The constant spamming of low IQ racial collectivism is a fed op. Trying to slide the right into adopting leftist ideology is the point, for multiple reasons. Internally it derails actual right wing organization. Externally the goal is to destroy the image of the right and reinforce the horseshoe theory propaganda that is used to keep people from understanding reality.
The point of horseshoe theory is to both inprove the image of the left by claiming that the german socialists were right wing, when in reality all of WW2 was leftist power struggling. And also to make people who wpupd lean right believe the lie that both political sides are actually the same and there is no point in getting involved, when the real left and right are fundamentally different, and it is very obvious that leftism is evil.
Yes, and it doesn't matter if they're dual citizens in little hats or sad aging alky fucks with bad quality swastika tattoos (who the Reich would've sentenced to hard labor anyhow if they were around in those days).
Furthermore, I'm an atheist, and that sounds like a load of shit to me. Clearly there are different characteristics in different religions; some are supremacist, others are not.
But if you do respond again, you'll still dodge the question and argue about religion in general instead of specifically about individual people who think they are, literally, part of "God's chosen people," and are perfectly willing say it to your face.
What qualifies a religion as 'supremacist'? The whole point of religion is that you have something that others don't have. Catholics say that outside the church, there is no salvation. Calvinists call themselves 'the Elect', or at least hope that they're part of that group.
And Jews believe that they were chosen by God to reveal himself to the world. It beats me why God would decide to pick a barbaric Bronze Age tribe for his revelation, but that's just me. Generally, aside from a few whackjob rabbis, they don't believe this makes them better than anyone. Indeed, they are in a worse position because, in their believe, we have to obey only the laws of Noah, while they have to follow all the laws of Moses and the thousands of rules that rabbis added to it.
All collectivist leftists deserve the rope. "But this other group is doing thing you said is bad" yes, and they are retarded leftists. "We should also do it". No.
Go "reeee joos" at someone else faggot. I don't care. They're not special.
Racial collectivism isn't just stupid, it's actually more stupid than ethnic collectivism.
The only critique I would make to your analysis is that there is no "right". Ever since the term was defined among the anti-Jacobian coalition in the French Revolution, all it ever meant was "not among the Leftists".
There is only a Left and an Anti-Left. There is no other mechanism that would align militarists, theocrats, ancaps, monarchists, and classical liberals beyond that.
Collectivism is an evolutionary adaptation for survival. If you need it spelled out for you then you're really too dense to be opining on the subject and just have a suicidal moral framework.
Collectivism is not evolutionary, it's ideological.
Taking credit for someone else, and accepting blame for someone else, is not something you were evolved to do. It's a coping mechanism to your own weakness that is promoted by idealogues who are intentionally robbing you of that agency for their own benefit.
Confirming that you're too dense or ideologically motivated to be able to responsibly offer an opinion. I'm going with the latter in your case. You're not stupid, but you are actively committed to being wrong.
The only objective left right measure is the scale of government control, not the cultural flavoring. The far ends of the scale are anarchist as extreme right, and totalitarian as extreme left.
How are you defining ethnicity that it's noticeably different from race? Or are you going by the absurdly overgeneralized definition of "race" the wehraboos pretend to use? Where they mash a third of the globe into some generic "white".
I think your definition of the left-right measure makes non-Marxist, non-Hegelian, and non-Rousseauian descendent political systems as "politically Left", so I don't think it's really valid as a measuring tool.
I'm defining ethnicity different from race because they aren't really the same thing.
Race has two potential definitions: a) Explicitly biological sub-stratas of humans, b) the socio-political definition of a cultural super-strata. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, but are used interchangeably either by modern racialists, or early 20th century progressives.
As I've said in other places on this forum before, I tend to use J. G. Stoessenger's definition of how to define a nation, and break down it's stratifications from a political science perspective as follows; from bottom to top:
Individual
Family/Kin
Clan
Tribe
Ethnos
Nation
Religion
Racial category
(Please note that Nation is not the same as State, and is defined by a set series of characteristics, I won't go into yet)
From this, when I use the term "race", I use it in this sense, which is a particularly American sense. Race is a socio-political category which is cross-national, cross-state, cross-religion, and cross-cultural category denoting some population of people that share some observable physical distinction. "White", "Black", and "Asian" are considered races, and have very clearly observed physical distinctions (which is why they are literally color coded), but are extremely broad categories beyond that. "White" includes most ethnic groups in Europe, including Franks, English, Irish, Welsh, Danes, Swiss, Poles, Germans, etc. (For our sake let us say 'most' to avoid arguments about whether the Spanish, Syrians, or Albanians are "White"). We can have similar discussions about "Blacks" since Caribbean, American, South American, and African "Blacks" have very clearly demarcated ethnic groups. One of the most "diverse" countries in the world is Nigeria, where the country has 30 separate languages because of the isolation of each tribal society within the country. "Asian" is obviously the most grossly broad because it includes Sri Lankans, Japanese, Siberians, Mongolians, etc into one massive bloc. Strangely enough, "Asian" would make more sense kept broken up into "Yellow" and "Brown" to at least be consistent.
An Ethnos is a much smaller arrangement of people that both has genetic similarity, and also a shared culture, history, language, and self-identity. It is less genetically distinct than a Tribe, but more than a Nation. A good example would be the Welsh, as they are too distinct for a Nation, but far too large for a Tribe.
The constant spamming of low IQ racial collectivism is a fed op. Trying to slide the right into adopting leftist ideology is the point, for multiple reasons. Internally it derails actual right wing organization. Externally the goal is to destroy the image of the right and reinforce the horseshoe theory propaganda that is used to keep people from understanding reality.
The point of horseshoe theory is to both inprove the image of the left by claiming that the german socialists were right wing, when in reality all of WW2 was leftist power struggling. And also to make people who wpupd lean right believe the lie that both political sides are actually the same and there is no point in getting involved, when the real left and right are fundamentally different, and it is very obvious that leftism is evil.
Are groups who think they are "God's chosen people" following a collectivist ideology?
Historically, when people believe they have the Will of God, they commit atrocities as a group, sometimes with someone leading them, yes.
Yes, and it doesn't matter if they're dual citizens in little hats or sad aging alky fucks with bad quality swastika tattoos (who the Reich would've sentenced to hard labor anyhow if they were around in those days).
That is called a religion.
That didn't answer my question.
Furthermore, I'm an atheist, and that sounds like a load of shit to me. Clearly there are different characteristics in different religions; some are supremacist, others are not.
But if you do respond again, you'll still dodge the question and argue about religion in general instead of specifically about individual people who think they are, literally, part of "God's chosen people," and are perfectly willing say it to your face.
What qualifies a religion as 'supremacist'? The whole point of religion is that you have something that others don't have. Catholics say that outside the church, there is no salvation. Calvinists call themselves 'the Elect', or at least hope that they're part of that group.
And Jews believe that they were chosen by God to reveal himself to the world. It beats me why God would decide to pick a barbaric Bronze Age tribe for his revelation, but that's just me. Generally, aside from a few whackjob rabbis, they don't believe this makes them better than anyone. Indeed, they are in a worse position because, in their believe, we have to obey only the laws of Noah, while they have to follow all the laws of Moses and the thousands of rules that rabbis added to it.
😂😂😂
"Oh? My secular religion is religious? Hmm. Well then, is your religion religious? Checkmate, atheist."
All collectivist leftists deserve the rope. "But this other group is doing thing you said is bad" yes, and they are retarded leftists. "We should also do it". No.
Go "reeee joos" at someone else faggot. I don't care. They're not special.
Committed Jews are retarded leftists, you heard it here lol
Racial collectivism isn't just stupid, it's actually more stupid than ethnic collectivism.
The only critique I would make to your analysis is that there is no "right". Ever since the term was defined among the anti-Jacobian coalition in the French Revolution, all it ever meant was "not among the Leftists".
There is only a Left and an Anti-Left. There is no other mechanism that would align militarists, theocrats, ancaps, monarchists, and classical liberals beyond that.
Collectivism is an evolutionary adaptation for survival. If you need it spelled out for you then you're really too dense to be opining on the subject and just have a suicidal moral framework.
Oh no, not the dreaded Fabians, anything but that!
Collectivism is not evolutionary, it's ideological.
Taking credit for someone else, and accepting blame for someone else, is not something you were evolved to do. It's a coping mechanism to your own weakness that is promoted by idealogues who are intentionally robbing you of that agency for their own benefit.
Confirming that you're too dense or ideologically motivated to be able to responsibly offer an opinion. I'm going with the latter in your case. You're not stupid, but you are actively committed to being wrong.
The only objective left right measure is the scale of government control, not the cultural flavoring. The far ends of the scale are anarchist as extreme right, and totalitarian as extreme left.
How are you defining ethnicity that it's noticeably different from race? Or are you going by the absurdly overgeneralized definition of "race" the wehraboos pretend to use? Where they mash a third of the globe into some generic "white".
I think your definition of the left-right measure makes non-Marxist, non-Hegelian, and non-Rousseauian descendent political systems as "politically Left", so I don't think it's really valid as a measuring tool.
I'm defining ethnicity different from race because they aren't really the same thing.
Race has two potential definitions: a) Explicitly biological sub-stratas of humans, b) the socio-political definition of a cultural super-strata. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, but are used interchangeably either by modern racialists, or early 20th century progressives.
As I've said in other places on this forum before, I tend to use J. G. Stoessenger's definition of how to define a nation, and break down it's stratifications from a political science perspective as follows; from bottom to top:
(Please note that Nation is not the same as State, and is defined by a set series of characteristics, I won't go into yet)
From this, when I use the term "race", I use it in this sense, which is a particularly American sense. Race is a socio-political category which is cross-national, cross-state, cross-religion, and cross-cultural category denoting some population of people that share some observable physical distinction. "White", "Black", and "Asian" are considered races, and have very clearly observed physical distinctions (which is why they are literally color coded), but are extremely broad categories beyond that. "White" includes most ethnic groups in Europe, including Franks, English, Irish, Welsh, Danes, Swiss, Poles, Germans, etc. (For our sake let us say 'most' to avoid arguments about whether the Spanish, Syrians, or Albanians are "White"). We can have similar discussions about "Blacks" since Caribbean, American, South American, and African "Blacks" have very clearly demarcated ethnic groups. One of the most "diverse" countries in the world is Nigeria, where the country has 30 separate languages because of the isolation of each tribal society within the country. "Asian" is obviously the most grossly broad because it includes Sri Lankans, Japanese, Siberians, Mongolians, etc into one massive bloc. Strangely enough, "Asian" would make more sense kept broken up into "Yellow" and "Brown" to at least be consistent.
An Ethnos is a much smaller arrangement of people that both has genetic similarity, and also a shared culture, history, language, and self-identity. It is less genetically distinct than a Tribe, but more than a Nation. A good example would be the Welsh, as they are too distinct for a Nation, but far too large for a Tribe.