I came on here because I am tired of conservatism being linked up with these fascist Nazis like the guy who killed the people in Buffalo.
Racist Nazis are not conservatives in the American tradition of honoring the Constitution and the values in the Declaration of Independence.
Race war Nazis, who take pride in mowing down innocent, unarmed people, have nothing to do with American conservativism which is about individual rights, responsibility, and liberty.
These horrendous acts by race war Nazis (I don't care if they call themselves Nazis or not, that's what they are) discredit conservatism. People think the choice is between murdering lunatics and Big Pharma controlled Democrats.
We are left with no choice.
And to top it off, these Nazis are destroying the greatness of America. We used to be proud of defeating Nazis. As a conservative, I was proud that we moved beyond slavery, fighting the Civil War (remember Republicans were against slavery, Democrats, for), many conservatives joined with the Civil Rights movement (against most Southern Democrats). Blacks fought with whites in World War 2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
We are one nation, under God, no matter what ethnicity we are, if we hold to the Constitution. That's what matters, not the color of someone's skin.
Race war Nazis are destroying that and destroying America, weakening us internally as well as externally.
So I'm going to say something radical: they want a war? We should take that war to them. I don't mean Black Americans should take the war to them. I mean patriotic Americans, black white, brown, whatever. They're going to shoot up innocent people? I say we start taking up arms against them. They're armed. They aren't innocent. They intend to do harm to Americans. They are a violent threat to Americans and America.
Patriots can give it to these cowardly Nazis shooting up unarmed citizens ten times over. 100 times over. Just wipe them from the face of the earth.
Who's with me?
You know nothing about me and instead build a line of reasoning that mixes source materials, contextualization, and assumptions. I'm not going to invest any more time into such a rhetorical black hole.
You haven't said one thing of substance here.
Mixes source material? That is a nonsensical criticism.
Contextualization? You failed to make any coherent argument.
Assumptions? Yes. I've made some assumptions about you. Most of them you haven't denied, so I read that as my assumptions are largely correct.
My arguments have been clear and sourced. The problem here is that you know you're wrong on these points but can't admit it.
You're clearly motivated to adopt a particular agenda. Stop lying
And you think you aren't? If you think you aren't, then you aren't stopping to analyze your biases.
I've laid out arguments and you don't dispute any facts or even analysis of those facts. That's just being intellectually dishonest with yourself. You can't respond so you reach for some other nonsense criticism like "mixing sources," or "contextualization."
Sources are important, so if there is a problem with a source, then lay out that problem. If there is a problem with the context in which I use a source, then what is it? You made those claims. It's up to you to defend them. If I am "clearly motivated to adopt a particular agenda" then show how that is true.
I guarantee that I can show you are motivated by rightwing political expediencies to adopt the arguments you've put forth. You want to distance the radical right from Naziism so you claim Naziism is some kind of leftist socialism. You ignore the basics of socialism (repudiation of private property, rejection of social hierarchy) and rest your argument on a vague "more or less government." When I challenge that with concrete examples of how you are clearly wrong (Reagan would be far more leftwing than Clinton, for example), you don't have a response. Why not? If you are not "clearly motivated to adopt a particular agenda," why can't you just admit that Nazism lacks the specific characteristics that define what socialism is (repudiation of private property, rejection of social and economic hierarchy)? Lacking those two basic features of the definition of socialism--just about anybody's definition of socialism--it cannot be said that Nazism is socialism. It's not.
As it stands, it's irrational to reject my argument because you haven't offered a counterargument.
I'm not politically motivated to adopt any of this. Stalin was clearly communist and I absolutely reject Stalinism and Leninism. Those were leftist theoreticians (repudiation of private property, although they just established a bureaucratic hierarchy in place of the traditional social hierarchy). I have no problem repudiating them.
I am not being politically motivated when I set straight your misguided notion of anarchy (an-archy--without hierarchy) by quoting anarchists as to what they believed. (Read Murray Bookchin's Post-scarcity Anarchy, for example.)
Libertarianism is what you mean when you refer to rightwing anarchism. Libertarians are not opposed to hierarchy and, in fact, argue it is necessary and in a free society reflects the individual talents of people, in that talented people rise to the top, less talented sink to the bottom. They only want government in so far as that government protects the social and economic private property-based hierarchy that anarchists totally repudiate.
I welcome your thoughts on this.
Like i said before, I'm not interested in debating you anymore because you lack consistent epistemology and basically make up whatever context fits your point of view hence the "contexualization" argument you're attempting to dismiss without addressing its concern.