you ‘own’ them and so understand them.

So Conservationist - now maybe you have and maybe you haven’t read ‘a fair number’ of these pieces, and maybe you have and maybe you haven’t got coherent ideas that you can defend – but what I’m saying is that I’ve seen no evidence of that so far.

*

 

Query – why are so many on the right trying to claim they’re not right wing?

Answer – because so many right wing ideas are discredited or unpopular or both.

Just claiming you are not right wing does not mean you are not right wing.

I could claim that I’m not left wing, but since my ideas and philosophy are mainly of the left it would be in my view a lie.

However it seems to me that many right wingers don’t care if they lie.

 

No one cares, Balbus. Just be quiet.

 

LOL - You cared enough to post.

 

I second that.

 

Hipstatic my dear little kidder, of course you are going to second it

One – you have your own problems with posting stuff you don’t seem able to defend

Two – although you’ve always expressed right wing views you have claimed you are not right wing but ‘libertarian’.

 

Three- Balbus sees the world only through left/right vision and anything that isn't on the left, and only what he thinks deserves to be on the holy grail of the left is on the left, is evil incarnate

 

A view is not "right wing" because some self important bore says it is.

Please get over yourself.

 

OH…meow….

Mad

I never hide the fact that these are my own views and that I say what I see, now there may be some magic ‘third way’ in political thinking but so far I haven’t seen it. Whenever someone has come along and described some supposed ‘third way’ when examined it always has turned out to be just some variation on left or right. When I see this I explain my views and the reasons for having them.

Now people can put up countering arguments but some don’t and instead just assert over and over that theirs is a ‘third way’ even when they are completely unable to defend it from the criticism that it isn’t.

Some even get annoyed with me because they can’t defend their ideas from criticism, when I think their time would be better spent wondering why they can’t defend their ideas from criticism.

It is a bit like the manufacturer of a car with faulty brakes complaining about and insulting those injured and dead as a result rather than fixing the problem.

*

As to the ‘holy grail of the left’ I’m not sure there is one, but I will give my views on things, are you saying I shouldn’t?

And ‘evil incarnate’ oh come on – I have friends and family with right wing views and although I disagree with them and it can lead to interesting discussions, I love them dearly.

I’ve defended right wingers on these very forums when others have suggested bans and there are people here that under the no return rule shouldn’t be here.

But think about it – this is a debating forum, you might say it is a testing ground for political ideas a place where ideas are put under stress to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

But some people come here thinking they can pass off political views that they know they can’t even defend as some type of great truths.

They want to try and pass of lead as gold.

And such people really seem to hate it when someone points out their views looks like lead.

And since they can’t actually defend their ideas they instead turn to childish bitching or abuse.

*

 

Quote:
Two – although you’ve always expressed right wing views you have claimed you are not right wing but ‘libertarian’.

Hipstatic

Oh of course it isn’t, but if someone explains that a view seems to them to be right wing and the person replies – ‘oh no it isn’t you self important bore’ – I think it safe to conclude that that person doesn’t really have a counter argument.

 

Anyway back to the thread – and it seems that Conservationist once again is unable to defend his ideas and so I’m not sure why the link should remain and have removed it.

If he wishes to return and explain why the link to his website should be reinstated I would to do so.

To quote the politic forum guidelines –

 

Wow. You're an epic douche. The link was bullshit, but still.

 

Balbus how exactly is libertarianism a right wing idea, you could argue it is based on economics, but I could also argue that freedom for the markets and ect is actually the classically liberal thing to do, and that interference and protectionism is the conservative, right wing thing to do.

 

Balbus as usual you don't have much to say and it takes you a long time to say it.

He won't be satisfied until he has strangled the last gasp of life out of the politics forum.

 

Mad

We’ve crossed swords on this issue before, but you always seem to retire after the initial thrust.

For example –
Rightwing libertarians and drugs
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871&f=36

I hope you’ll stay longer this time?

*

First I’d like to say that this is a rather ‘Americentric’ issue, there is a feeling in US politics that a certain view on some issues defines a person politically, rather than them looking at the ideas and philosophical views that underlie the reason for having that stance.

There is an emphasis on what conclusion someone has come to not on why they have come to that conclusion, and then a tendency to place that conclusion with a American political context.

For example someone might be in favour of the decimalisation or legalisation of drugs, in the US this is seen as definite proof of ‘left wing’ thinking, but as I’ve pointed out in the UK (and other places) that’s just not the case.

*

The same with ‘gay marriage’ in the US not opposing it is also seen as definite proof of ‘left wing’ thinking, but in the UK there is a leading openly gay conservative politician who’s marriage to his partner.

And this is how it was announced in one of this country’s leading conservative newspapers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-524469/Shadow-Tory-minister-announces-marry-gay-lover.html

Some quotes –

“David Cameron, who embraced same-sex relationships in his first speech as Tory leader, is reported to be 'thrilled' for Mr Duncan and hopes to attend the planned ceremony at Marylebone register office.”

“Sheila Randall, a member of the local Conservative association for more than five decades, told the Telegraph: "Alan and James are lovely men. I was on Alan's selection committee and have known and liked him ever since. I am so happy for them both."

*

The question that should be asked is what is the thinking behind the stance?

Is it about helping people as a community or letting them fly or fall as individuals?

Is it about caring about people or not really caring about people as long as they don’t interfere with others?

Is it about promoting equality or not?

 

Hipstatic

Look man, I’m really sorry you can’t defend your right wing views, and I’m sorry you’ve become so bitter and twisted about it and feel you need to lash out like a drunk on a street corner.

Maybe its time to start questioning your beliefs and trying to work out why so many of them don’t seem to be defendable.

 

Well Balbus, for someone so interested in equality, you sure are quick to censor people you disagree with.