|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 27, 2024 8:39:15 GMT
No, I'm not here to answer your Rightist questions about the obvious things taking place in the real world, just here to point out how easily Rightists, like yourself, play dumb and turn a blind eye to the wrongs of hard right and far right politics. You refuse again to unpack this smear so the subject can be discussed in terms of right and wrong It seems pretty likely to me that the reason you maintain this stance is that you know the policies you oppose are actually often pretty reasonable, and the converse policies you want (ie forcing catastrophic mass migration) are not remotely reasonable or popular. This means that you are being deceptive in an attempt to promote policies you know are unreasonable and unpopular I think you might waste a lot of time and effort trying to convince someone who obviously has very little experience but that of their own bubble which has become a belief system you might know something different. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 8:40:15 GMT
Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance
Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈfidɛs]; Hungarian: Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség pronounced [ˈfidɛs ˈmɒɟɒr ˈpolɡaːri ˈsøvɛt͡ʃːeːɡ]) is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary led by Viktor Orbán.
Fidesz - Wikipedia
Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈfidɛs]; Hungarian: Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség pronounced [ˈfidɛs ˈmɒɟɒr ˈpolɡaːri ˈsøvɛt͡ʃːeːɡ]) is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary led by Viktor Orbán. It has increasingly identified as illiberal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidesz
You might have to copy and paste web address at top of page to open.
|
|
|
|
Post by borgr0 on Oct 27, 2024 8:44:49 GMT
Did it really maintain world order though? Yes, better than any corresponding period before or since.
However if you believe ex-MP Kwasi Kwarteng it didn't do much for democracy: 'The British Empire was not merely bad for democracy, it was anti-democracy.' He was wrong of course, it focused on nurturing democratic government in places and among societies where it could thrive, not where it clearly wouldn't (like Kwarteng's ancestral home of the Gold Coast).
That's really interesting about Kwasi Kwarteng, I would honestly not have guessed he thought that? I'm not condemning him, he has his beliefs and he and Liz Truss tried their best to save the economy I don't think comparing it to corresponding periods before or since can be construed as maintaining order, seeing as there was such a lack before and after that you could say almost anything was better All that being said, wouldn't the best period for peace be roughly 1990-2010? That would seem to be the period of least world upheaval in human history For my part, my belief is that anyone having too much power should be avoided, absolute power causes issues and if order can only be maintained with an iron fist, then it will inevitably be lost. All top empires in history, while well intentioned in their own ways, and I'm not condemning them whatsoever, were never going to last - and that is the way of things The same is true with the USA IMHO, you can't have a world superpower that acts as world police forever, it's not sustainable. It's not going to last. I find it fascinating and wonderful that ancient Christian societies such as those Antioch in the early ADs lived virtually like Communists - and were highly egalitarian, in many ways they were so far ahead of their time. The Anglo-Saxon early Christian societies were fascinating too and highly egalitarian, although less so than ones further east |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 27, 2024 8:48:12 GMT
Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈfidɛs]; Hungarian: Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség pronounced [ˈfidɛs ˈmɒɟɒr ˈpolɡaːri ˈsøvɛt͡ʃːeːɡ]) is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary led by Viktor Orbán. Fidesz - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidesz We come full circle. We are back to RW because someone says so and illiberal disappears into the ether despite you making bold with its relevance. There must be a policy somewhere you can highlight and say look this is the unacceptable face of rightists. All you seem able to do is call them names and then insult those who query why you hold such views. EDIT I see you have expanded above but what do see illiberal to mean, I have referenced its definition which you seem to think is not correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2024 8:57:19 GMT
You refuse again to unpack this smear so the subject can be discussed in terms of right and wrongIt seems pretty likely to me that the reason you maintain this stance is that you know the policies you oppose are actually often pretty reasonable, and the converse policies you want (ie forcing catastrophic mass migration) are not remotely reasonable or popular.
This means that you are being deceptive in an attempt to promote policies you know are unreasonable and unpopular The decision has already been made on the recognizable extremes of Politics from the far-Left to the far-Right. Recognising the reality is not smearing. I agree with some of the concerns that Rightists have, Why should anyone accept one of your many half-baked political positions, which often seem to amount to little but string of slogans and buzzwords , as a valid reason for you not discussing the meanings of the buzz-words and slogans you are using? It's crazy, but what you seem to be saying is - I don't have to discuss my political positions from the perspective of right-vs wrong because one of those political positions is that 'the decision has already been made and so doesn't need to be discussed'The reason we should talk about policies and ideas rather than just accept labels and slogans at face value is that labels and slogans can be miss-used to deceive people, while the reality itself will always reliably track to the truth (is the truth). It now occurs to me that i may be talking to a person who doesn't understand this - who truly can't see the difference. If you do 'share some concerns of the right' then your tactics are pretty silly. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 27, 2024 8:59:26 GMT
All that being said, wouldn't the best period for peace be roughly 1990-2010? That would seem to be the period of least world upheaval in human history ... The same is true with the USA IMHO, you can't have a world superpower that acts as world police forever, it's not sustainable. It's not going to last. ... Isn't that the period which straddles 9/11? Plenty of global upheaval in the wake of that.
But you're right, Pax Americana can't last either. Sooner rather than later the Imperial levies will be called home due to financial stringencies or to deal with domestic friction and inter-ethnic conflict stoked by political discord.
And then what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2024 9:26:50 GMT
I know theories of imperial collapse are two a penny and everyone has one. (disclaimer)
My view is that there is am almost inevitable shift in management when power becomes established. Pragmatists are slowly replaced by dreamers and the dreamers wont let the pragmatists take the power back when things start going sideways because their diagnosis of the problem suggests even harder dreaming is needed. The dreamer management get trapped in a cyclone of escalation in which more and more off-centre and destabilising solutions are tried
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 9:49:49 GMT
Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈfidɛs]; Hungarian: Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség pronounced [ˈfidɛs ˈmɒɟɒr ˈpolɡaːri ˈsøvɛt͡ʃːeːɡ]) is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary led by Viktor Orbán. Fidesz - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidesz We come full circle. We are back to RW because someone says so and illiberal disappears into the ether despite you making bold with its relevance. There must be a policy somewhere you can highlight and say look this is the unacceptable face of rightists. All you seem able to do is call them names and then insult those who query why you hold such views. EDIT I see you have expanded above but what do see illiberal to mean, I have referenced its definition which you seem to think is not correct. My views are that Rightists play being dumb in order to not accept that Hard-Right and Far-Right political areas exist. And then ask me to explain it to them. If they don't know they would be better off not wasting posters time by posting on a debating forum. il·lib·eral [ɪˈlɪb(ə)rəl] adjective opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behaviour: "illiberal and anti-democratic policies" |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 9:55:40 GMT
All that being said, wouldn't the best period for peace be roughly 1990-2010? That would seem to be the period of least world upheaval in human history ... The same is true with the USA IMHO, you can't have a world superpower that acts as world police forever, it's not sustainable. It's not going to last. .. Isn't that the period which straddles 9/11? Plenty of global upheaval in the wake of that.
But you're right, Pax Americana can't last either. Sooner rather than later the Imperial levies will be called home due to financial stringencies or to deal with domestic friction and inter-ethnic conflict stoked by political discord.
And then what?
One possibility is Dictatorship, then we can all behave as if we were made of 'Ticky-Tacky' and all pretend we think the same. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 27, 2024 10:04:33 GMT
We come full circle. We are back to RW because someone says so and illiberal disappears into the ether despite you making bold with its relevance. There must be a policy somewhere you can highlight and say look this is the unacceptable face of rightists. All you seem able to do is call them names and then insult those who query why you hold such views. EDIT I see you have expanded above but what do see illiberal to mean, I have referenced its definition which you seem to think is not correct. My views are that Rightists play being dumb in order to not accept that Hard-Right and Far-Right political areas exist. And then ask me to explain it to them. If they don't know they would be better off not wasting posters time by posting on a debating forum. il·lib·eral [ɪˈlɪb(ə)rəl] adjective opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behaviour: "illiberal and anti-democratic policies" The irony.  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 10:09:21 GMT
How about an ending for dictatorships and their ilk? With Georgia on the brink of joining Russia, after much interference in the Georgian election by Russia, it looks like the Russian dictatorship has set its sights on more control of the countries around it. What does an 'end' to dictatorships look like? Nuclear obliteration? I nor anyone else are suggesting that dictatorships should dominate 1. Could be, or it could be a wakening up of the masses. 2. If the West gets it wrong, then Dictatorships will take control, firstly by dominating economic control and then by virtue of their wealth. IMO dictatorships are the new financial form of Conservatism taking us back a 100 years or more, i.e. The top 1% of Russia's wealthiest people held 47.7% of the country's wealth. Even higher than the old and failed Conservatives. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 10:11:40 GMT
My views are that Rightists play being dumb in order to not accept that Hard-Right and Far-Right political areas exist. And then ask me to explain it to them. If they don't know they would be better off not wasting posters time by posting on a debating forum. il·lib·eral [ɪˈlɪb(ə)rəl] adjective opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behaviour: "illiberal and anti-democratic policies" The irony. Still got nothing sensible to add then. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 27, 2024 10:12:17 GMT
The irony. Still got nothing sensible to add then. Just as you have nothing . |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2024 10:20:34 GMT
What does an 'end' to dictatorships look like? Nuclear obliteration? I nor anyone else are suggesting that dictatorships should dominate IMO dictatorships are the new financial form of Conservatism taking us back a 100 years or more, i.e. The top 1% of Russia's wealthiest people held 47.7% of the country's wealth. Even higher than the old and failed Conservatives. All of this is too vague to mean much without unboxing those terms a bit. For instance 'Taking us back' might mean taking us back towards democracy if the current course is anti-democratic, which going by some recent establishment pronouncements about the dangers of freedom of speech and the US constitution, it might be well be. Those who claim to be 'taking us forward' might, in reality, be taking us back - which, going by some recent establishment pronouncements about the dangers of freedom of speech and the US constitution - they might be well be. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 10:36:52 GMT
The decision has already been made on the recognizable extremes of Politics from the far-Left to the far-Right. Recognising the reality is not smearing. I agree with some of the concerns that Rightists have, Why should anyone accept one of your many half-baked political positions, which often seem to amount to little but string of slogans and buzzwords , as a valid reason for you not discussing the meanings of the buzz-words and slogans you are using? It's crazy, but what you seem to be saying is - I don't have to discuss my political positions from the perspective of right-vs wrong because one of those political positions is that 'the decision has already been made and so doesn't need to be discussed'The reason we should talk about policies and ideas rather than just accept labels and slogans at face value is that labels and slogans can be miss-used to deceive people, while the reality itself will always reliably track to the truth (is the truth). It now occurs to me that i may be talking to a person who doesn't understand this - who truly can't see the difference. If you do 'share some concerns of the right' then your tactics are pretty silly. 1. You mean my honest posts are just there for people like yourself to prove that the 'Dark Legend' still exists, for those who are liars and denigrators, to throw their garbage at. 2. "doesn't need to be discussed" by me, Correct, the evidence is all around you all you have to do is to open your eyes and your ears and your mind. 3 and 4. Just as propaganda can be used to deceive people. And Rightists are having a field day doing just that. 5. Not "silly", as you would understand if you were aware of the harm and extremism Right wing politics can do, as in the serious Social and Economic damage done by Hard-Right Thatcher as PM. She proves that it is not the pre-election or the post election propaganda that matters, it is what happens when Rightists get into power, that is where the problem lays. Which is why I don't debate their propaganda. |
|
