Off Topic: Your Political Orientation 2

[Egoist]

I did this same poll two years ago and I was wondering how things have changed since then. Personally I have gone from right-wing to far-right, and I support ethnonationalism. I believe people should be allowed to enjoy their kinks in private and free speech in public.

The result of my last poll can be seen here.

Also, if you have any comments to make please share them here too, I look forward to hearing from you all.

[SensEx]

There should be a "None" option in the poll
Result might surprise you

Politics' job is to distract us... The effect these "powerful" people have on our lives is close to zero.
Society needs to change as a whole getting power back not giving it away to people that define themselves as "know it all"
As long as we keep trusting and placing too many responsibilities in their hands we are screwed.

"I know but one freedom and that is the freedom of the mind.” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"YOUR OWN MIND" It should be each and everyone sole desire and lifetime goal.

[morewanking]

Personally I have gone from right-wing to far-right, and I support ethnonationalism. I believe people should be allowed to enjoy their kinks in private and free speech in public.

According to "Ms. Julie"

Left - moral freedom, economic control
Right - moral control, economic freedom

you should be "Left"="moral freedom"

Also
1. Who is guy on Egoist's avatar?
2. I still don't understand political "left" and "right":
For example, in French Revolution and USA Civil War, who was "left" and "right"?
Freeing slaves - it was "moral" or "economic" freedom?

[Egoist]

Personally I have gone from right-wing to far-right, and I support ethnonationalism. I believe people should be allowed to enjoy their kinks in private and free speech in public.

According to "Ms. Julie"

Left - moral freedom, economic control
Right - moral control, economic freedom

you should be "Left"="moral freedom"

Not really. I don't think people should be allowed to air their perversions out in public for everyone to see. They should be free to practice them in their own bedrooms in monogamous relationships, or discuss them on sites such as this, but people who do thing such as those shown below out in public should be jailed for obscenity.

[edgeallday]

Personally I have gone from right-wing to far-right, and I support ethnonationalism. I believe people should be allowed to enjoy their kinks in private and free speech in public.

According to "Ms. Julie"

Left - moral freedom, economic control
Right - moral control, economic freedom

you should be "Left"="moral freedom"

Not really. I don't think people should be allowed to air their perversions out in public for everyone to see. They should be free to practice them in their own bedrooms in monogamous relationships, or discuss them on sites such as this, but people who do thing such as those shown below out in public should be jailed for obscenity.

A lot of people who describe themselves as "right wing" don't think people should be able to even practice them in their own bedrooms though. Some even go as far as saying birth control shouldn't be allowed. That's why these labels of "left" or "right" or 2 party political systems are a bit silly. They are just putting everyone into one group or the other when in reality most people have a mix of opinions that don't fit neatly into any one ideology or political group.

If you must assign yourself to some sort of categorized ideology or political belief I think the "Political Compass" is a slightly better way of doing it, which makes a distinction between economic opinions and social/moral opinions. Even with that system almost no one will fit perfectly on one extreme of the spectrum though.

For example I agree with what you said about sexual "perversions" being practiced in private between consenting adults. I think people should be able to use whatever drugs they want as long as they aren't neglecting their children, etc. I also think political correctness and "social justice warriors" are often misguided and out of control, just being outraged for outrage sake. On the economic side I think a totally unregulated "free market" is a disaster for society that eventually leads to a few extremely wealthy people/corporations with everyone else poor, but pure socialism is also a disaster with no incentive to "outdo" your competitors...and both systems can become completely corrupt. There needs to be a middle ground.

So am I "left" or "right"?

Also how would ethnonationalism work in a country such as the United States, where virtually everyone in our country is an immigrant or descendant of immigrants? You could take the majority (white Europeans ancestry) but that would still leave about 100 million people who don't fit that description. And if you start limiting the religion to only European Christians as well then literally half of the nation doesn't fit into that group.

[Banquo]

Also how would ethnonationalism work in a country such as the United States

Well that's easy. You give back control of the country to the indigenous populations, the Native Americans. It does make me chuckle somewhat when I see the likes of Trump, ranting about "immigrants" when the entire continent of North America was based on Imperialism and stealing other people's land.

I find the very idea of "Ethnonationalism" frankly abhorrent. And the fact that these kinds of insular and dividing ideologies are once again rearing their heads in the 21st century shows that we really do have a long way to go as a society. I don't need to belong to a particular ethnic group, to find value in my life, or community. I don't need to place my ethnic group above any other, or delineate it from my neighbours to feel happy with myself or safe in my little world. I'm a person, a human being, and that's all that matters.

[Egoist]

Ethnonationalism is not abhorrent or immoral. Years of research by academics as diverse as Frank Salter, Tatu Vanhanen and Robert Putnam have done research on the effects if ethnic diversity in society and found its effects to be almost entirely negative. The reason for this is an evolutionary factor know as kin selection, which is the evolutionary and inborn human (and animal) preference for those more closely related to oneself. Ethnic nepotism is an extension of kin selection, in which people prefer those of their own ethnic group. If you want to learn more I would highly suggest you try reading Frank Salter.

I personally don't have much faith in the United States, which is currently on the brink of tearing itself apart. As America has become more ethnically diverse it has become more politically polarized (the link between the two was (unintentionally) established by Putnam). I don't really see a solution for this, as the damage to America's homogeneity has already been done. For now I think America should close its borders before things get worse.

Also, with the Indians, is their story not the perfect example of why mass immigration is a bad thing. The Indians lived in America peacefully enough until Europeans came, took their land and sent them to reserves. Can anyone deny that they would be a lot better off if they had been able and willing to stop us from coming over? We may soon find ourselves in a similar situations to them if we allow ourselves to be overrun as they were.

As for left and right, the way I see it is that leftist movements have equality as their primary aim, while rightists have other goals. The far-left demands absolute equality while as you get more rightward equality becomes less and less important. On the center-right are those who see equality as subordinate to some other ideal (such as freedom). The far-right rejects equality as neither desirable or achievable and supports hierarchy instead. This is not to say that the far-right does not believe those higher up on the hierarchy do not have duties to those beneath them.

I personally dislike the political compass because it tries to redefine left and right as purely economic, which is not how the terms have been historically applied. It was Bismarck, a rightist conservative nationalist, who invented the modern welfare state.

[Banquo]

Ethnonationalism is not abhorrent or immoral.

Try telling that to any of the people who have been the victims of the countless holocausts, pogroms, and genocides perpetrated by those seeking to "stand up for their kin" over the many centuries. From the war in Rwanda, to the systematic industrial massacre of various minority groups across Europe in the 30s and 40s. Those things were the direct result of your so called "ethnonationalism." But it's not morally repugnant in the slightest, because you can list a couple of cock and bull authors, working with clear agendas, who've tried to smear the idea of diversity.

You hilariously try to blame the plight of the native Americans on immigration, in what can only be described as on of the most agenda driven pieces of drivel I've ever seen. Take off the blinkers for just a second. This was not immigration, this was imperialism, forced relocation, and in many cases genocide. It was nothing to do with peaceful integration of people living side by side. It was about one group, of very powerful people, turning up and stealing someone else's stuff, then murdering them. You need to learn the difference between immigration, and invasion. But then to be fair so do a lot of people on the far right, who seem to see every foreigner as an invading enemy out to rape their women, and steal their job.

I do agree with you on one thing however, political ideology can't be seperates merely on economic grounds. One can be incredibly socialist as far as economics go, while at the same time holding the most fanatically extreme right wing views, look at Soviet Russia for example. Hardly the paragon of free speech and diversity that we would associate with the progressive left today.

[Egoist]

Ethnonationalism is not abhorrent or immoral.

Try telling that to any of the people who have been the victims of the countless holocausts, pogroms, and genocides perpetrated by those seeking to "stand up for their kin" over the many centuries. From the war in Rwanda, to the systematic industrial massacre of various minority groups across Europe in the 30s and 40s. Those things were the direct result of your so called "ethnonationalism." But it's not morally repugnant in the slightest, because you can list a couple of cock and bull authors, working with clear agendas, who've tried to smear the idea of diversity.

You hilariously try to blame the plight of the native Americans on immigration, in what can only be described as on of the most agenda driven pieces of drivel I've ever seen. Take off the blinkers for just a second. This was not immigration, this was imperialism, forced relocation, and in many cases genocide. It was nothing to do with peaceful integration of people living side by side. It was about one group, of very powerful people, turning up and stealing someone else's stuff, then murdering them. You need to learn the difference between immigration, and invasion. But then to be fair so do a lot of people on the far right, who seem to see every foreigner as an invading enemy out to rape their women, and steal their job.

I do agree with you on one thing however, political ideology can't be seperates merely on economic grounds. One can be incredibly socialist as far as economics go, while at the same time holding the most fanatically extreme right wing views, look at Soviet Russia for example. Hardly the paragon of free speech and diversity that we would associate with the progressive left today.

Dismissing researchers who have studied ethnic diversity as being 'agenda-driven' is poisoning the well. Also incredibly ironic considering that Robert Putnam is a liberal who still supports multiculturalism, and tried to hide his findings when the came out. It is diversity that is agenda driven.

Ethnonationalism by no means means genocide. Indeed, many peoples who have been victims of genocide have embraced ethnonationalism; just look at Israel. The problem with the Nazis was not ethnonationalism, it was lack of respect for other peoples' right to self-determination. Not to mention that communists killed more people in the 21st Century than the Nazis did. How is my ethnonationalism, which respects the right of other peoples to self-determination, more dangerous than your egalitarianism that has already killed tens of millions of people in the 20th Century?

Furthermore, it is highly dishonest to say that the progressive left supports free speech, when they are the ones passing 'hate speech' laws and using state power to repress their opponents. In the UK Tommy Robinson is facing police harassment. In the Netherlands Geert Wilders is on trial for 'hate speech' and faces jail-time. Here in Canada the supreme court ruled that truth is no defense in 'hate speech' cases back in 2013.

[Banquo]

Tommy Robinson is a petty thug, who harasses people and incites violence, he's being prosecuted to the extent of his crimes. Nothing more nothing less. And when last I checked, the various Police Forces in the United Kingdom, weren't left wing organisations. so levelling the actions of the Police at the feet of the Progressive Left is hardly fair now is it?

As for hate speech, why you choose to put that in quotation marks is up to you, but when someone uses speech to incite violence and abuse people it is a crime. Only this week, a radical hate preacher named Anjem Choudry was jailed for hate speech in the UK for inciting people to commit terrorist acts. Freedom of speech is fine, freedom to tell people to commit violence against others isn't.

You're quite right in saying that the Communists in Russia under Stalin had far more blood on their hands than the Nazis, but as a student of History, I'm also well aware, that this had very little to do with an attempt to achieve egalitarianism or to further the aims of socialism. It was nothing more than a power hungry madman, wiping out any and all opposition. In fact on one level it could be argued that it was his own form of ethnic cleansing, though instead of wiping out people by race or creed, he wiped them out by class or political affiliation. Yet another maniac putting more stock in that which divides us than that which brings us together.

look at Israel? Could you elaborate here? Aren't they currently engaged in their own unceasing war of ethnonationalistic attrition with the Palastinians? whatever the rights or wrongs of the conflict, it's yet another case of two sets of people's divided but nothing more than a few lines of sacred text, and perhaps a couple of different shades on the dulux colour chart. Here they are fighting year after year, bringing up children in a world where hatred is commonplace and revenge and retribution are the motivators.

So I ask, where did the concept of ethnonationalisism ever get the Israelis? Or perhaps more pertinently the Palistinians...

With the greatest respect. Self determination had the square root of fuck all to do with the holocaust. The Nazis gained power by playing on the minds of the down trodden Germans who had been so ruthlessly treated by the allies after WW1. They did this by playing on their fears about communism, and Jews, and black people, and gays. The Nazis whipped up an angry mob who voted them into power! How's that for respect for self determination? The fact the Nazis eventually removed the right to free elections and Germany became a dictatorship is wholly irrelevant to the holocaust, so please don't obsfucate the situation by pretending otherwise. Eventually they had to make good on their promises to deal with the Jews, so they pushed them into Ghettos, seized businesses etc. Then came the final solution.

The Holocaust was born out of ethnic classification, and the key principles of ethnonationalisism that fuelled the Nazi propaganda machine.

I'm of the opinion that Nationalism is one of the most harmful influences on the world, it's brought humanity to the brink of destruction countless times over the past century. And when that nationalism is narrowed down to ethnicity it becomes something very dangerous indeed. Something foul and insidious that turns pride into hatred and love for ones country or community into a feeling of superiority over those of others.

[Egoist]

Tommy Robinson is a petty thug, who harasses people and incites violence, he's being prosecuted to the extent of his crimes. Nothing more nothing less. And when last I checked, the various Police Forces in the United Kingdom, weren't left wing organisations. so levelling the actions of the Police at the feet of the Progressive Left is hardly fair now is it?

His only crime is expressing an opinion that certain people don't like. By redefining speech you don't like as 'incitement to violence' you have essentially found a loophole through which people you dislike can be prosecuted for what they say while still dishonestly claiming to support free speech.

As for hate speech, why you choose to put that in quotation marks is up to you, but when someone uses speech to incite violence and abuse people it is a crime. Only this week, a radical hate preacher named Anjem Choudry was jailed for hate speech in the UK for inciting people to commit terrorist acts. Freedom of speech is fine, freedom to tell people to commit violence against others isn't.

Perhaps rather than jailing Anjem Choudry for his opinion it would be better to have kept him out of the country in the first place? And I don't think Anjem Choudry should be jailed either. As far as I know the only thing he is guilty of is expressing support for the Islamic State. Is his position disgusting; yes, should it be illegal; no. Anjem Choudry should never have been allowed into the UK, but seeing as he is a British citizen now he should be able to say he supports whatever he wants, no matter how abhorrent I or anyone else finds it.

You're quite right in saying that the Communists in Russia under Stalin had far more blood on their hands than the Nazis, but as a student of History, I'm also well aware, that this had very little to do with an attempt to achieve egalitarianism or to further the aims of socialism. It was nothing more than a power hungry madman, wiping out any and all opposition. In fact on one level it could be argued that it was his own form of ethnic cleansing, though instead of wiping out people by race or creed, he wiped them out by class or political affiliation. Yet another maniac putting more stock in that which divides us than that which brings us together.

The Holodomor had everything to do with achieving socialism. The communist government felt that the Ukrainians supported the Ukrainian nationalists, and therefore stood in the way of heaven on earth, so had to be disposed of. Such an action could only be justified by belief that starving millions of people served a greater good, namely the utopian communist society the Soviet Union wanted to bring about. A few million people were, in the minds of communist leaders, a small price to pay for egalitarianism.

And could not the same excuse be made for the crimes of Hitler; that they were the actions of a madman eliminating anything that stood in his way? That the Holocaust had nothing to do with Nazi ideology and it was all just a madman wanting power? I'm not in anyway saying that that is the case, only that one could make such an argument just as one could argue that communism's crimes had nothing to do with communism.

look [sic] at Israel? Could you elaborate here? Aren't they currently engaged in their own unceasing war of ethnonationalistic attrition with the Palastinians? whatever the rights or wrongs of the conflict, it's yet another case of two sets of people's divided but nothing more than a few lines of sacred text, and perhaps a couple of different shades on the dulux colour chart. Here they are fighting year after year, bringing up children in a world where hatred is commonplace and revenge and retribution are the motivators.

So I ask, where did the concept of ethnonationalisism [sic] ever get the Israelis? Or perhaps more pertinently the Palistinians [sic]...

It got them their own state. It gives the Jewish people a refuge should something like the Holocaust ever happen again. And despite the near constant attempts of the Arabs to destroy everything they have build, the Jews seem to think that it's worth it. Israel is a testament to the power of nationalism and love for one's own people. The Jews moved to a wasteland and made it bloom so their ancestors would be proud and their people would have a future. The Jews fought war after war so their ancestors would be proud and their people would have a future. And still, despite all the hardship, more Jews move to Israel every year. Is there not something beautiful in the determination and strength of these people? Does it not show you the value that people place in their nation, in their ethnicity? If nothing else, it should show you all that a proud and independent people will endure for their nation, and the danger of failing to respect that.

As for the Palestinians, they have had numerous chances to make peace with Israel, yet refuse. They too could have their own state, yet choose to attack instead. I can hardly think of a better example of why self-determination for all nations should be respected by all nations.

With the greatest respect. Self determination had the square root of fuck all to do with the holocaust. The Nazis gained power by playing on the minds of the down trodden Germans who had been so ruthlessly treated by the allies after WW1. They did this by playing on their fears about communism, and Jews, and black people, and gays. The Nazis whipped up an angry mob who voted them into power! How's that for respect for self determination? The fact the Nazis eventually removed the right to free elections and Germany became a dictatorship is wholly irrelevant to the holocaust, so please don't obsfucate the situation by pretending otherwise. Eventually they had to make good on their promises to deal with the Jews, so they pushed them into Ghettos, seized businesses etc. Then came the final solution.

The Holocaust was born out of ethnic classification, and the key principles of ethnonationalisism [sic] that fuelled [sic] the Nazi propaganda machine.

Lack of respect for self-determination had everything to do with the Holocaust. The Nazis refused to accept that the Jews (and Slavs and Gypsies) had just as much right as the Germans to live peacefully as their own people. Hitler could have stopped his expansion after being given the Sudetenland, and he could have let the Jews live as Jews. If he really wanted to get rid of them he could have granted them their own piece of land (cut out of Germany) and encouraged them to move there. The Jews would have had their own state, the Germans theirs and everyone would have lived happily ever after. Instead Hitler refused to accept the the Jews had just as much a right to exist as anyone else, and so he tried to kill them off. The problem was not that the Nazis classified people based off ethnicity, it was that they refused to accept that those people had the same rights to self-determination as the Germans.

I might also point out that WWI was started because the Hapsburgs refused to let the Serbs have their own nation. Instead the insisted on holding their diverse multi-ethnic empire together, by force if necessary.

I'm of the opinion that Nationalism is one of the most harmful influences on the world, it's brought humanity to the brink of destruction countless times over the past century. And when that nationalism is narrowed down to ethnicity it becomes something very dangerous indeed. Something foul and insidious that turns pride into hatred and love for ones country or community into a feeling of superiority over those of others.

Do you not feel moral superiority over me? How is your sense of superiority over those who love their ethnicities any less dangerous than the sense of superiority the Nazis feel they had over the Jews. You clearly feel justified in ignoring research and data (to which you have not responded) and suppressing free expression.

And it is really nationalism that causes war? Did the Japanese cause a war when they shut their island off from the rest of the world? Or is it failure to acknowledge right to self-determinations that causes war?

[Banquo]

On the subject of Robinson and Choudry, you act as if inciting violence is fine. It's not. Get over it. Everyone has freedom of speech, but that freedom comes with consequences. Just as every action comes with a reaction. If you choose to cause violence to someone with your speech, then you will be prosecuted by the law.

Vile, cowardly people like Robinson and Choudry prey on the feeble minded and send them off to commit violence on their behalf. They preach hatred and bigotry. Frankly I don't particularly care if their speech is protected or not, because I don't want to live in a society where it's ok for bigots and racists to harrass innocent people on the streets. I'm totally fine with hate speech being against the law, and I'm totally fine with White Supremacist scum like Tommy Robinson being bought to book for it.

On the subject of Ukraine, as I said before, there's nothing Egalitarian about what the communists and Stalin did, their psychotic aims may have been for what they perceived to be the "greater good" but let's not confuse that with what real egalitarianism actually is.

As for the Palastinians, they used to have their own country, it was called Palestine, it's now called Israel. This whole ethnonationalism thing's working out really well for them down on the Gaza Strip...
Israel is indeed a testament to the power of nationalism, though, from a different point of view it's an incredibly ugly situation... An ongoing war that shows no sign of ending, atrocities committed on both sides usually on a yearly basis if not more often. Sure it's great for the Israelis who live in the safe areas, they have made a nice state for themselves. But the Palestinians have been essentially Ghettoised, and many Israelis live in fear. How many Israelis families have sons or daughters serving in the army that may not come home tomorrow?

You're attempts at making the holocaust out to be anything other than an ethnic cleansing driven by your precious ethnonationalisism is laughable. Funnily enough Hitler wanted to move the Jews to their own country and give them their own state, I forget whether he wrote about it in Mein Kampf or another of his bullshit doctrines. But it was one of his crackpot schemes somewhere along the line. But this didn't suit his narrative. He needed the Jews to be the villains, he needed this to galvanise his support, to bring his followers together against common enemies. Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, anyone different. I'm sure if he'd realised that if he'd portioned off land for everyone it all would have been wine and roses, but then of course, if he'd done that WW2 wouldn't have happened either.

Is it really nationalism that causes wars? Not in all cases, but some of the biggest conflicts in history have been caused by nations expanding through no reason other than wanting to build an Empire. You said WW1 was caused by the little spat down in the Balkans, that was just the match that set fire to the puddle of gasoline. Europe was alight with Imperialist angst. The Germans were desperate to expand...yay nationalism. A different set of circumstances set Europe aflame in the 40s with nationalism and right wing ideologies once again causing untold misery, but once again Imperialism (read nationalism) saw Germany steamroller their way across the continent. And the Japanese (funny you should bring them up) did pretty much the same in Asia.

The whole situation gets even worse when you narrow nationalism down to ethnicity, or religion. How many wars have been fought over some nonsense religious reason. Look at Isis now, or many of the wars that dominated medieval Europe. These were wars of ethnicity, look at civil wars like Rwanda and Sierra Leone.

You are right, I do feel morally superior to you, perhaps that's wrong of me, it's where this kind of thing starts. It's exactly the kind of thing I'm on about. These conflicts start when people think they are better than each other. But frankly I've got an aversion to anyone who thinks in terms of ethnicity. You seem an intelligent lad, and have clearly read up on the subject, that doesn't mean you're right though

And let me get this crystal clear, I am wholeheartedly in favour of expression, but when what is expressed is done so with malice and the sole purpose to inflict physical or mental harm upon someone then I firmly believe that there should be consequences.

You want to be proud of who you are, that's fine with me, but if your pride and your ego are so weak that you are unable to cope with diversity and the mixing of the races, then perhaps your ethnicity isn't something that's worth being proud of after all.

Now I think I'm done as far as this discussion is concerned, unless there are new topics to discuss, we shan't agree on this, and this seems likely to become cyclical.

[Incubo]

As for left and right, the way I see it is that leftist movements have equality as their primary aim, while rightists have other goals. The far-left demands absolute equality while as you get more rightward equality becomes less and less important. On the center-right are those who see equality as subordinate to some other ideal (such as freedom). The far-right rejects equality as neither desirable or achievable and supports hierarchy instead. This is not to say that the far-right does not believe those higher up on the hierarchy do not have duties to those beneath them.

Are you talking about American politics here or somewhere else? Because this sure isn't the American meaning of politically left-right.

The far left demands absolute equality.....In America this is both true and not true at the same time. While they SAY equality, what they mean is equal outcomes, not equal opportunity. And they are more than happy to give up their freedom to a government that ensures and enforces equal outcomes even if that means discriminating against others in order to achieve it. Unless of course, data and evidence shows that their "victim narrative" is false and some "minorities" are actually doing better in some areas than the majority. THEN....that's fine. We need to leave THAT alone. No "equality" required there. This extends into the realm of economics as well. They want government control of the economy because they believe this is the only way to ensure that everyone gets paid whatever amount they currently think is "fair." Basically....communism. Because you know....all those other countries that tried such a system only failed because they didn't do it "right." WE'LL do it better because...reasons.

The far right does not reject equality. What they say they want is equal opportunity NOT equal outcomes. They advocate for a meritocracy, not government enforced quotas. You rise or fall by your own abilities and talents. They want completely free markets so businesses can rise or fall without government interference. Which of course was already tried and we ended up with Standard Oil, U.S Steel, and the other monopolies that extorted the markets to squash competition. They say they want small government that doesn't get in the way, but only in regards to business. They advocate for government interference in the practice of your chosen faith unless it's Christian. They want government to dictate what is or is not a moral choice. And they are big supporters of using the vast military industrial complex to impose those moral choices on other countries as well.

Both of these are extremists and delusional.

[lmind]

There's no option in the poll for Libertarianism. Some might define Libertarianism as far-right, but I think conservatism has co-opted that spot on the spectrum in most people's minds, effectively turning the compass on its side. If there was an option for "far south of center", I'd pick that.

[micheleFFS]

It's Adam Smith:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sit ... xdBMHlM%3A