Nothing wrong with taking the good from either side and scrapping the bad from either side to form some sort of "center mix". I'm actually something of a centrist myself, that's why I advocate for absolute monarchy with a king who has been graced by God to rule. This is a very center position compared with the Pagan savages that think the leader should be whoever wields the biggest sword and beats the previous leader in mortal combat and the modern liberals that believe in the rule of a jewish oligarchy under the guise of democracy.
British royals have been Rothschild puppets for generations. The other guy is clearly talking about a monarch who can do monarch things and isn't just a tourist attraction. Also, they should be the same blood as the nation they rule and taught from birth to feel a kinship with their subjects, unlike the German Windsors the English have on their throne. .
Every country in the West has been subverted. Regardless of what form of government they claim to be, all of them are currently socialist oligarchies with their own flavors of deep state holding the real power from behind the curtains.
Considering what books they burned and the whole nationalism vs globalism thing, no. This is something new and we don't really have an agreed upon name for it yet. I've seen it called things like corporatocracy or corporate communism, but people can't seem to agree on a label for the amorphous blob behind the curtains.
Well, if Queen Elizabeth had actually taken a center role in maintaining British traditions and decency, would the UK have fallen as far down as it has? They would have never joined the EU to begin with.
We fight it in the bedroom or we fight it in the classroom. The previous half century has proven that "live and let live" was always a ruse to create a justification for complacency.
They are people who let leftists define their position. All a leftist has to do to make a centrist change his position is to adopt an even more extreme position, creating the inevitable march left.
But these are both on the Authoritarian end of the spectrum. The opposite would be Liberty.
I'm a centrist in this case, because "anarchy" isn't so much a "political system" as it is a transitional situation. Eventually, whoever has the most effective weapons will decide what sort of government there will be. You need rules and structure (Every social animal has this) but not so many that it chokes the life out of people and you can't let humans rape the fuck out of nature either.
In fact, I think what is happening in the West is orchestrated to make a mockery of Liberty, as a way of showing how shitty humans are when the yoke of Law and Order is lifted too much ... as an eventual excuse to slam that yoke on and put a lock on it forevermore.
If? Things already have gone too far. Leftists have taken over pretty much all of our institutions in the West and centrists are still saying not to do anything drastic.
I'm not one of those, I'm one that knows drastic shit is coming up, and needs to. The thing is, we need that one "shot heard 'round the world" that starts a revolution all across the West.
Just hope it doesn't end in full-blown Shariah just to spite the fucking freakazoids.
The gay commies have conflated true Liberty, which is the individual freedom to choose how to best serve God, with licentiousness.
The "freedom" to be a drug addict, or single mother, or harlot, or sodomite, or sleep in a public park, or defecate in the street, is a cost that is paid for by the decline in the quality of life for the normal and decent people of society.
Is it centrism because you are too scared to take a committed stance on something you know is an issue but picking a side might incur social consequences?
Or is it centrism because you don't take every single detail of your "side's" ideology leading to you ending up closer to center in some conversations due to the sheer balancing effect it has?
People love to devalue the word centrist when they want to call someone a fucking coward, but are in fact too cowardly themselves to be confrontational about it. Which is how you lead to it being an empty word used like the above.
I don't really ascribe to any, well I'm definitely not a leftist (too many moral reasons nowadays for me to even be near them) but disagree on the right with having morality as a limiter in tactics and not a centrist in that 'both sides are just as bad' mentality.
I'm of the fundamental position that the vast majority of humanity CANNOT govern themselves, the need a rigid set of rules and punishment from a higher authority to keep them in line. The problem is that it keeps getting destroyed after on regime falters than having it evolve which leads to an extreme reaction (Nazis was as much a reaction to the depravity of the Weiner Republic as the economic deprivation after the war). You need religion and strong authority to enforce order and for the latter your probably best using robots and AI given how corruptible those authorities are.
Do I see myself as an exception to that, yeah of course, I have an inner dialogue that regularly reminds me I'm not an MC just another human that keeps me in line, looking at social media there's a HUGE amount of what I like to call 'Main character syndrome'
Basically my conclusion as well - liberalism for me, authoritarianism for thee. You fundamentally cannot have a stable society where half the populace needs active enforcement to not engage in wanton rape and murder.
Centrism is just being cucked. You let others decided your opinions for you and become more tolerant of extreme positions. It's like saying that lockdowns were acceptable because the opposite is somehow just as bad.
If you think centrism exists then you are still beholden to last century's social conditioning.
There is no political compass, there is a political vector. The origin is normalcy and the further from the center you go in any direction is degeneracy.
Your position is determined by how far away from the origin you think there should be social sanctions and how far you think should be legal sanctions.
The "economic question" is a distraction that those who want to push the boundaries use to prevent more normal people from uniting against them.
This. Disregarding all else the fact that the majority of people believe in the idea of a "political compass" and cannot imagine any other view or stance that does not fit into that model is a huge problem
I agree with some here that there's a difference between a fence sitter and someone who sees a path between extremes.
I will say that defining your position as being between two (or more) other positions is weaker than having your own position, but the centrist mindset can be valuable, in that it represents a willingness to reject dogma and peer pressure, and judge individual issues on their own merits. Besides, centrists are so universally maligned it probably takes some courage to identify as one.
Still, centrism can be nothing more than a cowardly lack of commitment, or a thoughtless, surface-level understanding of political issues.
So I suppose my opinion on centrism depends on where the centrism comes from - whether it's informed and principled centrism versus a lazy or cowardly take on Current Issue. The former is valuable, the latter is not.
"extreme" is a pejorative that is almost always defined as "someone who doesn't agree with me" and in modern times is defined as "someone who effectively resists the gay commie agenda"
I'm a right winger, not a centrist, but I see myself as a classic or traditional Americanist. The online right is still on social media, which rewards swinging for the fences and disincentivizes contemplation. As always, the best example is Hitler. There is no attempt to make a serious argument that Hitler was a good guy, just endless posts by implication that Hitler was a good guy because he was a backlash to the Weimar and Jews. Similarly, six gorillion memes take the place of Holocaust discussion.
I have been guilty of this as much as the next guy here, but I try to follow up by reasoning out my position.
At some level, I think this happens because it's actually safer to use extreme rhetoric, which comes with a level of plausible deniability, than to construct a serious post. Also, this is a weightless discussion space where no proposal directly affects reality.
If you believe in things like sovereign borders, non-usury, or nuclear families you're not a centrist, you're an extreme far right reactionary who's literally killing black people.
In practice "centrist" means "non-zealous leftist" because leftists want to win and centrists just want to live. It's like libertarianism where it might work out if you don't have the existential threat of leftists to deal with and you can spend time debating the merits of tax cuts or homeschooling curriculum or whatever.
The concept of a strict Left-Right political spectrum is utter garbage given how many different ideologies have come into existence after the creation of the printing press. The Political Compass works slightly better trying to split it by both social control and economic control, because at its core the operation of government is predicated on how much you want to your fellow man to lose his natural rights. (The website itself has its own biases but the concept of a political square makes more sense than a statist-anarchist dichotomy) However, good luck getting the average person to mentally visualize and remind themselves of such a concept when debates get intense or inflammatory. Binary choice is the easiest for humans to interpret and accept under stress (fundamental physics is kind of binary too), so they prefer that over anything else.
Even so, those conflating disagreement with both sides as being pro-leftist or pro-rightist, don't seem to believe in Horseshoe theory either (a theory easily solved by the Political Compass square). They could be authoritarians in their own bullshit, just have deluded themselves into believing they're not. Some of the way users talk here about is the same as the way I've seen extreme leftists talk "centrist/third part position is letting the right-wing Nazis win"
Add: Another issue is that society has drifted so far that we're stuck debating issues that used to be fundamentally agreed upon with natural conclusions. Issues where you should have significantly different opinions are ancillary. The problem is that ancillary issues are conflated with fundamental issues, so it's far more likely you'll get flagged as being the enemy when discussing ancillary ones.
Nazis were and are socialists. Horseshoe theory is retarded and implying that nazis are right wing makes you look stupid. That entire theory is just propaganda to allow the left to attempt to shift the burden of leftist atrocity, to claim that "both sides are bad".
Extreme right wing ideology does not loop back around the scale to become totalitarian leftism. Extreme right wing ideology is anarchy. The right are anti-government.
Back in the 30s they were called "3rd position" because they explicitly rejected the left-right false dichotomy and took some bits from both.
Of course, there are a lot more than three positions, but the people who profit from tricking the masses into seeing everything as left team vs right team don't want you thinking about that.
Except they're not some bullshit imaginary third position. They're spicy leftists. They fit the actual political scale from anarchist to totalitarian just fine, on the left, next to the communists, with whom they share many positions.
The only difference between the two groups is who they would target first. You are the one pretending a socialist dictatorship is made of magic and dreams, unbound from observable reality. It's not "third position". It's the same goddamned cancer that would have the founders baying for their blood.
The american right is not retarded eurotrash that just wants to be stepped on by a boot that targets people they don't like first. We are the descendants of those who would not be ruled.
Your "third position" horseshit is literally an empty fluff propaganda line.
Not only are you thoroughly missing the point, but now you're throwing strawmen at me. Fun. And you still think there's two groups? More like two illusions the uniparty presents to give the illusion of choice.
Nothing wrong with taking the good from either side and scrapping the bad from either side to form some sort of "center mix". I'm actually something of a centrist myself, that's why I advocate for absolute monarchy with a king who has been graced by God to rule. This is a very center position compared with the Pagan savages that think the leader should be whoever wields the biggest sword and beats the previous leader in mortal combat and the modern liberals that believe in the rule of a jewish oligarchy under the guise of democracy.
I shudder at the thought of the British royals in charge of everything.
British royals have been Rothschild puppets for generations. The other guy is clearly talking about a monarch who can do monarch things and isn't just a tourist attraction. Also, they should be the same blood as the nation they rule and taught from birth to feel a kinship with their subjects, unlike the German Windsors the English have on their throne. .
"That wasn't REAL communism...err...Monarchy"
Every country in the West has been subverted. Regardless of what form of government they claim to be, all of them are currently socialist oligarchies with their own flavors of deep state holding the real power from behind the curtains.
You mean Fascism?
Considering what books they burned and the whole nationalism vs globalism thing, no. This is something new and we don't really have an agreed upon name for it yet. I've seen it called things like corporatocracy or corporate communism, but people can't seem to agree on a label for the amorphous blob behind the curtains.
Some call our situation a kakistocracy
If the actual rulers are a banking cabal then yes, by definition. That's called a satrapy.
Well, if Queen Elizabeth had actually taken a center role in maintaining British traditions and decency, would the UK have fallen as far down as it has? They would have never joined the EU to begin with.
The Queen was a well known EU supporter.
If she'd been in charge and if the British prime ministers hadn't been so incompetent, would she still have supported it?
Yes.
Evidence: She's a woman.
maintaining an existing monarchy is based but establishing a new monarchy is going to be questionable
Centrism is usually just liberalism.
I have yet to find a "classical liberal" who doesn't think homos should be allowed to buy babies.
Some of them are homos who want to buy babies.
Classical liberal appears to be code for "I believe sodomy is a human right"
Tolerating private homosexuality is not the same as elevating homos to demigod status.
We fight it in the bedroom or we fight it in the classroom. The previous half century has proven that "live and let live" was always a ruse to create a justification for complacency.
"We fight them over there or we fight them over here."
Actual fucking neocon mentality.
instead it's "we fight them over there AND over here"
They are people who let leftists define their position. All a leftist has to do to make a centrist change his position is to adopt an even more extreme position, creating the inevitable march left.
Does this not account for the existence of Portland, Oregon?
But these are both on the Authoritarian end of the spectrum. The opposite would be Liberty.
I'm a centrist in this case, because "anarchy" isn't so much a "political system" as it is a transitional situation. Eventually, whoever has the most effective weapons will decide what sort of government there will be. You need rules and structure (Every social animal has this) but not so many that it chokes the life out of people and you can't let humans rape the fuck out of nature either.
In fact, I think what is happening in the West is orchestrated to make a mockery of Liberty, as a way of showing how shitty humans are when the yoke of Law and Order is lifted too much ... as an eventual excuse to slam that yoke on and put a lock on it forevermore.
Classic centrist.
“The real danger is the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction!”
As communists control every institution in the west lol
Surely, comrades, you do not want Jones back?
Well, that's the thing. If one allows things to go too far one way or another, then extraordinary measures are needed to correct things again.
If? Things already have gone too far. Leftists have taken over pretty much all of our institutions in the West and centrists are still saying not to do anything drastic.
I'm not one of those, I'm one that knows drastic shit is coming up, and needs to. The thing is, we need that one "shot heard 'round the world" that starts a revolution all across the West.
Just hope it doesn't end in full-blown Shariah just to spite the fucking freakazoids.
The gay commies have conflated true Liberty, which is the individual freedom to choose how to best serve God, with licentiousness.
The "freedom" to be a drug addict, or single mother, or harlot, or sodomite, or sleep in a public park, or defecate in the street, is a cost that is paid for by the decline in the quality of life for the normal and decent people of society.
Well it depends.
Is it centrism because you are too scared to take a committed stance on something you know is an issue but picking a side might incur social consequences?
Or is it centrism because you don't take every single detail of your "side's" ideology leading to you ending up closer to center in some conversations due to the sheer balancing effect it has?
People love to devalue the word centrist when they want to call someone a fucking coward, but are in fact too cowardly themselves to be confrontational about it. Which is how you lead to it being an empty word used like the above.
Two words: Fence-Sitter
I have never met a so-called centrist who was not simply a 2010 progressive Atheist who enjoys Sam Harris and Destiny.
I don't really ascribe to any, well I'm definitely not a leftist (too many moral reasons nowadays for me to even be near them) but disagree on the right with having morality as a limiter in tactics and not a centrist in that 'both sides are just as bad' mentality.
I'm of the fundamental position that the vast majority of humanity CANNOT govern themselves, the need a rigid set of rules and punishment from a higher authority to keep them in line. The problem is that it keeps getting destroyed after on regime falters than having it evolve which leads to an extreme reaction (Nazis was as much a reaction to the depravity of the Weiner Republic as the economic deprivation after the war). You need religion and strong authority to enforce order and for the latter your probably best using robots and AI given how corruptible those authorities are.
Do I see myself as an exception to that, yeah of course, I have an inner dialogue that regularly reminds me I'm not an MC just another human that keeps me in line, looking at social media there's a HUGE amount of what I like to call 'Main character syndrome'
Basically my conclusion as well - liberalism for me, authoritarianism for thee. You fundamentally cannot have a stable society where half the populace needs active enforcement to not engage in wanton rape and murder.
The human species in generael suffers from "Main Character Syndrome".
Centrism is just being cucked. You let others decided your opinions for you and become more tolerant of extreme positions. It's like saying that lockdowns were acceptable because the opposite is somehow just as bad.
dead...💀
Technically, if I outflank both of them, I still average out to Centrism.
Centrism is a lack of conviction.
If you think centrism exists then you are still beholden to last century's social conditioning.
There is no political compass, there is a political vector. The origin is normalcy and the further from the center you go in any direction is degeneracy.
Your position is determined by how far away from the origin you think there should be social sanctions and how far you think should be legal sanctions.
The "economic question" is a distraction that those who want to push the boundaries use to prevent more normal people from uniting against them.
This. Disregarding all else the fact that the majority of people believe in the idea of a "political compass" and cannot imagine any other view or stance that does not fit into that model is a huge problem
I agree with some here that there's a difference between a fence sitter and someone who sees a path between extremes.
I will say that defining your position as being between two (or more) other positions is weaker than having your own position, but the centrist mindset can be valuable, in that it represents a willingness to reject dogma and peer pressure, and judge individual issues on their own merits. Besides, centrists are so universally maligned it probably takes some courage to identify as one.
Still, centrism can be nothing more than a cowardly lack of commitment, or a thoughtless, surface-level understanding of political issues.
So I suppose my opinion on centrism depends on where the centrism comes from - whether it's informed and principled centrism versus a lazy or cowardly take on Current Issue. The former is valuable, the latter is not.
"extreme" is a pejorative that is almost always defined as "someone who doesn't agree with me" and in modern times is defined as "someone who effectively resists the gay commie agenda"
Yes, but it's also a word to describe the opposing ends of a spectrum, which is pretty apt in this case.
nazism and communism are the same end of the spectrum, though.
Centrism is the gateway to compliance. Full-stop.
Centrists are people who will always find fault with the people in power. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm a right winger, not a centrist, but I see myself as a classic or traditional Americanist. The online right is still on social media, which rewards swinging for the fences and disincentivizes contemplation. As always, the best example is Hitler. There is no attempt to make a serious argument that Hitler was a good guy, just endless posts by implication that Hitler was a good guy because he was a backlash to the Weimar and Jews. Similarly, six gorillion memes take the place of Holocaust discussion.
I have been guilty of this as much as the next guy here, but I try to follow up by reasoning out my position.
At some level, I think this happens because it's actually safer to use extreme rhetoric, which comes with a level of plausible deniability, than to construct a serious post. Also, this is a weightless discussion space where no proposal directly affects reality.
If you believe in things like sovereign borders, non-usury, or nuclear families you're not a centrist, you're an extreme far right reactionary who's literally killing black people.
In practice "centrist" means "non-zealous leftist" because leftists want to win and centrists just want to live. It's like libertarianism where it might work out if you don't have the existential threat of leftists to deal with and you can spend time debating the merits of tax cuts or homeschooling curriculum or whatever.
It's just another label to try to put people into boxes, so one can know how to treat them. Tribalism.
tribalism is a good thing
only those who want to weaken your tribe say it isn't
Demarchy for me
The concept of a strict Left-Right political spectrum is utter garbage given how many different ideologies have come into existence after the creation of the printing press. The Political Compass works slightly better trying to split it by both social control and economic control, because at its core the operation of government is predicated on how much you want to your fellow man to lose his natural rights. (The website itself has its own biases but the concept of a political square makes more sense than a statist-anarchist dichotomy) However, good luck getting the average person to mentally visualize and remind themselves of such a concept when debates get intense or inflammatory. Binary choice is the easiest for humans to interpret and accept under stress (fundamental physics is kind of binary too), so they prefer that over anything else.
Even so, those conflating disagreement with both sides as being pro-leftist or pro-rightist, don't seem to believe in Horseshoe theory either (a theory easily solved by the Political Compass square). They could be authoritarians in their own bullshit, just have deluded themselves into believing they're not. Some of the way users talk here about is the same as the way I've seen extreme leftists talk "centrist/third part position is letting the right-wing Nazis win"
Add: Another issue is that society has drifted so far that we're stuck debating issues that used to be fundamentally agreed upon with natural conclusions. Issues where you should have significantly different opinions are ancillary. The problem is that ancillary issues are conflated with fundamental issues, so it's far more likely you'll get flagged as being the enemy when discussing ancillary ones.
Nazis were and are socialists. Horseshoe theory is retarded and implying that nazis are right wing makes you look stupid. That entire theory is just propaganda to allow the left to attempt to shift the burden of leftist atrocity, to claim that "both sides are bad".
Extreme right wing ideology does not loop back around the scale to become totalitarian leftism. Extreme right wing ideology is anarchy. The right are anti-government.
Back in the 30s they were called "3rd position" because they explicitly rejected the left-right false dichotomy and took some bits from both.
Of course, there are a lot more than three positions, but the people who profit from tricking the masses into seeing everything as left team vs right team don't want you thinking about that.
Except they're not some bullshit imaginary third position. They're spicy leftists. They fit the actual political scale from anarchist to totalitarian just fine, on the left, next to the communists, with whom they share many positions.
You're still stuck in the one dimensional false dichotomy, just like the uniparty wants you to be.
The only difference between the two groups is who they would target first. You are the one pretending a socialist dictatorship is made of magic and dreams, unbound from observable reality. It's not "third position". It's the same goddamned cancer that would have the founders baying for their blood.
The american right is not retarded eurotrash that just wants to be stepped on by a boot that targets people they don't like first. We are the descendants of those who would not be ruled.
Your "third position" horseshit is literally an empty fluff propaganda line.
Not only are you thoroughly missing the point, but now you're throwing strawmen at me. Fun. And you still think there's two groups? More like two illusions the uniparty presents to give the illusion of choice.
Perish, goon.