The wrong side won WW2.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (54 children)

Democracies divide the nation by design

Not in the least. I wonder why anyone would believe this.

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

Because when you put up something for debate, by definition you are creating different sides. Over time, this leads to increasing diversity of opinions and interests, until a state of absolute and total fragmentation is reached. The Western world has already advanced very far along this line of development. Even in the 1940s, you can read plenty of material describing how British leftist intellectuals were cheering at every defeat Nazi Germany would inflict upon their country, because even though they desperately wanted to see fascism defeated, they wanted the Soviet Union to do that, not their homeland.

Individualist democracies endlessly divide the nation. This makes them the most convenient form of government for plutocrats and tyrants who rely on the weakness of others rather than on their own strength. By playing off different factions against each other, the rule of money remains intact. Properly authoritarian regimes embody the opposite principle, where every disparate element is united in authority, by authority, for the common good.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

when you put up something for debate, by definition you are creating different sides.

No - the different sides already existed before the debate, and before the democracy. One can find common ground in debates and in democracies, as has happened quite often.

This makes them the most convenient form of government for plutocrats and tyrants

No - because a true democracy can limit their power. This is civics 101.

You do not have a good argument for the benefits of the authoritarian regime, and you'd be miserable in one. If you want someone to dictate all of your choices, there are places where you can get that kind of lifestyle. But generally, no one who wants the 'common good' wants a dictatorship. Read On Revolution by Hannah Arendt if you are curious, and perhaps her book, The Human Condition.

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

No - the different sides already existed before the debate, and before the democracy. One can find common ground in debates and in democracies, as has happened quite often.

Your first statement is technically correct, but that's precisely what makes my argument strong and yours weak. Democracy absolutises "the debate" with its different sides, its contradictions and its oppositions. On the other hand, an authoritarian system provides a superior unity which stands above any debates and any disagreements. In other words, it provides what some reactionary thinkers refer to as the "centre". Whatever disagreements there may be "democratically", on the horizontal plane, in the end of the day the entirety of society remains loyal to the vertical centre. If you remove that centre, then naturally the diverging horizontal forces will eventually rip the polity apart.

Your second statement is just wrong. What is sometimes, and only sometimes, reached in democracies, is compromise, not common ground. In the democratic system, plutocratic elements rule with impunity until their excesses provoke a massive and threatening reaction from below. In such cases, a "compromise" is reached as a way to secure the future of the plutocracy. This compromise is unilaterally defined and implemented by the elite, who address or ignore popular concerns at their leisure. It is in this light that reforms like the New Deal, the welfare state etc are to be understood.

No - because a true democracy can limit their power. This is civics 101.

Really? Who are the true democrats, then, the anarchists? In theory, the plutocratic elite could decide to follow the principles they espouse and demolish their own power. Of course, this will never happen, because liberal democracy is a completely cynical system by design.

You do not have a good argument for the benefits of the authoritarian regime, and you'd be miserable in one. If you want someone to dictate all of your choices, there are places where you can get that kind of lifestyle. But generally, no one who wants the 'common good' wants a dictatorship.

Liberal democrats are already trying to dictate everyone's life choices, often with the specific intention of spreading misery and demoralisation. It is on them to give "good arguments" for the existence of their self-annihilating system, since I am yet to see any.

Read On Revolution by Hannah Arendt if you are curious, and perhaps her book, The Human Condition.

You probably could not name a person I consider to be farther from my thinking and from what I consider to be the truth than Hannah Arendt.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

You're conflating Democrats and democracy in some of this. If we're discussing democracy, you must know that the US is an inclusive, wealthy, leading nation because of it. I see there is no common ground here about the importance of a democracy. With the wise of authoritarian leaders around the world, there are plenty of places for you to consider living, where you won't have to worry about democracy. But don't go to those places if you like your way of life in the US, brought to you by the democratic republic. But I also hope you don't believe what you've written to the extent that you would join anti-democratic groups and movements. This creates division.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

If we're discussing democracy, you must know that the US is an inclusive, wealthy, leading nation because of it.

For sure. Bourgeois systems relentlessly pursue the generation of wealth at the expense of everything else. How that wealth is spent and distributed is, of course, an entirely different question.

But I also hope you don't believe what you've written to the extent that you would join anti-democratic groups and movements. This creates division.

In my opinion, this is the type of hypocrisy that really decisively discredits democracy. Is it not my democratic right to hold whatever opinions I wish, join whatever movements I wish and hold whatever divisive opinions I wish? You would think that these things would fall under the category of "freedom of thought", but of course, that is not the case, because "freedom of thought" is merely a cynical slogan.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Is it not my democratic right to hold whatever opinions...

No one suggested this. No one is attacking your "freedoms". Rather than worry about any of that, think about the Big Corp and wealthy influencers who've lied to you about the dangers of democracy, so that you'll support the corporate destruction of that democracy. Hence my comment that "I hope you don't believe" that nonsense, but I am not telling you not to believe the corporate propaganda. If however you want to promote that anti-democratic propaganda, then you don't want to promote freedom, and the US may not be the place for you. For example, Steven Seagal moved to Russia, perhaps because he didn't like the US.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

Unfortunately, I am forced to conclude that you lack self-awareness and reading comprehension.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

Thus - if you accuse the other person of a problem you might have, then - you don't have the problem. Brilliant.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

That's what you did, which is why I was forced to reach this unfortunate conclusion.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No - because a true democracy can limit their power.

Democracy doesn't limit their power, it only masks their power. It creates the illusion that power is centralized in the State and that the people have influence over the State by voting. NGOs, corporate/final elites, Zionists, etc, these are the areas where real power lies and they weld it over the State.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

None of this is related to the standard approach of a 'representative democracy' as the US calls itself. It's a type of governance with the potential to limit corruption, abuse &c. When it's not working, there is corruption. It's that simple.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Who is pushing all this bullshit like CRT, BLM, LGBTQ, etc.? The Democrats who stand for "democracy". It all causes division.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Jews

[–]Rob3122 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Correct! Because they own damn near every single piece of shit politician that we have in this country. They're doing the same thing in every white European country too. The jews are the cancer to the human race

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

lol yep

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No - it stands for inclusion, free speech, the American Dream, etc, etc. Those pushing hatred for others are trying to divide people. These special groups want to be included. GOP and "alt right" want to sow hatred and division between groups, to let them know they aren't included. (Edit cross through 'special')

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

GOP and "alt right" want to sow hatred and division between groups, to let them know they aren't included.

I have a question for you? Can you explain why this "racist" Nazi is sitting next to a room full of black people?

https://files.catbox.moe/g36m8r.jpg

That's the infamous George Rockwell, and yet he had no hatred for Malcolm X. Both leaders wanted the same thing. Racial separation. Yet their requests were denied. What makes one side more hateful than other, when they were both willing to agree to it back then?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Again - you've plucked from history a micro-example - indeed just a person - to make a very broad point that cannot be argued with micro examples. There is a field of history called, micro history, but it's mainly focused on providing more information about a context, rather than taking examples out of context. I am also not a fan of Malcolm X, who was critical of the Civil Rights movement, preferring - where possible - relatively violent methods of change.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again - you've plucked from history a micro-example - indeed just a person - to make a very broad point that cannot be argued with micro examples.

No, it's a pretty major example. Segregation had not actually been outlawed in the U.S, hence why Malcolm X & Rockwell were allowed to support their ideas and even opposed the government from taking it all away.

It's like saying the alt-right today is a micro example of anti-immigration, even though Joe Biden or Trump talked about it when they were in office.

I am also not a fan of Malcolm X, who was critical of the Civil Rights movement, preferring - where possible - relatively violent methods of change.

And why do you think that was? He was a black man, so it can't be "white supremacism" that the media likes to smear.

Maybe... just maybe, he wanted racial separation because it was the more moral option? Giving blacks their own country would mean Blacks would be in charge of their own governments, their own schools, their own police force, their own hospitals. No one would be able to pin the blame on Whites or complain they were somehow a bad influence.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What makes any of those groups "special"? They are trying to push all the bullshit I mentioned in schools to kids. Kids like Democrats act on emotion. Teaching them CRT is teaching them to hate. BLM...I don't even need to explain that bullshit. LGBTQ is trying to convert children to be gay and tranny freaks. Chaos is all it creates which is why the jew scum are pushing it through all the Democrats they own.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This changes the argument.

The argument is about inclusion, not about who is 'special'.

The argument is not about Democrats, but about democracy.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You said they were special. I asked why and you didn't answer...instead YOU changed the argument. You don't even know what democracy is, all you know is Jewocracy posing as democracy. Wake up!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Though I've called these groups 'special' the point remains that the topic is 'inclusion', not 'special'. I've now edited the statement so that 'special' is crossed out. You don't have to focus on the 'special' word, but instead consider the argument about inclusion.

It's basic logic, Rob: who wants division? Does the group that wants inclusion also want division? Does the group that wants to exclude other groups want division? Think about it, rather than worry about an unrelated word. Don't fall for the right-wing divisive propaganda. They don't want unity and exclusion. They want to divide and take your money and that of the 99%. They're robbing you.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know the Republicans don't want it either. But they're not pushing all the catering to negroids, they're not pushing CRT, they're certainly not pushing the acceptance of gay and tranny shit. All that shit causes division.

"It's basic logic, Rob: who wants division? Does the group that wants inclusion also want division". The group that lies to your fucking face and then turns around and does the opposite. Just look at BLM. The dems cater to that bullshit movement and then what do they do? They make sure the attorney general's and judges keep letting the negroids who are shooting people back onto the street. Then they act surprised when the shoot and/or kill again.