10 most rightist posters on poly

[Drake Tungsten]

I never claimed to agree with Ned.

[Last Conformist]

No. I'm just pointing out that what you're saying doesn't support his position.

[Drake Tungsten]

I never meant it to. I have my own agenda.

[Pax]

For the most part I agree with Ned. Certain points he makes I have no knowledge of so I can't dispute. But the core of his argument goes along with my base beliefs.
1.It is generally accepted that the Treaty of Versailles is the main cause of ww2. Who or what group was the chief archtiect of that treaty? With or without hitler there would have been a ww2.

2. I believe that Britain, the U.S. and other European countries expansion/imperialism in the Pacific forced japan to either modernize/expand or face the fate of China. It makes sense that Britain being the most powerful and successful imperial power in the world would be the model for japan.

3. The British Empire was not the benovelent just kind helping hand that some would think. They were an imperial power that subjugated people around the world. The British Empire saying that German annexation of Austria, Poland or anywhere is wrong is the pot calling the kettle black.


I would have to say that Giancarlo is far more right than Ned.

[Saras]

re 3., please read "Empire" and "Colossus" by Ferguson. Will shed a balanced light on the british empire and its successor, US

[Ned]

Molly, you do not seem to understand that there is a difference between exacerbating an ancient conflict and starting it. No doubt there was inherent friction between German and Pole, Japanese and Chinese, Muslim and Hindu and Jew that had nothing to do with Britain. But it did seem to me that Versailles inflicted wrongs on one of these peoples to the benefit of their historical opponents that eventually lead to war. These are facts as well.

The only debate you and I have, then, is whether Britain shares any responsibility for the subsequent wars. The question becomes, had they not acted in the way they did, or had they acted differently, would the wars have been avoided?

As to Wilson's ideas about self determination, yes they seem to have been accepted by many as a generally good principle. But clearly, the Hindus and Arabs clearly did not agree. Then there is the case of the German states being awarded to others and the areas subject to plebicite that voted to stay with Germany still being given away that was entirely inconsistent with "self determination."

The case of Japan and China is a bit more problematic as it does appear that Japan was on the "march," aided and abetted by Britain. But the hostility between China and Japan was clearly stoked to a fever pitch by Versailles. (I just saw a movie, made in China, that covers the period from 1928-31. The movie depicted mass demonstrations against Japan in Manchuria and plots to assissinate Japanese officials, which were successful. I wouldn't be surprised at all that the events depicted were accurate.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
And wonder why you're widely thought of as a uber-rightist?

Well, Last Conformist, when I dissect German fascism point-by-by point, almost everyone agrees that Germany was to the left of the United States wrt all such points and much more close to socialism as well. In this, I assume that being for less government intervention into the economy is to the right, being in favor of democracy (individualism) vs. totalitarianism (state is more important) is being to the right, etc. In matter after matter, German fascism interfered in the economy for the benefit of the people far more than would be tolerable in the US. They also provided the first universal health care, the VW and autobahns, and low cost vacations to workers. In all these things, Germany was far to the left of the United States, although most European states now look very much like the National Socialist state that was the Third Reich.

Fascism differs from modern socialism ONLY in its emphasis on nationalism. Other than that, fascism is a form of socialism.

[Last Conformist]

being in favor of democracy (individualism) vs. totalitarianism (state is more important) is being to the right

With such assumptions, it's little wonder you're widely thought of as living in an alternate universe ...

Believe it or not, not all political and economical positions can be placed on the same scalar left-right axis.

[Straybow]

OK, smartypants, what "right-wing" dictator was in favor of democracy and self-determination???

[Sandman]

Ned yet again shows he has no concept of economic pragmatism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

being in favor of democracy (individualism) vs. totalitarianism (state is more important) is being to the right

With such assumptions, it's little wonder you're widely thought of as living in an alternate universe ...

Believe it or not, not all political and economical positions can be placed on the same scalar left-right axis.

Last C, obviously you haven't read this thread because I said the same thing earlier. I observe at least three different axes that are seemingly independent of one another: Economics, social, and political.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Straybow
OK, smartypants, what "right-wing" dictator was in favor of democracy and self-determination???

I'm sorry, but no dictator, right or left, is in favor of democracy. So, what is your point?

My point is that democracy is based on the concept of the importance of the individual and totalitarianism is based on the concept that the state is more important. These are the polar opposite positions. But the rightist postion is that the individual in more important and therefor the rightist position favors democracy.

Petty dictators who hold power for their personal aggrandizement are not rightists on this scale. They do not accord any value to the rights of individuals.

It is my observation that leftists tend to be totalitarians as they all emphasize the importance of the state over individuals and they all seem to favor totalitarianism when they assume total power.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
Ned yet again shows he has no concept of economic pragmatism.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


I'm sorry, but no dictator, right or left, is in favor of democracy. So, what is your point?

My point is that democracy is based on the concept of the importance of the individual and totalitarianism is based on the concept that the state is more important. These are the polar opposite positions.

You're talking nonsense again.

Abraham Lincoln believed that a strong state/nation and the integrity of individualism of its citizens are not exclusive of one another. He fully affirmed the idea that all men are inherently equal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the rightist postion is that the individual in more important

No it isn't. Pinochet didn't believe that. Monarchists in Europe (ie, rightists) don't believe that.

Really, the division between left and right is simply the view each side places on tradition. The right embraces it and the left disdains it in favor of 'progress'. Moderates think tradition and progress can co-exist (to a certain point). There is a reason conservative is spelled with 'conserve'. They aren't conserving the environment now.

By your definitions, Ned, Ramo would be right wing, since he is an anarchist, who hate the state.