Can you truly be a right wing christian

Post Reply New Topic

A. I am citing the Constitutionalist Party who, to my understanding, uses the platform of "Constitutionalism" to mean "The constitution only prohibits a state-sponsored religion but de facto theocracy is okay.", as well as "Supreme Court rulings in Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Engel v. Vitale, and Griswold v. Connecticut are in violation of state's rights and are in excess of the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction, ergo activist judges.", which I interpret to mean "We don't like the fact that the Supreme Court is inhibiting us from impeding Women's Reproductive Rights, Queer-Community Rights, Rights of the Religiously Oppressed, and the Fundamental Right to Privacy, so we are conveniently citing the Supreme Court as our enemy." Under a Trotskyist understanding of Fascism (a group that opposes the current order from the right), this would probably fit the bill.

B. I wouldn't consider Neo-Cons to be fascists, not because I agree with them (I don't), but because they don't really criticise the current order in a reactionary way (or at least not enough so). I think that they are right-wingers and I think that they are vile, but not fascists. Hitler actually opposed big business, but not from the left. He believed that big business was in bed with socialists and Jews, who he thought were the problem with society (a pretty silly thought when you've spent more than ten minutes talking to a socialist). Neo-Cons would never bring up this kind of criticism against the current order because, despite some social issues they dislike, America is still largely plutocratic and Imperialist, which they like.

Right, I can understand how they might be seen as being there. I think that they tend to be more along the lines of paleo-conservatism though, which isn't fascist, just a radical conservative tradition that tends to hate the government, but tends to strongly crave it to promote a certain social order. Given that they are not foreign interventionists and tend to distrust governmental controls, I don't think they are fascists.

Well, I know that Hitler opposed big business, but if we want to be technical, I really do not think that America has all-out fascism so much as perhaps pre-fascism, and as it stands, neo-conservatives are probably the most pre-fascist group I can think of. I mean, they may not have great criticisms of the current system, but then again, they aren't in post-war Germany but rather a reasonably strong America so a lot of the distress that formed the full-blown Nazis isn't there. As a group though, they have the greatest desire to use military force against other nations(which seems a fascistic trait), out of all of the conservative groups they seem to have the least dedication to the notion of small government(Nazi Germany used wage and price controls), and they are rabidly nationalist with a dedication to American strength. I don't see many other groups in America really having a more fascist combination.

AG, What are your actual political beliefs?

Why do you ask? You are probably already aware of my efforts to defend libertarianism in the past.

I wanted to be sure that it wasn't third person.

I do a lot of things 3rd person, my interest in politics is more intellectual than anything else. I would consider myself an anarcho-capitalist or a market anarchist or whatever other term.

Why do you tell him? It's so funny when people use your jokes as 'proof' they hate you it's merely pathetic really... still, saying dumbness=hate is quite dumb, right?

You are remarkably ignorant to make such a statement. Libertarians support OPEN BORDERS and OPEN IMMIGRATION. That's the Libertarian party line.

And you're remarkably condescending. Re: Immigrants, see http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/borde ... migration/
Note that Ron Paul supported this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... L&summ2=m&
See here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml

So it might not be the Libertarian Party Line, but the people running in their name seem to be getting behind it left and right.

Also, I've seen a number of Libertarians push that book "The Israel Lobby", which attacks Zionism from the right and basically reduces a lot of U.S. Foreign Policy mistakes to a Jewish Conspiracy instead of American Imperialism.

Ron Paul has decided that he is a Republican, not a Libertarian. Paul ran for the Republican candidacy and rejected the Libertarian candidacy.




And I've seen a number of leftists espouse all manner of anti-semitic crap when it comes to Israel vs. Palestine, too. Should I then conclude that all leftists are just closeted Nazis?

First of all, I never voiced my opinion on this matter, so why are you making assumptions about me?

Second of all, there are two criticisms of Israel:

The Left:
Israel is a tool of the U.S. to support U.S. Imperialism and oppress Muslims and Middle Eastern people in general. Israel is oppressive to Palestinians, which have caused them to resort to Ultra-Left (terrorist) tactics to win their freedom.

The Right:
The U.S. is propagating Zionism because Jews are controlling the U.S. and trying to overturn it with a socialist state.

The first position (the one I and the general left advocates) does not criticise the Jewish people. It criticises a country for its actions and the U.S. for supporting those unethical actions. I oppose this because I feel a minority is being oppressed by the interests of the U.S. This is Anti-Imperialism.

The second position blames Jewish people for problems with U.S. foreign policy, alleging a Jewish/Socialist conspiracy is trying to overtake the system. This is Fascism.

My understanding of Fascism (as a Trotskyist) is that it comes from the alienated middle class (the Petty Bourgeoisie, to use the Marxist term, i.e. Mom & Pops' Shop). The P.B. feels alienated because the Socialists are fighting for the workers while the conservatives fight for big business. They get swept up by the far right, saying that these two things are a conspiracy (i.e. big business was supposed;y Jewish and the workers were socialist) against the old order when life was great. When the ruling class feels that it is on the brink of a revolution, it will either resort to Welfare Capitalism to appease the workers or give power to the Fascists (our beloved P.B.).

Also, amendment: I don't think that the Neo-Cons are fascists now. I think that if the U.S. takes steps towards welfarism and becomes less aggressive with imperialism, they will become fascists.

Well, I can understand such a view, and it makes some sense. I do agree that fascism is an ideology of a society in decay(if only because I view fascism as a dead-end).

Well, I do not think any group is fascistic now. I think that the neo-cons are willing to take steps towards welfarism necessary in order to push a more fascist view. I do not view imperialism as much of a part of fascism though, I suppose if imperialism is representative of a nation's pride/perceived power, then I can see the relation as I can see the neo-cons taking any wound to national pride very negatively.

I am not surprised given the existence of libertarian populism. Opposition to immigration is more an opinion of the unwashed libertarian populists than the thinkers behind it.

Libertarians are also quite notable as a group to harbor the most tolerance for conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 conspiracy, a number of central bank conspiracies, and all sorts of things like this. it is probably the result of the ideology being rather likable to paranoiacs afraid of their government. I think that the street socialist is also quite guilty of a number of idiocies as well, only the elites in society are really capable of holding to coherent, consistent positions, but the average person may as well have their words replaced with horse manure.

You really should not write when you've have had no sleep. I would start to break this paragraph down, but then I would spend another day debating with you and once again nothing will get done around here. Go to bed you grumpy sod

Maybe, however, the issue is the definition of "elite". I meant intellectual elites in this case, and was unclear about this. We can argue that eliteness will likely be a function of education, which correlates with income, however, I do not wish to get into all of that. The major use of the term however, was not to give an impression of plutocracy so much as intellectual elitism.

I think it is an empirical fact that average people do not have consistent ideological views or much actual knowledge of the system, while greater minds display more consistency and knowledge.