Post: #1

Both extremes are what's causing us to divide instead of work out practical solutions for whats really essential instead of fighting over what is not, so much.

Post: #2

What are some "extreme" beliefs of the "radical right" that are keeping us from what's "really essential"?

Any time someone starts talking in these airy terms I start thinking they're trying to con me. Especially when they pull the "the right and left are equally bad!" bullshit.

Post: #3

(04-04-2017 02:19 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  What are some "extreme" beliefs of the "radical right" that are keeping us from what's "really essential"?

Any time someone starts talking in these airy terms I start thinking they're trying to con me. Especially when they pull the "the right and left are equally bad!" bullshit.

I haven't listened to this yet, but remember that Peterson speaks as a psychologist, and very often analyzes people in terms of the Big Five personality traits, and he may be speaking in general and historic terms rather than addressing the current situation. He may well be thinking of leftists and people on the right throughout history, not just of today.

Also, remember that he is currently being attacked by SJW mobs online and everywhere he goes and knows as well as anyone how bad the left can be.

From what I have heard from his other talks, his idea is that people on the left tend to be high in openness and low in conscientiousness, and people on the right are the reverse, and his overall point in many of his talks is that you need both kinds of people to have a healthy society.

He has given examples in business, where the high openness, low conscientiousness lefties are great at creating new businesses, but suck at keeping them running, whereas the right leaning types aren't so hot at coming up with new ideas, but are great at running companies which requires conscientiousness as well as industriousness, which is a form of conscientiousness.

So even though you are right in condemning the fatuous "both sides" argument, I would be surprised if Peterson hasn't thought about this issue a little more deeply than that.

Also, note to OP, we already have a thread addressing the ideas of Peterson, and it might not be a bad idea to keep them all in one place.

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-61725.html

Post: #4

(04-04-2017 02:51 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(04-04-2017 02:19 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  What are some "extreme" beliefs of the "radical right" that are keeping us from what's "really essential"?

Any time someone starts talking in these airy terms I start thinking they're trying to con me. Especially when they pull the "the right and left are equally bad!" bullshit.

I haven't listened to this yet, but remember that Peterson speaks as a psychologist, and very often analyzes people in terms of the Big Five personality traits, and he may be speaking in general and historic terms rather than addressing the current situation. He may well be thinking of leftists and people on the right throughout history, not just of today.

Also, remember that he is currently being attacked by SJW mobs online and everywhere he goes and knows as well as anyone how bad the left can be.

From what I have heard from his other talks, his idea is that people on the left tend to be high in openness and low in conscientiousness, and people on the right are the reverse, and his overall point in many of his talks is that you need both kinds of people to have a healthy society.

He has given examples in business, where the high openness, low conscientiousness lefties are great at creating new businesses, but suck at keeping them running, whereas the right leaning types aren't so hot at coming up with new ideas, but are great at running companies which requires conscientiousness as well as industriousness, which is a form of conscientiousness.

So even though you are right in condemning the fatuous "both sides" argument, I would be surprised if Peterson hasn't thought about this issue a little more deeply than that.

Also, note to OP, we already have a thread addressing the ideas of Peterson, and it might not be a bad idea to keep them all in one place.

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-61725.html

We've moved beyond the paradigm you describe. The term "extreme right" is now used to refer to any and every white person who isn't loudly morally preening about his own coming eradication.

I don't put much stock in this "big five personality trait" psychobabble and its relationship with political beliefs, but what I can tell you is that anytime prior to WWII, even those on the most extreme "open" end of the spectrum would fall under today's definition of "far right," simply by virtue of not having been brainwashed to be happy at the prospect of their own dispossession. Today's "extreme right" is not part of the problem, or if it is, it's because it's not "extreme" enough. You would kinda think being invaded by savages and controlled by a hostile elite should engender a stronger response than mean words and dank memes.

Post: #5

I guess the "radical right" would be described as Timothy McVeigh, that shitty Kansas church, or the KKK. But their numbers are a mere fraction of the radical left and are far less active. OP is in faggot territory.

Post: #6

Thanks for pointing me to JP thread - I've posted his videos before but that thread seems recent.

PS: This thread is not so much about JP, but about going beyond the LEFT & the RIGHT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_left_and_right
"The term “beyond left and right” refers to any political position, ideology, party or movement that refuses to be classified on the conventional left–right political spectrum."

The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.
- Garry Kasparov | ‏@Kasparov63

The second you are attached to a Labeled side, your ability to perceive the truth is hampered.

A Buddha, remains unattached but AWARE of how and what are the Underlying currents and Motivations of all.. As I'd hope a Chess Master is.. in being aware of all the chess pieces.. as well as .. HIS OWN BIASES..

Post: #7

The concept of "locking" people down with labels and attributes attached to a certain flavor of left/ right or whatever else ideological Bundle is flawed.

Unbundle, Unlabel and Be aware, Cognizant and Mindful, Sharp, Ruthless, Yet Kind & Compassionate, Diplomatic when needed.. yet be "beyond the labels".. A Buddha or Enlightened one would know when to do what and what to be How..

I'm all for womens rights, but the Femi-nazis dont need them, the poor women in villages in africa do.

Nothing is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH - because time, place and context will change and point out the holes in it.

Post: #8

(04-04-2017 04:27 PM)xmlenigma Wrote:  Thanks for pointing me to JP thread - I've posted his videos before but that thread seems recent.

PS: This thread is not so much about JP, but about going beyond the LEFT & the RIGHT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_left_and_right
"The term “beyond left and right” refers to any political position, ideology, party or movement that refuses to be classified on the conventional left–right political spectrum."

I have no idea what this means, or why a position that can't be classified on a left-right political spectrum would be better than one that can.

Quote:The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.
- Garry Kasparov | ‏@Kasparov63

A Buddha, remains unattached but AWARE of how and what are the Underlying currents and Motivations of all.. As I'd hope a Chess Master is.. in being aware of all the chess pieces.. as well as .. HIS OWN BIASES..

This is just another random appeal to authority. Kasparov is well-known for his hate boner against Putin, so the idea that his skill at chess makes him some kind of buddha is goofy. Chess people are good at chess. They're not super-geniuses who dwell in a mental universe beyond our ken.

Quote:The second you are attached to a Labeled side, your ability to perceive the truth is hampered.

This doesn't logically follow in the slightest.


This all sounds very nice and pleasant, in an intellectually flattering, "I'm smarter than all those dummies on the left and right because I see how both sides are wrong", kind of way, but you haven't provided a single example of a problem where "going beyond the left and right" offers any kind of new or interesting insight. Can you provide some concrete examples?

Post: #9

(04-04-2017 03:21 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  We've moved beyond the paradigm you describe. The term "extreme right" is now used to refer to any and every white person who isn't loudly morally preening about his own coming eradication.

I never used the term extreme right, and as I said, Peterson is a psychologist and is more concerned with why than what, and is looking at things from a historical context too.

Quote:I don't put much stock in this "big five personality trait" psychobabble and its relationship with political beliefs, but what I can tell you is that anytime prior to WWII, even those on the most extreme "open" end of the spectrum would fall under today's definition of "far right," simply by virtue of not having been brainwashed to be happy at the prospect of their own dispossession.

I am not an expert on the Big Five inventory, though from what I do know, it is considered by psychologists like Peterson to be very accurate and predictive across cultures, unlike most other types of psychometric typology. The point is that temperament has a relationship to politics. I don't see how this idea can be foreign to you.

You are still speaking of the current insane feral SJW left that, historically speaking is only a blip on the screen.

Quote:Today's "extreme right" is not part of the problem, or if it is, it's because it's not "extreme" enough. You would kinda think being invaded by savages and controlled by a hostile elite should engender a stronger response than mean words and dank memes.

I was only trying to provide an intellectual context, that is, Peterson's other areas of research, which includes the nature of evil, clinical psychology, and a good grasp of history, in order to prevent his ideas from being over simplified and misconstrued.

Also, I don't think Peterson is big on dank memes. He is a serious academic. I don't understand how what you are saying applies to him, even if you disagree with his ideas.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I haven't listened to this yet, and am not getting into a debate about it until I do. If you have listened to it, you are ahead of me there. If not, you are reiterating something that is well established and accepted on this forum, and I think you are edging towards straw man territory when you define Peterson and my comments about him incorrectly and in an overly reductionist matter.

Now if you will excuse me I have to go sacrifice some children to our Satanic Overlords, and after that I need to head to the kitchen because the two Syrian refugees I invited to stay at my place get hungry around this time every day.

When I am done with those, I will have a listen to this to see if you are right.

Post: #10

Psychology is one of, if not the, least advanced sciences. There is some good stuff but on the whole it is junk science. Hell, SJWs control the DSM.

So when you say "I am not an expert on the Big Five inventory, though from what I do know, it is considered by psychologists like Peterson to be very accurate and predictive across cultures, unlike most other types of psychometric typology" it may mean something to many. Not me though.

Post: #11

(04-04-2017 06:01 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  Psychology is one of, if not the, least advanced sciences. There is some good stuff but on the whole it is junk science. Hell, SJWs control the DSM.

So when you say "I am not an expert on the Big Five inventory, though from what I do know, it is considered by psychologists like Peterson to be very accurate and predictive across cultures, unlike most other types of psychometric typology" it may mean something to many. Not me though.

Personally I think that psychology is one of the fields that is the most separated between the public and the hidden true knowledge.

I think that behaviorism and manipulation of populations/people/individuals has been studied excessively well - all of it being used to change the behavioral patterns of humanity.

But what is being taught in mainstream universities is just bullshit and crap also set to destroy and change current societies.

For example - they are not interested in giving humanity the Red Pill or Game, because that would make men more masculine & dominant - and they certainly don't want that.

A lot of scientific fields are frankly going into crazy and highly repressed areas where they will be no progress whatsoever - actually worse, a lot will have to be scrapped in the future and begun anew.

Post: #12

Extreme right wing views and beliefs would be advocating for a slave state with strict military hierarchy, like Sparta.

On my spectrum if there is no slavery involved, then it cannot be called "extreme" right or left. Communism, for example, had slave camps. As did Hitler. Islam has slavery, the American South had slaves. The Romans had slaves. Etc. That's what extreme looks like. Important to keep perspective, a lot of people think deporting illegals makes you an "extreme right winger," which is nonsense.

Post: #13

I love this man so much.

He is speaking a flavor of truth that has not been heard for a very long time. He's picking up a lot of young men who are lost and redpilling them through alternative methods.

He has struggled through some of the heaviest philosophical questions that you can ever ask, studied in depth the atrocities of soviet and nazi mass murder, suffered terribly from clinical depression, and unlike most of today's scientists and philosophers has concluded that god is not dead, and your life is the most important and meaningful thing you can imagine.

For a bunch of young guys out there who are on the edge of giving up hope he is a beacon of light that is offering an alternative path to meaning in life other than the materialistic egocentric bullshit that comes out of Marxist infested culture today.

His number one point is if you want to change the world, start by changing yourself. And that aligns perfectly with what we would know as "self improvement". You could look at it as the game blogs and forums teach you how to sort out your physical life and Jordan teaches you how to sort out your inner life.

I think if you can align your mind, body, spirit and actions so they are all on the same trajectory you become someone who is almost unstoppable.

Post: #14

His concern of the extreme right in this video is hardly even mentioned though, someone chose a poor title for the video to make it seem balanced. From the content it clear he's more concerned with the left's squashing of critical though and free speech through nefarious agents (schools, universities, media).

Post: #15

(04-04-2017 04:27 PM)xmlenigma Wrote:  A Buddha, remains unattached but AWARE of how and what are the Underlying currents and Motivations of all.. [...]

true. but buddha suffered plenty and never transcended his suffering - he simply sat on TOP of it cross-legged.

Post: #16

"You've got to try and find the middle. It's the only sensible option".

Said 100 million fools that were slaughtered under left wing collectivist regimes last century.

If you're having trouble grappling that number, then take a median human height (lets say 1.5 metres) and times it by 100,000,000 murdered/starved/etc.

150,000,000 metres. Divide it by 1000 for kilometres.

150,000 kilometers. The circumference of the earth is 40,000 kilometres.

If my rudimentary maths is correct then that means you could lay those that were slaughtered by left wing regimes last century head to toe and literally circle the earth with the dead 3.7 times.

So fuck any asshole that wants to bitch about the right wing. They can fuck off and die.

Post: #17

I'd like to proffer the suggestion that any full support of any political leader in a democracy is an example of an experience position and dangerous support to offer. It's one thing to have full confidence that you have voted for the best candidate. It's another thing entirely to believe that any man (or woman) won't potential disappoint us at the end of the day. Our leaders do their best work when we hold them accountable.

The left is currently the most dangerous threat to Western civilization. And there is no question that Western civilization is mankind's most worthwhile creation. It is worth retaining.

That doesn't mean that the elements of the right couldn't also be dangerous, even if they aren't so extreme as to advocate slavery. No one seems to want to talk about this, but George W. Bush got a massive amount of support from the right. There may have been some libertarians who disagreed with the decision to enter an expensive war for unproven and controversial reasons. The vast majority of Republican voters at that time refused to even discuss the issues, simply lamenting, "He's our president, we have to support him" or "He has access to intelligence that that average person hasn't seen. We have to trust him." Of course, those views ended up being confirmed as absolute garbage after a few years went by, but at the time, there was no way to change anyone's mind on the right. It was like arguing with a fence post.

At the time I was just in 10th grade and didn't have the knowledge or experience to explain why the decision to attack Iraq seemed wrong, but I was convinced that it was. In fact, it was this period of history that caused me to lean in a strongly liberal direction for the next decade. At that point in time, the mainstream media gave W. Bush a ton of support and only CNN challenged him (just enough, in order to appeal to their market segment). Fox dealt purely in lies, exaggerations and BS at that time.

In fact, many of the talking heads that are current day Trump apostles were at that time making defenses of George W. Bush that were purely embarrassing.

This is when the Daily Show became very popular with young people. It was the only entertainment or media outlet that was willing to do God's work by cleaning breaking down and explaining the lies of The Right, of which there were many at that time.

The Daily Show got itself into trouble later by overpromising on Obama as a solution to everything. Rather than be willing to admit their mistake in supporting Obama, the staff doubled down on him and the show is now a useless joke, but there was a time when it was very necessary and very relevant.

I currently see a ton of support, even what I would coin blind support, for Trump. Like any man with a penis and a brain, I would choose Trump over Hillary any day. But that does not mean that I have complete faith in the man. Without the benefit of a crystal ball, I can't see the future, so I have no comment on how likely his odds of improving America are, but I'd rather nurse a healthy level of skepticism and be prepared to hold my leaders accountable.

I firmly believe that once the election results are in, strong support of any political figure is a mistake and we need to remain objective and hold our leaders accountable, no matter who they are.

I've seen the danger of rigid support of a president on both sides of the political spectrum (George W. Bush, Barrack Obama) and I'm hoping that the same mistake isn't being made with Trump.

I have been focusing my energies in the last few years on building a business to ensure my financial and geographical freedom, so I'm not in a position to successful argue any political points. However, if history is any clue, what may seem like completely reasonable and objectively correction opinions at the present time could be proven very wrong given 10 or 20 years later. It's happened already in my lifetime.

I've seen statements made here on RVF that strike me as extreme. For example, members have advocated for the removal of all legal immigrants from the US. If you need an explanation on why I see that is incredibly extreme, feel free to PM me.

I don't think that support of slavery is the only right-wing view that falls in the category of extreme. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that blanket support for a president is an extreme position. Presidents are fallible just like all human beings. To be able to do their jobs well, they depend on our cynicism just as much as they need our votes.

Post: #18

(04-04-2017 04:38 PM)xmlenigma Wrote:  The concept of "locking" people down with labels and attributes attached to a certain flavor of left/ right or whatever else ideological Bundle is flawed.

Unbundle, Unlabel and Be aware, Cognizant and Mindful, Sharp, Ruthless, Yet Kind & Compassionate, Diplomatic when needed.. yet be "beyond the labels".. A Buddha or Enlightened one would know when to do what and what to be How..

I'm all for womens rights, but the Femi-nazis dont need them, the poor women in villages in africa do.

Nothing is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH - because time, place and context will change and point out the holes in it.

Telling people to behave like Buddha is pretty ironic considering Communism killed over a million Buddhists and destroyed thousands of their temples between the periods of 1966 and 1979 alone (China's Cultural Revolution and Cambodia's Killing Fields).

Post: #19

Seems like the muslims also make short work of Buddha's followers right up until Buddha's followers put survival over Buddha's teachings.

Post: #20

(04-05-2017 03:29 AM)Sooth Wrote:  I love this man so much.

He is speaking a flavor of truth that has not been heard for a very long time. He's picking up a lot of young men who are lost and redpilling them through alternative methods.

He has struggled through some of the heaviest philosophical questions that you can ever ask, studied in depth the atrocities of soviet and nazi mass murder, suffered terribly from clinical depression, and unlike most of today's scientists and philosophers has concluded that god is not dead, and your life is the most important and meaningful thing you can imagine.

For a bunch of young guys out there who are on the edge of giving up hope he is a beacon of light that is offering an alternative path to meaning in life other than the materialistic egocentric bullshit that comes out of Marxist infested culture today.

His number one point is if you want to change the world, start by changing yourself. And that aligns perfectly with what we would know as "self improvement". You could look at it as the game blogs and forums teach you how to sort out your physical life and Jordan teaches you how to sort out your inner life.

I think if you can align your mind, body, spirit and actions so they are all on the same trajectory you become someone who is almost unstoppable.

I like Petersen and all, but this was the core of Jung's teachings nearly 100 years ago.

To be clear, Petersen directly references Jung constantly, I just wanted to point out that this wasn't "his" idea -- it was Jung's.

Post: #21

(04-05-2017 09:31 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 03:29 AM)Sooth Wrote:  [...]
His number one point is if you want to change the world, start by changing yourself. And that aligns perfectly with what we would know as "self improvement". You could look at it as the game blogs and forums teach you how to sort out your physical life and Jordan teaches you how to sort out your inner life.
[...]

I like Petersen and all, but this was the core of Jung's teachings nearly 100 years ago.

To be clear, Petersen directly references Jung constantly, I just wanted to point out that this wasn't "his" idea -- it was Jung's.

and i want to point out that jung haven't actually sorted himself out successfully, though he surely blasted the way for people like jbp and many others who followed him [and jbp now that he got the attention he deserves].

Post: #22

(04-05-2017 07:54 AM)christpuncher Wrote:  His concern of the extreme right in this video is hardly even mentioned though, someone chose a poor title for the video to make it seem balanced. From the content it clear he's more concerned with the left's squashing of critical though and free speech through nefarious agents (schools, universities, media).

I agree with you 100% on this. This video is mislabeled. The context is that this vid is just a snippet from a larger lecture he gave to college students at a modern college, that is, people infected with a lack of understanding of free speech and why it is important. He is not addressing any far right people, but people who are more likely to be exposed to the shutting down of arguments and the bane of identity politics.

Having listened to this, it is obvious that he is directly addressing the people in the room and making a plea for free speech, not trying to craft some grand analysis of the current right and the current left.

He is a teacher, and he is trying to get modern day college students to forget about rights for a second, and focus on the responsibility of being a citizen in a modern western culture.

His main point is that when you think about your beliefs, you really don't think, you just re-affirm your conclusions, and the same is true of when you talk with friends who agree with you. So you need to speak the truth as best you can with people who disagree with you, and that is the only way to either sharpen your arguments or change your opinion, and that is the value of free speech, and why it is so important to a functioning western culture.

This is what he always does, and he is obviously fighting against the authoritarian left who just want to shut down all dissent. He is travelling around to different colleges and teaching students to be more responsible as citizens, and get their ideas in order.

Dude is doing good work in the place that needs it most, a modern college campus, fighting against the tide, and trying to reach people while they are young.

Post: #23

(04-05-2017 10:10 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  His main point is that when you think about your beliefs, you really don't think, you just re-affirm your conclusions, and the same is true of when you talk with friends who agree with you.

could you explain to me why is there such OBSESSION with "beliefs" in the states? "i believe this, i believe that, etc., etc.". well, kids believe in santa claus, so what?

knowledge >>> belief.

edit: this actually started with the founders themselves: stating "we hold [=believe?] hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." while holding african slaves simply doesn't compute for this humble european.

edit2: https://youtu.be/QemYNQfix-c?t=47s [dave chapelle on george washington/declaration of independence]

Post: #24

(04-05-2017 01:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Extreme right wing views and beliefs would be advocating for a slave state with strict military hierarchy, like Sparta.

On my spectrum if there is no slavery involved, then it cannot be called "extreme" right or left. Communism, for example, had slave camps. As did Hitler. Islam has slavery, the American South had slaves. The Romans had slaves. Etc. That's what extreme looks like. Important to keep perspective, a lot of people think deporting illegals makes you an "extreme right winger," which is nonsense.

Spot on as usual. Any form of extremism pretty much guarantees extreme disenfranchisement, wanton murder and purges, and complete and utter subjugation.

Guys like Peterson are typical of your everyday general philosopher trying to comment or postulate on political philosophy. Those guys tend to think in terms of things without boundaries. As a result their political views float around with the winds of popular views of that day. Political philosophers tend to create boundaries in either direction of thought.

The reason why is because they know that human beings have limits in terms of social interactions. They can take an economists viewpoint because politics is the study of who gets what, and how much. An economist knows that the pie is only so large. There is no 110% of a pie. Just 100% of it. Figuring out the right formula or benefit to society based upon political capital and assets, is what makes up Political Science as a whole.

In 30 years, a blue haired feminist, with hairy armpits, advocating social benefits for natural births of children instead of test tubes, might be called a right wing extremist.

These labels often change over time to fit political expediency and to be used as weapons against rivals and opposition.

(04-05-2017 08:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  I'd like to proffer the suggestion that any full support of any political leader in a democracy is an example of an experience position and dangerous support to offer. It's one thing to have full confidence that you have voted for the best candidate. It's another thing entirely to believe that any man (or woman) won't potential disappoint us at the end of the day. Our leaders do their best work when we hold them accountable.

The left is currently the most dangerous threat to Western civilization. And there is no question that Western civilization is mankind's most worthwhile creation. It is worth retaining.

That doesn't mean that the elements of the right couldn't also be dangerous, even if they aren't so extreme as to advocate slavery. No one seems to want to talk about this, but George W. Bush got a massive amount of support from the right. There may have been some libertarians who disagreed with the decision to enter an expensive war for unproven and controversial reasons. The vast majority of Republican voters at that time refused to even discuss the issues, simply lamenting, "He's our president, we have to support him" or "He has access to intelligence that that average person hasn't seen. We have to trust him." Of course, those views ended up being confirmed as absolute garbage after a few years went by, but at the time, there was no way to change anyone's mind on the right. It was like arguing with a fence post.

At the time I was just in 10th grade and didn't have the knowledge or experience to explain why the decision to attack Iraq seemed wrong, but I was convinced that it was. In fact, it was this period of history that caused me to lean in a strongly liberal direction for the next decade. At that point in time, the mainstream media gave W. Bush a ton of support and only CNN challenged him (just enough, in order to appeal to their market segment). Fox dealt purely in lies, exaggerations and BS at that time.

In fact, many of the talking heads that are current day Trump apostles were at that time making defenses of George W. Bush that were purely embarrassing.

This is when the Daily Show became very popular with young people. It was the only entertainment or media outlet that was willing to do God's work by cleaning breaking down and explaining the lies of The Right, of which there were many at that time.

The Daily Show got itself into trouble later by overpromising on Obama as a solution to everything. Rather than be willing to admit their mistake in supporting Obama, the staff doubled down on him and the show is now a useless joke, but there was a time when it was very necessary and very relevant.

I currently see a ton of support, even what I would coin blind support, for Trump. Like any man with a penis and a brain, I would choose Trump over Hillary any day. But that does not mean that I have complete faith in the man. Without the benefit of a crystal ball, I can't see the future, so I have no comment on how likely his odds of improving America are, but I'd rather nurse a healthy level of skepticism and be prepared to hold my leaders accountable.

I firmly believe that once the election results are in, strong support of any political figure is a mistake and we need to remain objective and hold our leaders accountable, no matter who they are.

I've seen the danger of rigid support of a president on both sides of the political spectrum (George W. Bush, Barrack Obama) and I'm hoping that the same mistake isn't being made with Trump.

I have been focusing my energies in the last few years on building a business to ensure my financial and geographical freedom, so I'm not in a position to successful argue any political points. However, if history is any clue, what may seem like completely reasonable and objectively correction opinions at the present time could be proven very wrong given 10 or 20 years later. It's happened already in my lifetime.

I've seen statements made here on RVF that strike me as extreme. For example, members have advocated for the removal of all legal immigrants from the US. If you need an explanation on why I see that is incredibly extreme, feel free to PM me.

I don't think that support of slavery is the only right-wing view that falls in the category of extreme. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that blanket support for a president is an extreme position. Presidents are fallible just like all human beings. To be able to do their jobs well, they depend on our cynicism just as much as they need our votes.

The biggest problem with your post is that you assume Bush was conservative to begin with. Obama can be arguably not a liberal on foreign policy alone. Social policy wise, he was only slight left before his second turn, then turn a sharp left afterwards.

Also there is the issue of did either person truly work for who voted for them, and if that muddled their alleged political ideology. Oligarchy and corporatism pollute American politics very badly. Hyper capitalism and consumerism do not help clarify things either. Neither liberal nor conservative are mutually exclusive in regards to Oligarchy or similar systems. Both serve to meet the ends of the oligarchical system that sustains them. Christians realized that Bush did not actually care about them at the end of his terms. Blacks (many, but certainly not all) realized that Obama did not care to help them either.

Blanket support for a president is a natural human behavior. People look up to others. For us to berate others from looking for rolemodels in others is inhumane in a way, or just being a Christian, since only Christ has no faults. They all disappoint and fall short. We all do. That is the human experience being a born sinner. Trump could be the next George Washington or whatever. He still might make the military industrial complex worse like the last 5+ before him did and get us into a nuke war with N. Korea.

Also, slavery does not always need to be ball and chain, or have whips anymore. Financial/class/political slavery works better with the technological advancement of mankind. Machinery makes physical slavery woefully unnecessary. Wealth discrepancy and opportunity is becoming less available worldwide. There are much more losers than winners, than ever before. Liberals and conservatives worldwide notice it nowadays and want to stop it, but no one has a good answer for it, although we here know that stopping globalism to a degree helps locals at least a little bit more. Before globalism, wealth discrepancy still existed, so that is not a panacea at all. The bible says that the poor will always be many. That's a wisdom that is showing itself to be always true.

Post: #25

(04-05-2017 11:15 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  The biggest problem with your post is that you assume Bush was conservative to begin with.

If you think I assumed that, then you didn't understand my post.