Yeah, I know, sorry if I implied otherwise.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Far-rightists on this site?
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
Yeah, I know, sorry if I implied otherwise.
I see. Well, nothings perfect. We have to accept some imperfection...
Hope you find the answer.
Maybe they do and they know better not to?
If they were going to kill a bunch of people, I feel they would just say it. There have been neo-Nazi groups that called for genocide and strict eugenics, like the National Alliance, but that harshness has died down. The NA doesn't exist anymore as far as I know. Opinions on Jews in the far-right vary widely.
I know right?
Yes, actually. They aren't commonplace, but there are a number who don't go whole-hog on the murder bit. Integralists are probably the most well-known of the less-racst NatSoc branches.
That's how RF is supposed to work.....suppress expression one's worst instincts when they violate the rules.
It is a sort of "you'll have freedom whether you like it or not" approach.
More in depth, people only ever associate fascism with the European instances of it, not recognizing that the same ideals of fascism applied to a nation founded in a different manner could have vastly different connotations. America, as envisioned by me, is a ideological nation with an ideological people. Something that traditionally the German, Italian, and Spanish nations cannot say; they have a genetic people.
The American people that American Fascism would represent are a people steeped not in blood but in a desire for liberty; sometimes dangerous and sometimes hateful, but, liberty. I also don't believe the absurdity that libertarianism demands that it be allowed that libertarianism be destroyed. 2 wolves and a sheep and all of that.
Now, as I said, Nationalist Libertarian would be close. I think government should encourage and support (morally and materially) our people being the best, the fittest, smartest, kindest, most charitable, etc that we can be. I think the government should be involved in environmental affairs and in ensuring that the businesses that prosper within its borders also serve to improve the life of the people for instance.
Not a fan of totalitarianism, the state imposing itself forcefully upon the liberated person in all manners of life. Similarly with imperialism, the state imposing itself on another sovereign state, though I don't see a natural or necessary wrong with peaceful acquisition of territory(Louisiana purchase for instance).
Yeah, it was definitely pragmatism and not ideological fervor that had soviet soldiers raping nuns and pouring molten lead down priests throats.
There are reports of Swedish soldiers raping Nuns and pouring boiling urine* down Priest throats during the 30 Years War. Would you also claim that is "ideological fervor" and not just Soldiers doing as Soldiers are want to do?
I am not excusing this, just pointing out, there's a long "proud" tradition of soldiers doing ****ty things to people they've been told are their mortal enemies.
*The P-i word for urine is censored? Really? What?
Considering that was just the tip of the iceberg that is decades of soviet torture and murder of religious persons, and the Soviet doctrine was that religion was the enemy of mankind and progress, and between 12 and 20 million Christians suffered at the ideologically guided hands of the Communist Party, I can't in good conscience consider it "what soldiers do".
Not the main reason (although problematic aspects of nationalist platforms did come up as a possible issue). As I've already said, the main reason was that having nationalists from different countries in the same non-debate forum section could cause problems.
I suppose it could.
But they would have some things in common too, eg, preserving their culture.
Last edited:
Perhaps - many Alt-Leftists would call me "Far Right" when in fact those who are "Far Right" are actually mainstream and the leftists are extremists who want to stifle free speech, have the government suppress all opposition media, use violent communist street thugs and BLM domestic terrorists to violently attack people in public if they display any patriotic or constitutional free speech at all, the Alt-Left now wants a deep state spy regime instead representative government and want all policy to be set by unnamed sources - in other words they want a Maduro type regime - because they can't win elections anymore and even are in an unholy alliance with Islamic extremists in an attempt to get SOME votes along with their support of an invasion of illiterate illegal and criminal alien foreign nationals from Mexico to vote Democrat, so the "Far" anything is the leftwing.
However, I WOULD like to see a Nationalist forum. Perhaps that would be a good addition to RF.
However, I WOULD like to see a Nationalist forum. Perhaps that would be a good addition to RF.
Yes. That's exactly what I'd like to see.
I kind of feel like those who want a fascist or nationalist section are probably sympathetic to those kinds of things. Oh how quickly we forget the Second World War, Shoah, firebombings, and the invention of nukes and the resulting cold war. No, sorry, I don't really have any sympathy for fascism or nationalist socialism or Nazis or whatever flavor of far-right ideology one might fancy. It killed off entire populations and threatened to kill us with nuclear war. How so many humans have not moved past this crazy stuff is beyond me.
And I would be very vocal in opposing the creation of such a section because those groups are inherently counter to the forum's mission, it would be like if we asked if we should have an ISIL section too. Neo-Nazis and fascists call for race wars, for violence, and for riots.
I'm not as familiar with nationalism but I think that is more within the bounds, if it isn't including hate-groups like Neo-Nazis or pro-slavery "the south will rise again!" types but that's a little more sticky as it often can be an optional feature. Basically put, even a generic nationalist is much more likely to be racist or bigoted than other political groups just as a possible logical consequence of their underlying beliefs. It's basically tribalism but much worse than usual imo, and only religion can really compete with that kind of aggressive mindset.
Wow, that sounds a lot like an Alex Jones type of rant, and is very poe..
Also you pretty much just proved my entire point about why we shouldn't allow that kind of thing. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really believe all that stuff... to which I want to reply that you might want to consider that the way you seem to see it is very black and white, good and evil, cut and dry.... don't you think reality is more complex than that? I wouldn't even call it a sea of gray or relative, it's just there are so many factors and so many individuals and different ideas and intentions and goals that categorically framing it the way you have is doomed from the start to be horribly inaccurate.
You might think you are telling the truth but it just sounds like a bunch of fear and ignorance and allowing that kind of thing to fester is exactly why such a section would run the risk of being afoul of the forum mission. It's inherent nature is adversarial, confrontational, reactionary and libelous.
I think the problematic aspects of many nationalist platforms is reason enough to not do it. There are plenty of places on the internet for them to exercise their free speech. Let's not let this be a place for the more extreme to recruit or fester. If someone wants to talk about, debate or discuss nationalist ideals, there are plenty of sections they can do so anyway as it is.
But a good point about some of the under used sections, maybe we could merge some of the left wing ones together that fall out of the 'mainstream'. Rather than make more on the conservative side to make even more unused sub forums. This would be preferable to deleting entire sections so long as their threads fall within the current rules.
And I would be very vocal in opposing the creation of such a section because those groups are inherently counter to the forum's mission, it would be like if we asked if we should have an ISIL section too. Neo-Nazis and fascists call for race wars, for violence, and for riots.
I'm not as familiar with nationalism but I think that is more within the bounds, if it isn't including hate-groups like Neo-Nazis or pro-slavery "the south will rise again!" types but that's a little more sticky as it often can be an optional feature. Basically put, even a generic nationalist is much more likely to be racist or bigoted than other political groups just as a possible logical consequence of their underlying beliefs. It's basically tribalism but much worse than usual imo, and only religion can really compete with that kind of aggressive mindset.
Wow, that sounds a lot like an Alex Jones type of rant, and is very poe..
Also you pretty much just proved my entire point about why we shouldn't allow that kind of thing. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really believe all that stuff... to which I want to reply that you might want to consider that the way you seem to see it is very black and white, good and evil, cut and dry.... don't you think reality is more complex than that? I wouldn't even call it a sea of gray or relative, it's just there are so many factors and so many individuals and different ideas and intentions and goals that categorically framing it the way you have is doomed from the start to be horribly inaccurate.
You might think you are telling the truth but it just sounds like a bunch of fear and ignorance and allowing that kind of thing to fester is exactly why such a section would run the risk of being afoul of the forum mission. It's inherent nature is adversarial, confrontational, reactionary and libelous.
I think the problematic aspects of many nationalist platforms is reason enough to not do it. There are plenty of places on the internet for them to exercise their free speech. Let's not let this be a place for the more extreme to recruit or fester. If someone wants to talk about, debate or discuss nationalist ideals, there are plenty of sections they can do so anyway as it is.
But a good point about some of the under used sections, maybe we could merge some of the left wing ones together that fall out of the 'mainstream'. Rather than make more on the conservative side to make even more unused sub forums. This would be preferable to deleting entire sections so long as their threads fall within the current rules.
Last edited:
If historical sins associated with an ideology would disqualify a forum,
then we should disband the communist & socialist ones. The ideological
criterion is a risky one. I don't trust staff to decide which ones are right.
(You could trust me though. I know who's wrong.)
I wouldn't mind if they got rid of or merged those 2 sections but not for the same reason you said. I think maybe my point was too nuanced and I didn't communicate it right. Anyways I'm not sure if merged where they would go, it's not like liberalism.
Really how to split it up speaks a lot to political theory. In one way, say, we could do just 4 groups based on the social vs economic axies. I really honestly am not sure, even that feels like it has some issues.
I'd prefer something like that too.
Things are a bit messed up with RF definitions.....
"Capitalism" includes socialism in the form of "state capitalism" (eg, the USSR).
"Libertarian" includes economic authoritarianism (eg, socialism, communism).
The Nolan Chart looks like the perfect basis....
Or....
