Warclave

If you wish to fully enjoy the forums and all its features, or simply engage with the community don't forget to register!

Contemplative Politics thread

Where do you stand on the political spectrum?

  • Far left

  • Left

  • Center left

  • Center

  • Center right

  • Right

  • Far right


Results are only viewable after voting.

Hawk

The White Wolf
Strategist
Chieftain
Messages
1,319
Likes
630
#1
Before you continue reading and reply please read the rules and vote on the poll.

If you need a refresher on the political spectrum:

political-spectrum.png


Before you ask I lean on the center right, as of now. Though I was closer to the middle even left when I was younger. I think the current rise of the right is the direct effect of the extreme leftist western society.

In the grand scheme of things it makes sense that left leads to right, as does right lead to left. I think it's just the political balance. And this cycle has happened many times without too much fuss. But with the rise of the extreme left its leading to the rise of the extreme right, which we can see the effects of right now.
Right winged party in Austria and Italy taking power after pretty much WW2. And of course rise of the far right spectrum in every western society in the world from Germany to the USA.

The main problem I think is the hypocrisy of the left and its government in breaking their own rules in censoring and not giving free speech just because they disagree with it. Which has made the middle spectrum move middle right which is being called the far right by the left which again pushes them even further.

So the question is, what do you think is leading to the rise of the right and left? And of course where do you stand on the spectrum and what do you think lead to that thinking?
 

Doomy

Clean your room
Donator
Strategist
Loyalist
Messages
921
Likes
326
#2
All meme-ing aside, I am quite center-left and quite a lefty myself. I have always considered that it is the job of the state to help out the citizenry. The issue here is that what in the past we understood by 'citizen' has now become deformed. It's now nothing more than a piece of paper anyone can have. Before, it meant you were part of something. In classical times, it started as being a member of the city and evolved, under Roman times, to be part of a people. You couldn't be a roman citizen if you were born in Aethiopia even if you were living as a free man in Rome.
After the collapse of the Roman empire, the meaning of citizenry got lost and it was revitalized in the north italian city states during the renaissance and in france with the rise of the Burgeoisie. Then it got an upgrade as national consciousness started becoming a thing under Napoleon and during the Enlightenment era. During that time, to be a prussian or a frenchman or an englishman meant something more than it does now. It was both a birth right and a set of behaviors. You had to be an englishman and act like an englishman. No spaniard, no matter how english-like he acted, could never be an englishman.

So that is the racist bit nowadays since i don't believe you can be a citizen of the West if you aren't white. However, being white is not enough to make you a citizen of the West. You need to also stand for something. What is that? well we losely define them as 'western values' and these include a love an appreciation of democracy. Freedom of speech and the right of assembly. The right for a people to choose their destiny and the right of self-determination. Western education and intellectual thought which is about innovation, intellectual honesty, searching for answers not making up answers and finding justification for them, an open mind to new ideas that may challenge your doctrine (thought this doesn't mean you need to adopt them, not everything that's different is good, but you do need to consider it and give it a fair trial), rule of law for all and equal treatment under the law, meritocracy, and so much more.

And it is for such people that I think the state should provide for and work tirelessly to secure their wellbeing. The treasury should be there to provide a safety net for those whom live hasn't treated fairly and to spend on the police and civil services to make sure they can't be exploited by those with such intentions. And that just because you're down on your luck, doesn't mean you don't have anything to offer the world that is good and wholesome. On a deep ideological level, I do believe that if you have to pay 1mil euros to save the life of a homeless man, that you should pay it. Of course, this is where my romantic side has to be tempered by the practicalities of life, but I cannot help thinking this way.

I am also all in favor of fair and equal treatment. I don't believe people should have such a head-start that nobody can ever reach them. Unsurmountable wealth being passed on from generation to generation is the stuff of nobility and patricians and is not the way of the future. Those that have managed to amass great wealth through their own merit and own effort should voluntarily spend it on improving the lives of those around them. Giving back to the people and the community that they were brought up into. Greed and inter-generational wealth is a disease of the spirit. Now how much should the state intervene in this, well, this is where it gets tricky. But ideologically, I do believe this.

I also consider that women deserve equal rights in all things. This is where a section of the male 'extreme' population and I diverge. I don't believe women shouldn't be given the vote. Whether said in jest or not, it's still a very upsetting thought.

I could go on but this is enough for now. Now to answer your final question.

I think the rise of extremist groups will lead to a very big schism in our society and we will suffer immensely for it. Unfortunately, this schism is entirely fueled by one thing and one thing is the massive rise in non-white population in the West. There is no other reason why this rise in tension and schism exists.
Social welfare isn't one, because, well, nobody who becomes 'radicalized' on one side or the other becomes 'radicalized' over pensions. Nobody is becoming radicalized over the 1%. I think most people will look at these issues and try to find a solution, therefore adopt a constructive view rather than a destructive one.

The one point of contention is the non-white population.
The far left is circlejerking in virtue signal heaven over how amazing they are and the far right is looking with dread as these people generally fail to adopt even the minimum of decency and western standards. Even feminism is nothing more than a gateway to this issue. Take the most hardcore radical femgroup out there and what is their battle shriek? No to racism, no to sexism, no to islamophobia! As if those 3 things aren't each in contradiction with each other. So yeah. On this one issue I am one of the most "right wing" people you will ever meet. I believe the rise in non-white population has fractured out sense of self, has created a schism in our population and is one of the main reasons why people are pushing for censorship, for 3rd way feminism, for intersectionality, for all sort of 'social programs', for 'integration' schemes that always fail, etc. It has irreparably destroyed the meaning of 'diversity' and of 'tolerance'. It is constantly working to destroy the principle of Free Speech.

...It's basically why we can't have nice things.
 

Mr.TRUTH

GG-Emperor
Strategist
Loyalist
Messages
695
Likes
216
#3
rise of the left:idiocy made by either fake news or stupid and sometimes relatively 'fake' researchs and of course people not gathering information on parties so they can choose which 'path' to go or are retarded enough to not have a own opinion and become mindless followers who follow those who are fancier --> the ones blaming for example nazis/patriots
to hate nazi is a good example. By spreading either fake news or short clips of famous politicians, can make people think : they're bad cause of 'racism', 'sexism' and etc. but meanwhile they're trying to stand like a patriot.
For example: Trump said he wants to reduce the amount of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS but through mind controlling the masses they think he's a 'racist' through that which is not only false but also making sure they won't change their opinion
another good example would be , I think it was the hungarian prime minister? not sure , but anyways one of the balkan states politician said in a interview with a BBC INTERVIEWER why they would not allow any more of the rapefugees in their land and ofc the interviewer was very bad at handling with it and basically became furious cause they're not thinking like lefties but rather like patriots, I mean where is the problem when you know exactly that others are willing to let rapefugees in their countries and should you follow them? Of course not, it's not a european thing but a decision of the state and the state should always back up first their people and not people who are trying to get into your country and get welfare cause of WE'RE TRYING TO SURVIVE CAUSE WE FEAR DEATH AND DON'T WANT TO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY OR AGAINST THE 'CORRUPTED' STATE WE'VE LIVED IN

to the rise of the right is very simple, perhaps even more simplier than the rise of the left lol
Cause those people who get right/becoming right , know more and are more intellectual than most others. Not only do they think for themselves but also are rather informative and know exactly what could/can happen
Also most of the times they don't have the time to protest against the left , because they have A FUCKING JOB AND EARN MONEY FOR THEIR FAMILIES OR EARN IT FOR THEMSELVES but not for fucking rapefugees

Before with my last sentences, in my opinion we all should learn from hitler, trying to become more 'patriotic' without trying to harm other neighbour countries or far distant countries but rather help them if it's really necessary.
All in one, I think rather than the question 'What are the reasons for the rise of the right and left' how about this: 'What gives the best oppurtunity of political thinking for the country you live in to lead it to a better life, not only for the people but also for yourself?'
 

Doomy

Clean your room
Donator
Strategist
Loyalist
Messages
921
Likes
326
#4
Before with my last sentences, in my opinion we all should learn from hitler, trying to become more 'patriotic' without trying to harm other neighbour countries or far distant countries but rather help them if it's really necessary.
All in one, I think rather than the question 'What are the reasons for the rise of the right and left' how about this: 'What gives the best oppurtunity of political thinking for the country you live in to lead it to a better life, not only for the people but also for yourself?'
I could like what you said except this part.
There is literally not a lot we can learn from hitler except anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns. He was a warmonger and is one of the main reasons why the West is in the state it's in.

WW2 shellshocked our culture to bits and yes, it is Hitlers' fault.
Dictatorship is not the way of the west. Democracy is. The problem we have today is that we don't have enough democracy. We only have political democracy where as we have the tools and know-how to expand this democracy. More political democracy, implement democracy in the workplace, in the media and maybe even in banking. Democratize the school system and basically return as much power to the people and keep the bureaucracy of the state as a watchdog over these institutions. I can expand further on each of these topics if you want.
 

Hawk

The White Wolf
Strategist
Chieftain
Messages
1,319
Likes
630
#5
@Mr.TRUTH
Moderator note: You need to read the rules again, since your grammar isn't great, I see that you're trying but capital letters and using '!' instead typing in all caps also would help a lot. And don't call immigrants rapefuges just call them immigrants we'll know what you're talking about. I won't warn you this time since you're trying but try a bit more. And if you have any questions pm me please.


To actually reply to your post. I don't think the right or the left has any more or less intellectuals, political spectrum is something completely different from intelligence, and even though the right is more individualist it isn't always the best thing especially for the country.
And your Hitler comment disappointed me, Hitler himself was a lunatic and an obvious narcissist. His actions has influenced more problems in the modern age than you 'think' he solved.

@Doomy
I do agree on most points with you. But to be part of the western society you don't need to be born white. I think you only need to be raised with western values, which will mostly be by white parents but that's just statistical cause.
 
Messages
340
Likes
138
#6
I think calling "far right" and "far left" fascism and communism is a little too extreme, as these two require a revolution and are rather old and dont fit to the current "far right" and "far left" parties, atleast in my country.
 

OrlokDaEternal

Strategist
Loyalist
Messages
1,529
Likes
465
#7
I've always sat comfortably in the centre left. In terms of laws, they should obviously be equal for each citizen. A citizen is afforded the set of freedoms, for example they should not specify 'woman' or anything else. In terms of tackling sexism, the law should simply state that one cannot discriminate based on immutable characteristics. That point is another reason (among MANY) that I disagree with transgenderism. I am definitely very liberal, I would love the government to stay away from things that it should not control. It is clear that the state has a job. In fact, these are the ones that I reckon:
  • Updating and enforcing the law
  • Protecting the freedoms of the citizenry
  • Managing monopolies
  • Providing a safety nets for those who fall through the cracks of society (this point is a lesser point for the reasons I'll specify below)
  • Managing international relations
  • Protecting the nation and its borders
  • Setting standards (e.g. standard exchange currency, trade standards)
On the point of safety nets - I think there is a real danger in making it too safe. People at the bottom of society should have an incentive to try, otherwise they fall into a pit of their own making. From the perspective of a British chap from a lower working class family, I know just how much the benefits system is fucking awful. People at the bottom, despite having full time jobs, require benefits to prop up their wages. That means that people are totally reliant on the state. This relationship is dangerous because the state can then have a dictatorial role over these people's lives (my father being a good example). Then again, he's a lazy shit so I guess he deserves it :)

Social issues should not be handled by the state, however. All of these issues are to be dealt with by the people, and taught by the family. This point is one of the reasons why letting people come to live from countries with differing cultural values (i.e. multiculturalism) is so dangerous. The issues caused by multiculturalism cannot be dealt with by the government, and they cannot be dealt with by the people because they form their own bubbles, so they spiral out of control.

What is the role of political parties, then? My opinion is that one party should represent the left and one the right, obviously. A two party system is the most natural system, with first past the post so that each region can have its own regional MP (in the case of Britain). Having locally accountable MPs is the most efficient system for helping people who get missed by the major systems, so that their cases can be sorted out. Also, it gives each region a say in parliament since they all have different issues. In terms of parties, one left and one right. The left party should not be a communist party, that kind of stuff is dumb. In the same way the right-wing party should not be an anarchist party. The right wing party should be a conservative party. One that stands up for things the way they are now. The one that aims to reduce the scope of government as much as possible. The left-wing party should be one that encourages the government to introduce new social programs, and one that is also largely a voice for trade unions. These two conflicting ideas should meet in the middle, ideally.
 

ponasozis

Anger Marine
Messages
1,085
Likes
479
#8
I lean right wing cause of bullshit eu liberals are spewing and how their political elite sit in their comfy secure homes without ever having to face the reality of everyday hard working citizens not to mention that they are unelected placed people who don t give a shit about the people of europe
But if soviet union comes back i am full on commie bastard ready to fight for a glorious union just for old times sakes
 

Hawk

The White Wolf
Strategist
Chieftain
Messages
1,319
Likes
630
#9
@OrlokDaEternal
I agree on most points, but two party system is a terrible thing in my opinion.

I know from my experience that you can't have only two parties, there's so much decisions especially in a country that's trying to advance culturally, economically, politically like Serbia. That two parties couldn't solve, best example I have is liberal party that doesn't wish to join the EU or let Kosovo go. A liberal party in the two party system in Serbia would want both.

I presume a two party system might work in a country that's already developed like the UK. But all in all it shouldn't ever be two party, just look at the US, their presidential election was pick the lesser of two evils.

@ponasozis
Moderator note: Learn to use dots and commas please.

And I do have to point out that most people from Eastern Europe are leaning right, and Western Europe are learning left. Which makes sense as the east grew up mostly in dictatorships while west grew up with mostly democracy.
 

Johannhest

The White Wizard
Strategist
Game Admin
Messages
1,712
Likes
333
#10
Hmm. I’m economically left wing but socialy right wing. Does that make sense? I guess you could call me a nice guy National socialist
 

ok-ck

Strategist
Messages
176
Likes
60
#11
Everyone when using the poll use Hawks definition not mainstream media definition where having borders is nazism.. If we vote based on hawks we should be able to get a good picture, I put myself as right, although I am not full on libertarian (since most of those I would put as extreme left wing). But I want the role of government minimalized and the role of individuals to grow, self determination, self reliance and family as the core of society.

The role of government should not be social welfare which might seem hypocritical for me, being on some sort of welfare, but in a society like Denmark everyone is on welfare even super rich millionaires get welfare like child benefits, housing benefits and public pensions (although some decide not to get it, good for them) etc. since our system does not differentiate between people.

But rather it should be public utilities like roads, sewage, prisons and infrastructure and of course military because we don't live in a fantasy world where peace and harmony is the norm.

To me government welfare programs are fundamentally evil and also prohibiting human kindness and developing narcissism and self entitled citizens who as J. F. Kennedy said in his inauguration 'ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country'.

Rather people should be encouraged to on their own dime give money to charities they see doing a good job and not to those trying to push emotional buttons to get their money, of course people need to relearn autonomy and self reliance as our western societies have been cucked by the state for upwards of 70 years.. but ultimately that is the path I like to see us take in the future instead of being ruled by a bunch of unelected crooks in Brussels.
 

Tehfebeb

Good Goyim
Donator
Messages
1,292
Likes
839
#12
We must secure the existance of our people and a future for white children?

whereever that is on the political spectrum thats where im at
 

Top