This "Alt-right" nonsense is infuriating.

[Gabranth]

Given the history of what left and right actually mean historically.

 

The left (liberalism) historically has meant liberating people from systemic systems of oppression. Its revolutionary. 

 

The right (conservatism) has historically meant propping up a status quo that objectively makes peoples lives worse. Statism, state cronyism, state enforced privilege. regulations, crony capitalism, feudalism, castes, forced hierarchy, state religion, wars, slavery, etc.

 

The so called "alt-right" of today, along with the tea party, at least in part, seeks to eliminate what they think are oppressive and harmful status quo statist systems. 

 

The so called establishment left of today seeks to keep these systems. 

 

What actually happened was our intellectuals and elites started to shift these words around as a propaganda technique. The true conservatives in this country started to call themselves liberals and progressives to fool people into thinking what they were doing is good. In europe today the word liberal actually means libertarian b/c that's what radical liberals were historically. libertarians.

 

Libertarians are the true heirs of liberalism and progressivism. The people that call themselves this in America today are the imposters. The so called left in America is actually the status quo right and they have fooled a lot of people with their propaganda and brainwashing thanks to public schools and statist controlled higher education.

[rosencrantz]

The so called "alt-right" of today, along with the tea party, at least in part, seeks to eliminate what they think are oppressive and harmful status quo statist systems. 

 

Where did you find that? Read som Amren and be ready for a surprise.

[Slavik]

Given the history of what left and right actually mean historically.

 

The left (liberalism) historically has meant liberating people from systemic systems of oppression. Its revolutionary. 

 

The right (conservatism) has historically meant propping up a status quo that objectively makes peoples lives worse. Statism, state cronyism, state enforced privilege. regulations, crony capitalism, feudalism, castes, forced hierarchy, state religion, wars, slavery, etc.

 

The so called "alt-right" of today, along with the tea party, at least in part, seeks to eliminate what they think are oppressive and harmful status quo statist systems. 

 

The so called establishment left of today seeks to keep these systems. 

 

What actually happened was our intellectuals and elites started to shift these words around as a propaganda technique. The true conservatives in this country started to call themselves liberals and progressives to fool people into thinking what they were doing is good. In europe today the word liberal actually means libertarian b/c that's what radical liberals were historically. libertarians.

 

Libertarians are the true heirs of liberalism and progressivism. The people that call themselves this in America today are the imposters. The so called left in America is actually the status quo right and they have fooled a lot of people with their propaganda and brainwashing thanks to public schools and statist controlled higher education.

Historically it was the Democrats and the left who supported Slavery and racist policies, and I mean actually in history.  KKK was a militant arm of Democratic party not Conservative or Republican.

 

Im not really sure where you are getting this, that historically it was the "right."   Even the state wars were pro-slave Democrats against Republicans who were against slavery.

[Will Torbald]

The alt-right is in tune with ideas of tradition, skepticism of democracy and equality, hierarchy as a good thing, and doesn't condemn authority as inherently wrong or illegitimate. If that isn't right wing, you tell me then.

[The Underthinker]

Given the history of what left and right actually mean historically.

 

The left (liberalism) historically has meant liberating people from systemic systems of oppression. Its revolutionary. 

 

The right (conservatism) has historically meant propping up a status quo that objectively makes peoples lives worse. Statism, state cronyism, state enforced privilege. regulations, crony capitalism, feudalism, castes, forced hierarchy, state religion, wars, slavery, etc.

 

This really is a very biased perspective on what left and right mean. If I were to use the same bias but from the other side, I would explain them like such:

 

The right (conservatism) has historically meant conserving values and the things that we rely on to live and improve our lives. It's protective.

 

The left(liberalism) historically meant overthrowing authority to get turmoil that objectively makes peoples lives worse. Revolution, terrorism, crime, propaganda, brainwashing, blackmailing, chaos, poverty, slavery, civil wars, etcetera.

 

I don't believe either your or what I just wrote above explanations of right and left, but I thought you might use this as a mirror to contemplate on your own bias.

 

Where did you learn to get these associations for "left" and "right"?

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

Left vs right is so outdated. The new paradigm should really be globalism vs nationalism. Alt right is in line with nationalism. Plenty of alt-righters are small government, some also are big government. It's less a question of the size of the state and more a question of whose interests the state works for. Both the traditional left and right now have a globalist agenda. We on the alt-right oppose that.

[Gavitor]

Left vs right is so outdated. The new paradigm should really be globalism vs nationalism. Alt right is in line with nationalism. Plenty of alt-righters are small government, some also are big government. It's less a question of the size of the state and more a question of whose interests the state works for. Both the traditional left and right now have a globalist agenda. We on the alt-right oppose that.

 

Its all the same shit, individualism vs collectivism... The problem is no one is for actual individualism and everyone is pushing for their version of collectivism.

[Donnadogsoth]

Its all the same shit, individualism vs collectivism... The problem is no one is for actual individualism and everyone is pushing for their version of collectivism.

 

Until individualism figures out who gets the nukes and how to stop money power from taking over completely in a vacuum of political power, I'm sticking with nationalism.

[st434u]

Given the history of what left and right actually mean historically.

 

The left (liberalism) historically has meant liberating people from systemic systems of oppression. Its revolutionary. 

 

The right (conservatism) has historically meant propping up a status quo that objectively makes peoples lives worse. Statism, state cronyism, state enforced privilege. regulations, crony capitalism, feudalism, castes, forced hierarchy, state religion, wars, slavery, etc.

 

It's not so simple. The liberals of Europe wanted freedom from the monarchs, while the conservatives wanted to maintain the monarchical system because they knew that it had worked well for thousands of years. Absolute monarchy and feudalism are the least intrusive and damaging forms of statism, and are naturally favorable to capitalism and economic freedom. Liberals in Europe were not content with that, and they wanted freedom from even the small abuses of monarchs and feudal lords. Democracy is the most intrusive and destructive form of statism, and is naturally favorable to ever increasing socialism and economic slavery. In the US, liberals also wanted freedom from monarchs, they wanted to stop being a colony and paying taxes to a foreign king, and they wanted instead to elect their own king through democracy, and pay taxes to him instead. While this initially reduced the power of the state, that only lasted for a very short time, as it always does under democratic government, and now the US has gone from one of the most free countries in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, to one of the least free today. The same is true for most of the new world, although some other countries in the new world did retain the original meaning for liberal meaning libertarian. It usually only takes one to three generations before a democracy becomes much more oppressive than a monarchy ever could be.

[AnonymousCoward2]

It's not so simple. The liberals of Europe wanted freedom from the monarchs, while the conservatives wanted to maintain the monarchical system because they knew that it had worked well for thousands of years. Absolute monarchy and feudalism are the least intrusive and damaging forms of statism, and are naturally favorable to capitalism and economic freedom. Liberals in Europe were not content with that, and they wanted freedom from even the small abuses of monarchs and feudal lords. Democracy is the most intrusive and destructive form of statism, and is naturally favorable to ever increasing socialism and economic slavery. In the US, liberals also wanted freedom from monarchs, they wanted to stop being a colony and paying taxes to a foreign king, and they wanted instead to elect their own king through democracy, and pay taxes to him instead. While this initially reduced the power of the state, that only lasted for a very short time, as it always does under democratic government, and now the US has gone from one of the most free countries in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, to one of the least free today. The same is true for most of the new world, although some other countries in the new world did retain the original meaning for liberal meaning libertarian. It usually only takes one to three generations before a democracy becomes much more oppressive than a monarchy ever could be.

A note on the mixup with the words "libertarian" and "liberal" in Europe. Liberal in Europe generally refers someone promoting freedom for the benefit of the majority of people and whenever this "freedom" appears not benefit the majority they staunchly oppose it. Liberal is more or less used interchangibly with the word "socialliberal", not libertarian. Its a bit fuzzy to speak about a "classical liberal" during the enlightment as this was more or less just a reaction to the moral authority of church/monarch, not so very much a system of ideas. 

 

Libertarianism as an ideology is a relatively instance in history to my knowledge, more or less getting up to speed with Nozick/Friedman/etc in the 70'ies and does not really exist to any degree in Europe. Instead you have the classical "conservative" parties standing up for some semi-"market liberalism" previously mixed with traditional values and nowadays with cultural marxism. 

[rosencrantz]

Absolute monarchy and feudalism are the least intrusive and damaging forms of statism, and are naturally favorable to capitalism and economic freedom.

 

Which is why the industrial revolution and free trade only developed in absolute monarchies / feudalistic systems. Oh wait...

[Gabranth]

"Where did you learn to get these associations for "left" and "right"?"

 

https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-prospects-liberty

 

Rothbard wrote a lengthy and detailed article about it. He points it out a lot in his books as well.

 

Before I read that, I always considered the political spectrums to be inconsistent and didnt make much sense. Which was a sure sign of untruth. That article cleared it all up.

 

I think as libertarians, we need to take back our title as true leftists. And point out that these so called "rightists" movements, actually have a bit of confused leftism in them b/c they are fighting against the status quo and establishment.

[David Ottinger]

Left VS Right dichotomy is always a relative distinction.  Although, typically 'left' refers to experimental values while 'right' refers to traditional values.  Basically, it's a "what could work" VS "what has worked" dichotomy.  But, as you may have noticed, this is all in reference to where a government ought to allocate resources respective of where it has been focusing thus far.  So, "left VS right" is a compartmentalized perspective that is defined by the current form of governance.

 

So, it makes sense that what is "left" today may become "right" tomorrow. i.e. What could have worked proves to work, thus becomes part of what has worked as time progresses. 

 

 

Personally, I find the discussion of where the government's (i.e. king's) favor ought to be is a question that sets up a false dilemma, let alone begs the question, too. 

 

It begs the questions because the validity of a centralized institution is a concept that most people do not even question -- simply put, the idea of a decentralized form of governance is unheard of.  So, to such people, there is nothing for sake of comparison.  Government is treated axiomatically.  And, much of this is thanks to public school indoctrination.  People simply assume a centralized institution is necessary for there to even be a form of governance -- which omits self-governance, but that's for another day.

 

 

So, as far as the false dilemma goes...

 

With the alt-right, what that means is you have an alternative to traditional values, albeit they're still traditional values.  And, this reformation of how the current left and right are polarized makes sense as the upcoming generation are gaining influence in the government.  

 

 

 

The alt-right is a reactionary movement to the SJW's swinging the pendulum too much in one direction. 

[Gabranth]

Well I dont think left and right is relative. It had a very real meaning and set of ideals when it started out. Its just that sophists and shill "academics" started to change the meanings of them without giving a proper explanation as to why. Of course they did this for their own nefarious purposes. For their own power. Socialists even declared classical liberals the enemy. Therefore the current uses of left and right are not legitimate. Most people are not aware of their illegitimacy of course b/c the state largely teaches them.

 

I think a lot of people have it all wrong when calling govt schooling institutions left wing as well. Its right wing. The status quo is there to support and prop up crony capitalism, as much as the state. And so called "left wing" ideals like SJWism, immigration, and regulating business, are all things the crony capitalists support. Its always struck me as odd that the crony capitalist system has such a fetish with degrees as well. I think higher education degrees are actually a litmus test for showing you are brainwashed into supporting the current crony capitalist status quo. Rothbard touched on this as well in one of his articles. Ill try to find it.

 

I think its problematic and inconsistent to define left and right by traditional and progressive values. First of all we all have traditional values.  I think its rather inevitable, b/c life requires we are taught and raised by our previous generation. Even Noam Chomsky describes himself as a traditionalist in values, yet under your definition we wouldnt consider him a rightist would we?

 

Second of all you can have values such as traditional and progressive apart from govt allocation of resources.

 

Rothbards view of the political spectrum tends to solve the dilemma of calling socialism and fascism polar opposites, even though in practice they look a lot alike.