what should we do about our embaressing nazis?

[version]

BTW, the hatred for radical right stems from the fact that it's the only political movement the system cannot incorporate within itself. I mean, it's fashionable and normal to display the symbols of radical left, sickles and hammer, Lenin t-shirt - whatever, it threatens nobody. But why can't you do that with symbols and personalities of radical right? After all, communism killed many more people that all the rightists combined? So why is it that the system can neuter the one but not the other? People should linger on this dangerous thought.
That "CaPiTalist aRe FaSCistS", "fascism is capitalism in decay" is one of the funniest things ever as far as its remoteness from reality is concerned.

P.S. I'm not saying it should be incorporated, but it has nothing to do with morality. I mean if you're a NPC nobody, a man on the street or whatever you see it in those terms of course, but from elites point of view it's something else

The obvious answer is because the radical left have been incredibly weak since the end of the Cold War whereas the radical right have gotten stronger. The system wasn't particularly keen on incorporating the former back then, but was perfectly happy to work with the latter, albeit covertly.

Incorporation into the system fluctuates according to which extreme's in the ascendancy.

 

[germaphobian]

The obvious answer is because the radical left have been incredibly weak since the end of the Cold War whereas the radical right have gotten stronger. The system wasn't particularly keen on incorporating the former back then, but was perfectly happy to work with the latter, albeit covertly.

Incorporation into the system fluctuates according to which extreme's in the ascendancy.

So you basically agree that the modern left, the ones we have today, are stooges of the system?

 

[version]

So you basically agree that the modern left, the ones we have today, are stooges of the system?

It varies from country to country, but in the US and UK? Yeah, more or less. We've talked about it on here before.

That being said, the system will ultimately side with the radical right and not the radical left because the latter represent the greater threat to private property. We saw this a few weeks back in France when it was reported that corporate figures were lining up behind Le Pen as they were more frightened by the left's tax policies than anything she was proposing.

 

[thirdform]

The obvious answer is because the radical left have been incredibly weak since the end of the Cold War whereas the radical right have gotten stronger. The system wasn't particularly keen on incorporating the former back then, but was perfectly happy to work with the latter, albeit covertly.

Incorporation into the system fluctuates according to which extreme's in the ascendancy.

the radical right are dead. a true radical right would have to return to tradition, not in the Hegelian sense of sublation (modern american economic conservatism) but in the antiquated aristotelian sense of negation-as-negation and back to the primary affirmation. This is what I was trying to explain to biscuits but hes too thicko to understand dead white men and needs a brown(er) skinned degenerate to explain it to him.

In this sense Trump is much more of an opportunistic neoliberal (economic conservative) than being a Mary Whitehouse like figure. In fact Americans have no real foundation for proper conservatism a la Michael Oakeshott, which requires the religiously grounded organic community. In America, religious observence is inextricably linked with the prosperity of the country and the American people, whereas, in Europe and the UK, historically speaking, it was quite different.

 

[version]

the radical right are dead. a true radical right would have to return to tradition, not in the Hegelian sense of sublation (modern american economic conservatism) but in the antiquated aristotelian sense of negation-as-negation and back to the primary affirmation. This is what I was trying to explain to biscuits but hes too thicko to understand dead white men and needs a brown(er) skinned degenerate to explain it to him.

In this sense Trump is much more of an opportunistic neoliberal economic conservative than being a Mary Whitehouse like figure. In fact Americans have no real foundation for proper conservatism, which requires the religiously dominant organic community.

I didn't mention Trump.

 

[thirdform]

I didn't mention Trump.

Didn't say you did. But the radical/far right both in the UK and US are parodies of what is necessary to take power. for different reasons, but they converge at the same centre.

 

[version]

Didn't say you did. But the radical/far right both in the UK and US are parodies of what is necessary to take power. for different reasons, but they converge at the same centre.

Is there a current political faction you don't consider a parody?

 

[Mr. Tea]

That being said, the system will ultimately side with the radical right and not the radical left because the latter represent the greater threat to private property. We saw this a few weeks back in France when it was reported that corporate figures were lining up behind Le Pen as they were more frightened by the left's tax policies than anything she was proposing.

It was just the same in Germany 90 years ago. People who made lots of money and whose main agenda was to keep making lots of money, and who may not have been any more reactionary than the next person*, preferred fascism as a mildly revolutionary alternative to radical socialism, because that actually did threaten the economic status quo.

*that said, in the present case you've got shitheads likes Musk, Thiel and so on who not only want to keep raking it in but are also committed right-wing ideologues

 

[Mr. Tea]

In this sense Trump is much more of an opportunistic neoliberal (economic conservative) than being a Mary Whitehouse like figure.

Isn't it clear that Trump, personally, has no ideology at all, beyond promoting and enriching himself and his immediate family? I bet if it came to his attention that >50% of his supporters were Flat Earthers, he'd start publicly supporting that, too. Or at least, dropping enough dark hints about NASA's role in the "deep state" that he could conceivably be thought of as supporting it.

 

[thirdform]

Is there a current political faction you don't consider a parody?

leftists aren't parodic, they are conformist and also dying but not parodic. same with centre rightists. the far right is parodic because it tries to use the old language of tradition, family and property even when the phenomena such language corresponds to is no longer extant.

 

[thirdform]

Isn't it clear that Trump, personally, has no ideology at all, beyond promoting and enriching himself and his immediate family? I bet if it came to his attention that >50% of his supporters were Flat Earthers, he'd start publicly supporting that, too. Or at least, dropping enough dark hints about NASA's role in the "deep state" that he could conceivably be thought of as supporting it.

right but that's where lies his appeal, the cynical antipolitician. Farage could be the same in the UK but he always tends to pick the wrong types of opportunists, he needs to court ruthless stockbrokers, bankers etc.

 

[dilbert1]

the far right is parodic because it tries to use the old language of tradition, family and property even when the phenomena such language corresponds to is no longer extant.

The left does the same thing with different signifiers, and both do so while in substance more or less conforming to the status quo

 

[thirdform]

The left does the same thing with different signifiers, and both do so while in substance more or less conforming to the status quo

I'm not sure if I entirely agree for the left. There is a danger of making the contradiction too symetrical here. What the left does is conflate state capitalist nationalisation etc etc with socialism (which as you are right, serves the status quo and indicates their exhausted potentials) but that's different to invoking a return to the organic community where landed property predominates.

 

[Mr. Tea]

right but that's where lies his appeal, the cynical antipolitician. Farage could be the same in the UK but he always tends to pick the wrong types of opportunists, he needs to court ruthless stockbrokers, bankers etc.

You can say that about Trump because you're not American and have some sort of a brain, but I think most of the people who voted for him, and will vote for him in November, genuinely think he's the last bastion of decent, Christian America.

As for Farage and stockbrokers etc., he was one himself before going into politics, and he's supported by guys like Richard Tice, Arron Banks, Crispin Odey, all of who work or have worked in the financial world and are worth a few bob. Probably they're each worth tens or hundreds of millions rather than multiple billions like their US counterparts, but the principle is just the same.

 

[thirdform]

thus the radical/far right defends the superannuated and no longer possible, whereas the left narrows its horizon.

 

[thirdform]

As for Farage and stockbrokers etc., he was one himself before going into politics, and he's supported by guys like Richard Tice, Arron Banks, Crispin Odey, all of who work or have worked in the financial world and are worth a few bob. Probably they're each worth tens or hundreds of millions rather than multiple billions like their US counterparts, but the principle is just the same.

correct, which is why I am interested where reform UK will go. I was listening to mr benyamin naeem habib last friday on James Whale and he was really bigging up his Pakistani roots. If they can court the conservative asian vote it would be a huge coup for them, but I think they are too hamstrung by the disintegration of the UK two party political system to really capitalise on it.

 

[dilbert1]

I'm not sure if I entirely agree for the left. There is a danger of making the contradiction too symetrical here. What the left does is conflate state capitalist nationalisation etc etc with socialism (which as you are right, serves the status quo and indicates their exhausted potentials) but that's different to invoking a return to the organic community where landed property predominates.

I agree its not symmetrical. But its not only statism. Tiqqun’s appeals to “organic community” in that ravers essay isn’t far off. The evergreen romance with criminality, guerrilla warfare and terror is relevant too, as Cutrone pointed out in that Palestine essay I posted

Today’s “Left” are a parody side-show of capitalist gangsterism, cheerleading the slaughter.

 

[Mr. Tea]

The evergreen romance with criminality, guerrilla warfare and terror is relevant too, as Cutrone pointed out in that Palestine essay I posted

Is the criminality thing part of why this guy's so keen on Trump, do you think?

 

[thirdform]

I agree its not symmetrical. But its not only statism. Tiqqun’s appeals to “organic community” in that ravers essay isn’t far off. The evergreen romance with criminality, guerrilla warfare and terror is relevant too, as Cutrone pointed out in that Palestine essay I posted

Sure, but I think the difference here is noone in politics-proper takes the left seriously on either hamas or much less the organicism of tiqqun. whereas the entire media and punditry always give the fringe anti-immigrant right (at least in Britain) the benefit of the doubt. Noone tells them that what they want is impossible, because they aren't there to grow or serve as gendarme, they merely serve as a cocoon of the actual crisis shaking politics to the core, I.E: the death of democracy.

 

[dilbert1]

Is the criminality thing part of why this guy's so keen on Trump, do you think?

Real gangstas > wannabe gangstas