Because they will continue to use it when you’re not

Everything that is not collectivist and SJ will get the label Right Wing, and Right Wing is synonymous with Evil

Depends on what you mean by combat. I think undermining the validity of the discussion works. That's what I'd do for idpol

That’s a way

Lol.

That video

Left/right is just a battle to see who is more liberal. Js

No one is more Liberal then me! I want so much freedom so that we kill all the babies of the world!

@RoadtoDawn Maybe if you equate "right wing" with "Establishment Republican," you could be correct, but the Republican party does not represent the entirety of right-wing philosophy.

If you watch youtube channels The Distributist or Endeavour, you will see sects of right-wing thought that the Mainstream never gets exposure to, they are outside the Overton Window but not salacious enough to be pariahs like Richard Spencer followers.

They are the farthest thing from the media Democrat Party/Establishment Republican/Establishment Libertarian scramble to claim who is "most liberal"

These guys are staunch traditionalists. Distributist is an old-styled Catholic (maybe that's called Pre-Vatican II?), opposes the current pope and progressive Catholicism. Endeavour is a right-wing Canadian and I get the impression he is a Monarchist

Distributist is pretty cool, always liked him

If Endeavour gives monarchist vibes, I have to check them out immediately lol

And yeah I think he is sedevacantist

Endeavour's discussion of Left/Right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJk5fh_g6A0

Endeavour & critique of Enlightenment values:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHuL45NzNTk

Conceptually *and* practically, he is on point.

This guy seems pretty based lol

The second one is too long for me to watch now but I saved it

that first video is immediately contradictory. It references two European philosophies and then insists one of them has a historical basis when both of them are the result of one of many branches in a conversation that has been going on for thousands of years

Further, the ideology that's being listed as the traditional one was at one point revolutionary, which is why *Marx appreciated it as a necessary shift away from the actual tradition of aristocracy*. Marx just didnt think it went far enough

also people have tried to swing the black vote on the basis of pointing out how dem policies have screwed over black communities

>in Canada
The area with the highest concentration of Asian immigrants in my province is pretty much the only Conservative stronghold

The areas with higher Indian populations often vote center-left, with the whitest of white areas voting for the furthest left party or the center left, with some exceptions

we dont do exit polling so FPTP results are the closest you can get here

@Beemann you said what I always say, regarding conserving the revolution. This is how America is defined. But I don't see how this cuts against his point

The bill of rights, all of those freedoms wrapped in one package, that's insanely revolutionary

Also, regarding the thousand some odd year conversation, are you a neoplatonist by chance?

his point is that the right is based on western tradition, but both socialism and capitalism are inherently revolutionary and are both inherently a part of western history. Your typical Dem isn't a communist, even with that in mind
Also the Great Conversation is just in reference to the family tree of Western Philosophy

how basically you start with Greece and read your way forward, through the Old Testament, through the various literary eras, into the modern age. Some of these authors (like Nietzsche, Hayek, etc) will directly name people/ideologies their work is a response to

Well, I'd argue even western philosophy isn't so properly grounded to make it more important than context. But that aside I agree. The Greek schools of thought have starting points, and to look at a byproduct or a 'system image' of them and call it purely contextual would be categorically incorrect. However those images still inform and influence people as if they were grounded in and of themselves, in a vacuum. Not everyone knows our history, and not everyone is rationalistic; I think the best thing for most of humanity is that we're logically inconsistent. It's a good thing we can be above our idiotic thoughts

hm? I'm saying that they're separating two western philosophies that are hundreds of years old into "wants to destroy western civ" and "is the western tradition"

Western civilization is full of those dialectical tensions though

Philosophy

But I see your critique. I think Endeavour needs to go further backwards

I dont think it actually is about going backwards to be honest. I think ultimately you have people on both sides who dont respect the tradition of American philosophy, and then you have two factions who think theyre doing their best to uphold those traditions in different, contradictory ways

Often because they think the founding fathers wouldnt have agreed with (insert later thing) or because they think something is a low priority

Sure, and what I'm saying is this is par for the course in western civilization. And perhaps that's his point as well, but I have just come across this dude so I don't know for sure

On one side you have people who devalue the 2nd amendment, becasue they think the founding fathers couldnt have forseen an m16. On another side you have people who think that dragnet surveillance is okay because the founding fathers couldnt have forseen modern terrorism
And you've still got like 5 other major factions

I'm just basing this off of this one analysis