Nickolai

Yes it was right wing conservative southern Democrats that started the KKK And no, ANTIFA are dedicated to smashing neo Nazi facists There were two battles in MLK park in Berkeley. white supremacists from outside the bay area organized what they called a free speech rally and 300 of them showed up with some from as faraway as Washington state with sticks. bats, helmets. 100 ANTIFA entered the Park and the tow sides clashed with ANTIFA coming out on the short end two months later a guy from Portland Oregon organized another neo Nazi rally and again 300 showed up and 100 ANTIFA for a replay but this time 4,000 ordinary citizens showed up to back the ANTIFA. The last anybody saw of the guy rom Oregon he was beating feet as hard as he could with about a dozen ANTIFA right on his ass. I don't mean to bash people Its their Right wing reactionary Fascist views that I oppose

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Looks to me like you're the one doing all the ranting Adolf. People try to make conversation, and wind up wanting to whip your ass for some reason. Every time. Must be them, huh?

Hell, ya windy old coot, you can't even answer a yes, or no question with less than 300 words. I'll bet you really suck to be around at family, or any other kind of gatherings. You probably don't get invited to a lot of them, do you?

JoyV

Even with the practice of labeling any white perpetrator as being right wing no matter if they are a Democrat and a Obama supporter, and eliminating any violence on whites or Christians; the numbers still are higher for casualties by Islamic terrorist attacks versus right wing terrorist attacks. Looking at several lists of terror attacks is interesting for what is NOT on the lists. No mention of the shooting of the Republican senators at the charity ball game practice in Maryland for instance. If the terrorist is an Islamic extremist but also an American citizen or resident; the attacks are not listed as Islamic terror attacks but as home grown violence. Attacks on blacks by whites are listed as either terrorism or hate crimes. If by blacks on whites, they are simply listed as crimes. For any attack on a black, gay, Jew, Muslim, or a gender crime; the perpetrator is always identified as being right wing even if registered as a Dem or there is evidence of being left wing.
Adding up from the past five years off the list I've linked there have been 21 casualties from right wing terrorist attacks from 2012 through 2017. There have been 484 casualties from left wing terrorist attacks. And 510 from Islamic extremists terrorist attacks. I haven't counted all the attacks in the list from earlier dates as it begins in the 19th century.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

And I came across this article.
http://markhumphrys.com/left.right.violence.html

JoyV

What about the Antifa violent "protests" in and around Berkley in 2017? But even your own explanation had that the Antifa were trying to shut down free speech. I would counter white supremacists speeches with speeches opposed to white supremacy. Not try to stop free speech just because I didn't like who was speaking or what they were saying.

JoyV

You wrote; "Far-right politics is a term used to describe politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist, and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies."
But authoritarian tendencies are NOT right of the left-right spectrum. As for nativism, it is subjective. Today saying I love America is called nativist by some on the left. But authoritarian rule is less subjective to identify. So if bigger government is on the left, and smaller government on the right; how can you think authoritarian rule (even bigger government) is the extreme of smaller government?

JoyV

You are correct that it is unlikely a farmer would let his crops rot. Here is the quote which the story was based on. “The labor shortage is so severe that entire fields like these have gone unharvested. In fact, here in central California in two counties more than $13 million have been lost,” NBC correspondent Jo Ling Kent said while standing in the midst of a lush field of leafy vegetables. This was in 2015. That $13 million figure comes from an annual survey of the members of the Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties taken in 2015.

So...FAKE NEWS!!!!

Nickolai

I don't see saying I love America as nativist I love America I don't like US Capitalist imperialism. Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. Conservatives thus favor institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. This suspicion of government activism distinguishes conservatism not only from radical forms of political thought but also from liberalism This suspicion of government activism distinguishes conservatism not only from radical forms of political thought but also from liberalism, Recently the far right been referred to as the Alt-right. A term coined in 2008 by Richard Bertrand Spencer, who heads the white nationalist think tank known as the National Policy Institute. Alt-Right adherents stridently reject egalitarianism and universalism. The movement is not monolithic. But a common trait is a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them. They value uniformity, conformity and are in favor of using group authority, including coercion, andauthoritarian aggression needed to achieve it.

It is not big government perse thay seek but artracted to political phrsases such as "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us". People who strongly agree with this are showing a tendency toward authoritarian submission ("Our country desperately needs a mighty leader") ("who will do what has to be done to destroy") and conventionalism ("the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us" "The Media are the enemy of the people " Except those who conform to, and affirm, our beliefs.

Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favor of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviors of people such as political dissidents and ethnic minorities. These constraints might include restrictions on immigration, limits on free speech and association and laws regulating moral behavior. It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference. Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism, racial and ethnic prejudice and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants. In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness and good manner

JoyV

Can you not even see while you write that your listed traits of the right are conflicting?

<<right wing authoritarians>> You could be right wing or you could be authoritarian or you could be neither. But you can't be both. {In my responses I will take every reference to 'right wing authoritarians to say right wing as it is the only way I can answer your assertions.}

<<"Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity.">>
Right wing conservatives want smaller government. Authoritarian rule needs a strong central authority i.e. government. If Trump and his followers wanted conformity and intolerance; why would we cheer his political incorrectness. It is not the right wingers who go to the extreme of making rules on what Halloween costumes are acceptable to wear based on the identity group you belong to. There is conformity and intolerance gone to the ridiculous. How is that diversity?

<<"In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favor of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviors of people such as political dissidents and ethnic minorities.">>
You are describing socialist rule. Who are political dissidents? Everyone may dissent in many ways, and often do. As for constraining ethnic minorities; our constitution does not distinguish people by group identities.

<<"These constraints might include restrictions on immigration,">> Of course there must be some restrictions. But since we legally allow millions to come in each year; the restrictions are far from harsh.

<<"limits on free speech and association">> And just who is it who pushes for political correctness? Who is it who holds violent "protests" to prevent people from speaking? And who is it who used the IRS to targets associations of people whose politics were not approved?

<<"It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference.">> That sentence is a good example of meaningless jargon. If it had science sounding terms in it it would be called technobabble. But as is, it is doublespeak.

<<"Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority,">> Again. It sounds like both socialism and fascism. Both are characteristics of the far left. Do you consider the ranchers we have been cheering to have been obedient to authority? <<"moral absolutism">> I see that trait in both the extreme right and the extreme left.

<<"racial and ethnic prejudice and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants.">> Only the first is seen in both the right and left. Though only institutionalized by the left. Right wingers don't have dissidents as there is too much dissent in the normal course of interaction to identify any particular dissent as being abnormal.

<<"In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness and good manner">> Obedience? Not really. Good manners and neatness; of course. Is it suppose to be good to teach your children to be slobs and rude? But one of the important things you did not mention was taking responsibility. That is encouraged not by merely telling the children what is good or bad/right or wrong/. It is practiced in youth groups like 4H and FFA. Go sit in on a meeting and you will see that the kids elect their own officers and run their own meetings. Adults do not dictate what the meetings will cover, or how they are run. Adults are there as resources, not authorities.


If you had ever listened to those who praised Trump for being strong, you would have noticed it wasn't to impose conformity on the American people; but to deal strongly with other nations in representing the American people.

Supporting the rule of law outlined in our constitution is not about destroying "radical new ways". In fact, since our constitution was written specifically to impose restrictions government power not restrictions on the citizenry; anyone wanting authoritarian rule would marginalize our constitution by saying things like, it is a living document to justify making laws counter to it.

S. Maturin

The biggest reason of all for the decline in illegal entries from Mexico is that some Mexicans are intelligent enough to understand there's change happening and our restrictions are tightening up.. Hell, our restrictions might almost be equal to MEXICO'S some day, eh?

S. Maturin

"I don't see saying I love America as nativist I love America I don't like US Capitalist imperialism..." Had you any trained brain whatever you would know that separating America from what made America the strongest and most powerful nation in the history of civilization is capitalism as it was directed by the most hated segment of the population- capable white men.
Look at your ridiculous statement of yours, above, and tell me how it is you can see powerful America without the capitalism you so hate.

Oh, and BTW, America is the LEAST imperialistic powerful nation ever to exist on planet earth as well. You have just been swiggin' da ole Kool-Aid, and the socialists have you hooked ready for reeling in.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Joy; thanks for taking the time to untwist Nick's twisted perspective. He won't figure it out, but more are figuring the leftist BS day by day. It is desperation time for the Democratic Party and their MSM.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

In response to JoyV and her response to Nickolai:
<<right wing authoritarians>> You could be right wing or you could be authoritarian or you could be neither. But you can't be both. {In my responses I will take every reference to 'right wing authoritarians to say right wing as it is the only way I can answer your assertions.}
Right wing conservatives want smaller government. Authoritarian rule needs a strong central authority i.e. government. If Trump and his followers wanted conformity and intolerance; why would we cheer his political incorrectness. It is not the right wingers who go to the extreme of making rules on what Halloween costumes are acceptable to wear based on the identity group you belong to. There is conformity and intolerance gone to the ridiculous. How is that diversity?
===> From Wikipedia:
"Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion,[clarification needed] to achieve it."
Sorry, but the preferred definition of 'right wing authoritarian' differs from your definition. Most right-wingers that I know fall into this definition.<===

<<"Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity.">>
Right wing conservatives want smaller government. Authoritarian rule needs a strong central authority i.e. government. If Trump and his followers wanted conformity and intolerance; why would we cheer his political incorrectness. It is not the right wingers who go to the extreme of making rules on what Halloween costumes are acceptable to wear based on the identity group you belong to. There is conformity and intolerance gone to the ridiculous. How is that diversity?
===> According to the accepted definition (see above), the quote from Nikki is correct. Social correctness is a must, and it must conform to the ideology of whatever group controls the government. The push for abortion being outlawed and the pushback against gay rights is an example of this.<===

<<"In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favor of social control, coercion and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviors of people such as political dissidents and ethnic minorities.">>
You are describing socialist rule. Who are political dissidents? Everyone may dissent in many ways, and often do. As for constraining ethnic minorities; our constitution does not distinguish people by group identities.
===>Social control is a requirement according to the right wing philosophy. "My way or the highway." Dissent is not welcomed. Voter suppression is a classic example of this requirement.<===

<<"These constraints might include restrictions on immigration,">> Of course there must be some restrictions. But since we legally allow millions to come in each year; the restrictions are far from harsh.
===> This is at odds with what the immigration policy of this president happens to be. He would obviously prefer to limit immigration to white European stock.<===

<<"limits on free speech and association">> And just who is it who pushes for political correctness? Who is it who holds violent "protests" to prevent people from speaking? And who is it who used the IRS to targets associations of people whose politics were not approved?
===>Who limited their campaign events and appearances to only supporters of the campaign or presidency? Most of the "protests" that you refer to were non-violent until one side or the other started it … mostly from the right.<===

<<"It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference.">> That sentence is a good example of meaningless jargon. If it had science sounding terms in it it would be called technobabble. But as is, it is doublespeak.
===> Made sense to me. Most of the right wing would prefer to see a white, Protestant, capitalistic state without minorities or differing views mucking up the reality. <===

<<"Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority,">> Again. It sounds like both socialism and fascism. Both are characteristics of the far left. Do you consider the ranchers we have been cheering to have been obedient to authority? <<"moral absolutism">> I see that trait in both the extreme right and the extreme left.
===>True, it does sound like that. But limiting it to the far left is to put blinders on. If the ranchers that you refer to are lefties, think again. They're as conservative as they come.<===


<<"racial and ethnic prejudice and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants.">> Only the first is seen in both the right and left. Though only institutionalized by the left. Right wingers don't have dissidents as there is too much dissent in the normal course of interaction to identify any particular dissent as being abnormal.
===> Tell that to the LGBTQ population or the pro-abortion folks. As for dissent on the right wing, all you have to do is look at the battle in Congress over immigration. If that's lack of dissent, I'd love to see the real thing.<===

<<"In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children's obedience, neatness and good manner">> Obedience? Not really. Good manners and neatness; of course. Is it suppose to be good to teach your children to be slobs and rude? But one of the important things you did not mention was taking responsibility. That is encouraged not by merely telling the children what is good or bad/right or wrong/. It is practiced in youth groups like 4H and FFA. Go sit in on a meeting and you will see that the kids elect their own officers and run their own meetings. Adults do not dictate what the meetings will cover, or how they are run. Adults are there as resources, not authorities.
===>"Children should be seen and not heard.""Spare the rod and spoil the child." This teaches obedience to authority and creates children afraid to dissent. The FFA & 4H reflect the values of the parents, and while the meetings themselves are as you say, the indirect pressure from parents once they get home is what defines the culture in the organizations, and the larger society.<===

If you had ever listened to those who praised Trump for being strong, you would have noticed it wasn't to impose conformity on the American people; but to deal strongly with other nations in representing the American people.
===>Then going to the anti-abortion convention today and speaking in favor of their cause isn't trying to impose conformity on the country? Removing safety regulations and workers rights in the business sector isn't imposing conformity on the country? <===

Supporting the rule of law outlined in our constitution is not about destroying "radical new ways". In fact, since our constitution was written specifically to impose restrictions government power not restrictions on the citizenry; anyone wanting authoritarian rule would marginalize our constitution by saying things like, it is a living document to justify making laws counter to it.
===> The "rule of law" is whatever the party in power defines it to be. Sometimes it's progressive and other times it's regressive. But you must admit that there are sections of the Constitution that need modification … such as the Electoral College. The definition of a 'living document' was rejected by Scalia and Alito, and they were wanting to go back to a strict interpretation of the document as written. That doesn't work, since it isn't still 1787. Times change, the citizenry changes, and while the basics are needed, the interpretations must change with the values expressed by the majority of the population. Otherwise you have an authoritarian regime that is stuck in the past and won't move.

Nickolai

Yes I can agree that the hunt for illegals has played a roll in the decline in illegal entries from Mexico but this is not new it has been going since 2010 During President Obamas term in office two million were deported its just that Trump has been noiser about it. An article appeared in our local news paper this morning regarding the problem of small business locating enough low income workers being unable to secure affordable housing. More small businesses that owners want to sell and retire in stead of selling to a bigger company are increasingly selling to their employees at the market value of the business and financed by a loan. The Business becoming an Employee Owned Enterprise.. Over 12,000 businesses in the US are operating as EOE's

S. Maturin

I agree with you, Obama did deport thousands. Obema, however encouraged the DACA business and the DREAMers business. Those two actions seem contradictory, do they not?

How on eathe could Obam support millions of undocumented while ousting others? That makes no sense.

As for businesses needing 'low income' workers.. I suggest those businesses reorganize a bit and hire Americans. Their business model is in need of repair.

My gas company is an EOE. There is not one illegal, low-trained, poorly-educated member in it.

Nickolai

Evidently you are unaware of the history of the US The leadership has been imperialist from the start and modern imperialism. Firstly it is important to define what imperialism is. There is a ‘new’ type of imperialism, differing from the ‘old’ one that usually comes to our mind when we think about the Roman Empire or Napoleonic invasions. The ‘old’ imperialism was merely military imperialism, but today’s imperialism manifests itself in several forms.

The new imperialism differs from the older, first, in substituting for the ambition of a single growing empire the theory and the practice of competing empires, each motived by similar lusts of political aggrandisement and commercial gain; secondly, in the dominance of financial or investing over mercantile interests”. Imperialism is the sudden demand for foreign markets for manufactures and for investments which is avowedly responsible for the adoption of Imperialism as a political policy They need Imperialism because they desire to use the public resources of their country to find profitable employment for the capital which otherwise would be superfluous”. So this new imperialism is much more economic than military. Condensating several

Lenin (in imperialism the highest stage of capitalism, 1916) asserts that “if it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism”. So, the new imperialism cannot be described as a ‘policy’, but as an inherent stage of the economic system in which we live. Johan Galtung (in a structural theory of imperialism, 1971) would extend the analysis not only to the military or economic fields, but also to the political, So, now that we have briefly defined imperialism, which examples can we find of it in the modern world? The majority of them come from the hegemonic imperialist power, the USA, exercising its dominance through the economic power that emanates from it. In order to do it, they use the big monopoly companies with its national origin in the US and that are spread all over the world, searching for profit everywhere at any cost. Theotónio dos Santos (in Imperialismo y Dependência, 1978) calls these monopoly companies the cells of imperialism.

But imperialism does not come only from the US. It also comes from France, UK, Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, etc… Imperialism comes from where the concentration of capital is larger. Only a country that concentrates great amounts of capital (the material base) in its borders has the capacity to influence other countries in its favor, not only through economic means, but also through political, communicative, cultural, and lastly military means. So, the best examples of imperialism usually are not the ones that look more apparent or clear at first sight, but those that look hidden, almost natural and inherent to our society. Like poverty, underdevelopment, malnutrition, bad health conditions, etc. These are the most profound examples of modern imperialism and not the annexation of Crimea by Russia, or the Iraqi invasion by the US. If we think a little bit about almost any military invasion or war during the 20th century it always has an economic reason behind it, even if sometimes this does not seem so evident.