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.
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.
Careful, he might throw out his favorite buzzword "Fabian" on you if you keep it up.
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.