On the net, do you believe that Communism was a good deal or a bad deal for Eastern Europe, excluding the former Soviet space?

[Agent23]

Ask a lawyer. I've shown you numbers that as far as inheritance tax goes extremely little is paid, they probably qualify for some of the mentioned many types of waivers.

Oh!
Are you a lawyer now, one working with the German tax system?
Weren't you in IT, or in the military?
You claim that you are qualified to comment on a lot of stuff.
Also, you cited inheritance taxes, not overall taxes.

Close but no cigar, less collectivism, more pure calculation in being established in making high quality niche machines and machine parts, and the manpower for that being there and not in Bangladesh.

Maybe, but the manpower could be in Poland, energy and skilled manpower are cheaper there.

Frankly, I think it is a mix of in-group preference, traditionalism and the fact that there is an existing and well-eduvated workforce and legal framework to support the type of stuff Germany makes, or soon to be used to make, considering where energy prices are going.

Neither do i, if EU wants to survive it could do well with far less universalism.

No argument there, their Green policies and the retarded single energy market can go fuck themselves.

How can they be forced if they are the ones who control the force based institutions? We can't organize a mass uprising by fucking telepathy. Organizing an overthrow of elites, over social mores at that, is a massive challenge of organization, communication, politics, and having an actual replacement available.

The "elite" is not a homogeneous mass, if they fuck up some of their number will want changes as well, be it for self serving reasons like career advancement or self-preservation, or the desire to preserve the society in some form and fend off external enemies.
And elites can suddenly remember that they are part of "the people" too.

Among the Chinese it does.

yes, among the largest and most long-lived civilization on the planet...

That IMHO makes it quite close to a time tested universal truism.

No, you are funny for filling in the blanks about which war i said they lost, which i left unspecified
The fact that they did well in short term means little in the context where in the end they are history.

using vague rhetoric and backtracking do not make a good counter-argument.

Their "very selective and meritocratic system" was also very specialized for military purposes, and not so good at anything else.
That's why in the end Athens, despite earlier losses, Macedonian takeover, Rome and later history ended up as the cultural and political center of Greece, and Sparta was sidelined completely in the long run.

Yeah, sure.Or maybe the Romans didn't suppress it as utterly because it was a lot meeker.
In any case, the Greek "states" were a pale imitation of their former selves after Alexander and then Rome.
A tourist attraction for the Romans.It Athens produced some culturally significant philosophical ideas that Rome adopted, so they kept it, much like we keep our simian ancestors in cages.

Ah, so we're not even talking about individualist culture anymore, just a specific type of modern western liberal-socialist hybrid culture that's not very individualist at all if you listen to them about what are all sorts of "communities" that you are supposed to care about because they are oppressed.

Individualism is neither as common nor as intellectually superior to some form of collectivism as you claim.
I hate it, but I have to say it, people are collectivists at heart for purely biological reasons.
Kin selection and tribal survival.
What we have in the USA is excessive tribalism, since both the left and the right have their preferred tribe or group, and a rotten pseudo-individualism that is basically commercialism and virtue signalling.

Consolidated or not, they still weren't short on warfare.

Were any of those a persistent threat that forced the massive, stable empires like China to innovate socially and technologically?

No!

 

[ATP]

Much earlier than that. Communism in the simple sense of abolition of private property (usually meaning other people's property, of course!) goes back a long way.

The essence of Leftism is an extreme, out-of-control egalitarianism, usually as a smokescreen for their own group taking everything from everyone else.



Marxism-Leninism and National Socialism are at heart, very similar ideologies. Nazism is fundamentally a Leftwing ideology, only superficially disguised as Rightwing.

Consider:

"It is you, the common people, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the Church, whose clergy steal everything from you!"

"It is you, the common people, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the so-called Nobility, who steal everything from you!"

"It is you, the workers, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the Capitalists, who steal everything from you!"

"It is you, the German people, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the Jews, who steal everything from you!"

I'm literally just copy-pasting there, and editing a few of the words. But it's all the same template.

1.I even read onece/forget where,as usual/ that first totalitarian was Pitagoras who wonted create perfect society - in Krotona,i think - a- and greek killed him for that.Becouse they do not wanted live in perfect society regulated by smarter elites.

2.As you said.I remember many pamphlets with pictures of poor worker under yoke of fat capitalist,noble and priest.
Fun thing - soviet system created something like that.Yoke under fattiest,i mean.And ,since communism is religion,they could be considered priests,too.

What's interesting about the Nazis is that they blamed Jews for both predatory crony capitalism AND Communism, with both of these things being viewed as tools of Jewish world domination.

Indeed,but what you except from socialists? logic?
And you could say,that Ukraine was artifically created - but by Austrians,who after 1866 supported few students who wonted that to counter poles in their new A-H state.
They have even Habsburg candidate for Ukraine throne who even weared ukrainian peasants shirt.

 

[Agent23]

1.I even read onece/forget where,as usual/ that first totalitarian was Pitagoras who wonted create perfect society - in Krotona,i think - a- and greek killed him for that.Becouse they do not wanted live in perfect society regulated by smarter elites.

2.As you said.I remember many pamphlets with pictures of poor worker under yoke of fat capitalist,noble and priest.
Fun thing - soviet system created something like that.Yoke under fattiest,i mean.And ,since communism is religion,they could be considered priests,too.




Indeed,but what you except from socialists? logic?
And you could say,that Ukraine was artifically created - but by Austrians,who after 1866 supported few students who wonted that to counter poles in their new A-H state.
They have even Habsburg candidate for Ukraine throne who even weared ukrainian peasants shirt.

We here think that Ukraine is to Russia what Macedonia is to US.

Artificially created identity in lands that were once ours and populated by us.

To us Macedonian is "south-western Bulgarian dialect written with a Serbian typewriter".With maybe a few bits of Serb thrown in.

 

[Marduk]

Oh!
Are you a lawyer now, one working with the German tax system?
Weren't you in IT, or in the military?
You claim that you are qualified to comment on a lot of stuff.
Also, you cited inheritance taxes, not overall taxes.

When will you stop trying these fucky games with me?

Wealth and power are deeply intertwined.Hence there should be mechanisms to limit the amount of political power one can buy.
And high wealth inheritance taxes can be of great benefit, since the next generation will not turn into lazy troglodite cultural marxists with ...studies degrees and be forced to work for a living instead.
And I am not saying that all of the money needs to be confiscated.
50-60% should be sufficient to make sure that a family's wealth does not become a resource curse.

YOU were suggesting high inheritance taxes, and gave Germany as an example.

Maybe, but the manpower could be in Poland, energy and skilled manpower are cheaper there.

Frankly, I think it is a mix of in-group preference, traditionalism and the fact that there is an existing and well-eduvated workforce and legal framework to support the type of stuff Germany makes, or soon to be used to make, considering where energy prices are going.

Still there is the cost of relocating, retraining, reorganizing etc, and the manpower there has no decades of experience making exactly this type of specialized gizmos and may or may not turn out to be as good. This kind of stuff typically comes with a certain cost difference barrier to move production, but once it happens, the same barrier arises for moving it back.

The "elite" is not a homogeneous mass, if they fuck up some of their number will want changes as well, be it for self serving reasons like career advancement or self-preservation, or the desire to preserve the society in some form and fend off external enemies.
And elites can suddenly remember that they are part of "the people" too.

How many of them are openly dissident now?

yes, among the largest and most long-lived civilization on the planet...

That IMHO makes it quite close to a time tested universal truism.

How universal is it if it's just one civilization over a very long time?
On the contrary, that makes it their special truism.

Yeah, sure.Or maybe the Romans didn't suppress it as utterly because it was a lot meeker.
In any case, the Greek "states" were a pale imitation of their former selves after Alexander and then Rome.

But they were, unlike Sparta.

A tourist attraction for the Romans.It Athens produced some culturally significant philosophical ideas that Rome adopted, so they kept it, much like we keep our simian ancestors in cages.

Romans had a huge trend of being greekaboos, kinda like after Rome fell many places in Europe were aspiring to copy Rome.

 

[Agent23]

When will you stop trying these fucky games with me?

Um, you constantly try to make yourself out to be an authority on something...

YOU were suggesting high inheritance taxes, and gave Germany as an example.

Nope, not how the conversation progressed.You were talking about high taxes disincentive productive and rich people to leave.
I pointed out that the high German taxes were obviously not stifling innovation and enterpreneurship to such a massive degree.

Still there is the cost of relocating, retraining, reorganizing etc, and the manpower there has no decades of exper obvience making exactly this type of specialized gizmos and may or may not turn out to be as good. This kind of stuff typically comes with a certain cost difference barrier to move production, but once it happens, the same barrier arises for moving it back.

So, there are benefits other than taxes that persuade a business to stay in one country, you say?

How many of them are openly dissident now?

Trump, BoJo, Farage, the Brexiters and Trump republicans.
It takes time to build a movement and for people from the sinking ship to hop onto it.

How universal is it if it's just one civilization over a very long time?
On the contrary, that makes it their special truism.

Nope, The Chinese are humans, too, with much of the same social and all of the biological needs of humans.
Also such a huge, long lasting country is a very good place to research the development of stable social constructs and ideas about society.
Confucius was not that different in a lot of his ideas from the Roman stoics, IMHO.

But they were, unlike Sparta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sparta#Roman_Sparta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta,_Laconia

Romans had a huge trend of being greekaboos, kinda like after Rome fell many places in Europe were aspiring to copy Rome.

Yeah, so?

 

[Marduk]

Um, you constantly try to make yourself out to be an authority on something...

Yes, like reading.

Nope, not how the conversation progressed.You were talking about high taxes disincentive productive and rich people to leave.
I pointed out that the high German taxes were obviously not stifling innovation and enterpreneurship to such a massive degree.

No, we were specifically talking about inheritance taxes and preservation of intergenerational wealth. I asked for an example of your preference working. You picked Germany. I've shown you that Germany has high inheritance taxes on paper only, in practice hardly any are paid. Now you dodge to "well they have pretty high taxes in general".

So, there are benefits other than taxes that persuade a business to stay in one country, you say?

Sometimes there are. Depends on the business and the country.

Trump, BoJo, Farage, the Brexiters and Trump republicans.
It takes time to build a movement and for people from the sinking ship to hop onto it.

All of the above barely bite at the edges of current elite culture, Trump movement most of them all, and mostly by undermining down the current than trying to establish a new one, Bojo and Brexiters very little at all (as in their dissent is about technicalities of EU vs no EU, reminder that some of the wokest countries like NZ and Canada will never be in the EU, not culture really, Bojo and a lot of his support cucked hard culturally to green, rainbow and diversity camps).

Nope, The Chinese are humans, too, with much of the same social and all of the biological needs of humans.

Of course we are talking of culture, mindsets and preferences, not biological needs. And culture can shift social needs a bit here and there.

Also such a huge, long lasting country is a very good place to research the development of stable social constructs and ideas about society.
Confucius was not that different in a lot of his ideas from the Roman stoics, IMHO.

Making stoicism cool again in the West would be a freak success already, nevermind the more alien confucianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sparta#Roman_Sparta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta,_Laconia


Yeah, so?

It shows Athen's model having influence and memorability in the world, its elements and achievements copied by many. Meanwhile in Sparta...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Athens#Roman_Athens

Under Roman rule, Athens was given the status of a free city because of its widely admired schools

Subsequently, Sparta become a free city in the Roman sense, some of the institutions of Lycurgus were restored[135] and the city became a tourist attraction for the Roman elite who came to observe exotic Spartan customs

 

[Agent23]

Yes, like reading.

No, we were specifically talking about inheritance taxes and preservation of intergenerational wealth. I asked for an example of your preference working. You picked Germany. I've shown you that Germany has high inheritance taxes on paper only, in practice hardly any are paid. Now you dodge to "well they have pretty high taxes in general".

No, you were arguing that high taxes, in general, not just inheritance taxes, were causing businesses and businessmen to flee.
Well, a 50% inheritance tax is frankly a lot better than a combined 26-27% tax on dividends and a 42+ percent tax on incomes, IMHO.
Because the person that created the wealth can use the money for reinvestment.

Sometimes there are. Depends on the business and the country.

Good, you actually agree with common sense.

All of the above barely bite at the edges of current elite culture, Trump movement most of them all, and mostly by undermining down the current than trying to establish a new one, Bojo and Brexiters very little at all (as in their dissent is about technicalities of EU vs no EU, reminder that some of the wokest countries like NZ and Canada will never be in the EU, not culture really, Bojo and a lot of his support cucked hard culturally to green, rainbow and diversity camps).

See my comments about lemmings and excessively sheltered elites?
yeah, that is what we have.
But as things progress into a bad direction most elites will be forced to rebrand themselves and join the bandwaggon or be left behind, or get trampled under it.

Of course we are talking of culture, mindsets and preferences, not biological needs. And culture can shift social needs a bit here and there.

Culture and human habits and morality are influenced by evolution and physical necessities.
Do you know that Chimps for instance are nationalistic and even if a few chimps of another group join theirs they will beat the shit out of them?
Or that an excessively nasty alpha male that is too self-centered will be beaten up by some other chimps.
Capucin monkeys similarly revolt when they are made to do work and one is rewarded better than the other.
In primates, there is both in group competition and cooperation and inter-group competition.
We are ultimately just more advanced monkeys and work on the basis of biology.

Making stoicism cool again in the West would be a freak success already, nevermind the more alien confucianism.

Stoicism is the new hot thing in Silicon Valley, lol.
Confucianism and all of that eastern stuff has always been popular with some subgroups.
Again, we are talking about trends and paradigms here, not concrete implementations.
Dutton for instance dedicated a decent amount of time on discussing Victorian upper class values and how the parents would en mass force their brats to toil and live without so as to strengthen character.

It shows Athen's model having influence and memorability in the world, its elements and achievements copied by many. Meanwhile in Sparta...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Athens#Roman_Athens

Both became puppet states, Sparta actually had the chance to contribute hoplites to a few Roman campaigns.
Athens was around longer and built up more stuff culturally, which it then transmitted to other places.
Prussia under Freidrich the Great.
And Athens, itself had a lot of emphasis on Civic Virtue in its culture and the Romans, for instance, were no true fans of democracy, they were happier with a city ruled by laws than one ruled by votes.

 

[Ricardolindo]

On the net, do you believe that Communism was a good deal or a bad deal for Eastern Europe, excluding the former Soviet space? Obviously including the ex-Soviet space here would make Communism an extremely massive negative due to the extremely massive death, suffering, and misery that it caused. However, AFAIK, Communist rule in Eastern Europe was milder than it was in the Soviet Union and it also ensured that Eastern Europe would not be flooded with millions of Muslims like Western Europe was while also giving Eastern Europeans an extremely good "vaccine" against various forms of Leftism, including new forms of Leftism such as Wokeness. Western Europe was in a better position than Eastern Europe was during the Cold War, but it now has massive Muslim and Wokeness problems to deal with. On the flip side, though, Western Europe still produces much more elite science than Eastern Europe does even nowadays.

Anyway, what do you think? Was Communism, on the net, a good deal or a bad deal for Eastern Europe? @ATP @Marduk @PsihoKekec

Communism was absolutely a net negative for Eastern Europe. However, Eastern Europe would still be poorer than Western Europe for deep historical and geographical reasons though the gap would be smaller.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Without the Bolsheviks, there would've been 260 million Russians within the current Russian Federation's borders. Without Lenin artificially creating Ukraine, it (and Belarus) would have been culturally absorbed into Russia as a whole and we'd see a Russia that probably has 400 million people. At a GDP per capita of $10,000 that would be an economy of $4 Trillion.

Autonomy =/= Secessionism, we also need to keep in mind Ukrainian nationalism was being propped up by the Central Powers as a force and it rapidly went back under once that was withdrawn. Specifically, however, I'm looking at later events; Russian language publications far exceeded Ukrainian ones until the mid to late 20s under the Soviets, who instituted mass Ukrainian language education. This trend reversed in the mid 1980s, even despite 60+ years of the existence of the Ukrainian SSR. It didn't start turning back until around 2010.

Choosing to use the Russian language, instead of their own, is indicative of preference because Ukrainian is alive and well in a way Welsh and Scots hasn't been for quite sometime. It's also worth noting that usage of the Russian language correlated well with Ukrainian polling on their status vis-a-vis Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union and is remarkably tied into the events of the 2010s. Russian language publications became to decline after 2010-which marked the high point of desire in Ukraine to directly join Russia-and then precipitously after 2014. If it wasn't tied into identity, it should not have declined after 2014.

Even if Ukraine doesn't ultimately become independent, which I doubt, most ukrainians would never accept being considered Little Russians. Ukraine had a different history from Belarus because of the tradition of Cossack self-rule and the greater prosperify.

 

[WolfBear]

Communism was absolutely a net negative for Eastern Europe. However, Eastern Europe would still be poorer than Western Europe for deep historical and geographical reasons though the gap would be smaller.

Well, Eastern Europe isn't that IQ-deficient relative to Western Europe, on average. The Balkans are a bit more but not Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, the Baltics, et cetera.

Even if Ukraine doesn't ultimately become independent, which I doubt, most ukrainians would never accept being considered Little Russians. Ukraine had a different history from Belarus because of the tradition of Cossack self-rule and the greater prosperify.

Frankly, if Ukraine wasn't going to become independent, then neither should Poland have since that way the Poles and their sibling Ukrainians and Belarusians could have remained a part of one state just like they were back in the days of the PLC, even if this state nowadays would be both much larger and Russian-dominated.

 

[WolfBear]

Interesting fact: The nobility in ex-PLC Ukraine was mostly Polish even as late as 1897:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NobilityLang1897.PNG

Novorossiya's nobility was mostly Russian in 1897 while Malorossiya's nobility was mostly Ukrainian in 1897.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Interesting fact: The nobility in ex-PLC Ukraine was mostly Polish even as late as 1897:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NobilityLang1897.PNG

Novorossiya's nobility was mostly Russian in 1897 while Malorossiya's nobility was mostly Ukrainian in 1897.

What is that color in Northern Crimea? Is it Crimean Tatar?

 

[Ricardolindo]

Well, Eastern Europe isn't that IQ-deficient relative to Western Europe, on average. The Balkans are a bit more but not Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, the Baltics, et cetera.

I said "historical and geographical reasons". Eastern Europe has always been poorer than Western Europe and its climate is harsher.

 

[WolfBear]

What is that color in Northern Crimea? Is it Crimean Tatar?

Yep, that's between 50% and 65% Tatar.

I said "historical and geographical reasons". Eastern Europe has always been poorer than Western Europe and its climate is harsher.

The climate is harsh in Canada and yet Canada is very wealthy. Of course, there are almost certainly more people of Western European descent in Canada than of Eastern European descent, though Canada does have a lot of Ukrainians.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

We here think that Ukraine is to Russia what Macedonia is to US.

Artificially created identity in lands that were once ours and populated by us.

To us Macedonian is "south-western Bulgarian dialect written with a Serbian typewriter".With maybe a few bits of Serb thrown in.

And the funny part is that the slur 'Tatar' is often used against both Bulgarians and Russians.

Example: "Scratch a Russian, and you find a Tatar" was one of those sayings that describe Russians because of how they were mixed with the Mongols when the latter had occupied the former.

"Bugari, Tatari" is one of those Macedonian chants that insult Bulgarians.

The funny part is that the modern day Tatars are partly descended from Volga Bulgars that mixed with the Mongols, and the Chuvash are the last descendants of the old Bulgar Khanate that speak a Turkic language that isn't intelligible with the Oghuz, Kipchak, and Karluk dialects (Old Bulgar, Cuman, and maybe Khazar Turkic are Oghur dialects). One could thank Khan Kotrag for bringing his people into the Volga region when those tribes split apart as a result of the Khazar invasions.

Going back to the topic at hand, I would have also thought that communism was also a bad deal for Eastern Europe in the environmental area as well, though the only example I can think of as the prime example of bad environmental practices was applied with the shrinking of the Aral Sea region.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Much earlier than that. Communism in the simple sense of abolition of private property (usually meaning other people's property, of course!) goes back a long way.

The essence of Leftism is an extreme, out-of-control egalitarianism, usually as a smokescreen for their own group taking everything from everyone else.



Marxism-Leninism and National Socialism are at heart, very similar ideologies. Nazism is fundamentally a Leftwing ideology, only superficially disguised as Rightwing.

Consider:

"It is you, the common people, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the Church, whose clergy steal everything from you!"

"It is you, the common people, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the so-called Nobility, who steal everything from you!"

"It is you, the workers, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the Capitalists, who steal everything from you!"

"It is you, the German people, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the Jews, who steal everything from you!"

I'm literally just copy-pasting there, and editing a few of the words. But it's all the same template.

a bit late to the party but I'd like to add:

"It is you, the traditionalist, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the post-modernist swine, who steal everything from you!"

I can speak from personal experience that envy is an equal opportunist.

 

[Scottty]

a bit late to the party but I'd like to add:

"It is you, the traditionalist, whose productive labour produces everything of value, but yet, you live in poverty. Why? Because of the post-modernist swine, who steal everything from you!"

I can speak from personal experience that envy is an equal opportunist.

I hear you, but unlike the Left, the Right is seldom if ever motivated by Envy.
This is not about coveting the wealth of others, it's about defending our civilization and culture, and even our physical existence, against the people who would gleefully burn everything down in a fit of self-indulgence.

How about:
"It is you, the traditionalist men, whose wives give birth to the future generations of humanity. But the Secular Left wants to steal your children from you and turn them gay!"

Consider the four examples I gave above - in reality, a clergyman, a feudal baron, a Victorian factory-owner, and a Jewish moneylender all played an important role in society, even if many in all of those groups were often very bad people.

By contrast, if the Intersectional Left all got dropped from helicopters into the Pacific ocean, what of value would be lost?

Consider too, that none of those people wanted to destroy the social system in which they lived, nor would they desire to bring ruin on everyone else.
The feudal baron would want his vassals to be many and prosperous, so that he could gather much in tax revenue from them. The Victorian capitalist would want there to be multitudes of people with disposable income, who could buy his products. And so on.
If you had suggested to Shakespeare's Shylock that the city-state of Venice should invite in an unlimited number of Africans, give them all free food and lodging indefinitely, and confiscate all the assets of the ordinary Venetian citizens to pay for this, he would have thought you were raving mad.
(And being a Shakespeare character, would have said so in an eloquent long speech.)

And if you'd told him to his face that you wanted to surgically alter his daughter to make her resemble a man, he'd probably have reached for a weapon.

 

[Agent23]

I hear you, but unlike the Left, the Right is seldom if ever motivated by Envy.
This is not about coveting the wealth of others, it's about defending our civilization and culture, and even our physical existence, against the people who would gleefully burn everything down in a fit of self-indulgence.

How about:
"It is you, the traditionalist men, whose wives give birth to the future generations of humanity. But the Secular Left wants to steal your children from you and turn them gay!"

Consider the four examples I gave above - in reality, a clergyman, a feudal baron, a Victorian factory-owner, and a Jewish moneylender all played an important role in society, even if many in all of those groups were often very bad people.

By contrast, if the Intersectional Left all got dropped from helicopters into the Pacific ocean, what of value would be lost?

Consider too, that none of those people wanted to destroy the social system in which they lived, nor would they desire to bring ruin on everyone else.
The feudal baron would want his vassals to be many and prosperous, so that he could gather much in tax revenue from them. The Victorian capitalist would want there to be multitudes of people with disposable income, who could buy his products. And so on.
If you had suggested to Shakespeare's Shylock that the city-state of Venice should invite in an unlimited number of Africans, give them all free food and lodging indefinitely, and confiscate all the assets of the ordinary Venetian citizens to pay for this, he would have thought you were raving mad.
(And being a Shakespeare character, would have said so in an eloquent long speech.)

And if you'd told him to his face that you wanted to surgically alter his daughter to make her resemble a man, he'd probably have reached for a weapon.

As I mentioned in my conversation with Marduk, which was hugely off topic, people are actually quite collectivist as a species.
There are rightwing collectivists and left wing collectivists, just how there are self-serving individuals on both sides.
The right collectivist wants to be part of a smaller and more exclusive group, whileas the leftoids want to be part of an ever larger group.
The right also has more of an emphasis on personal responsibility and virtue, whileas the left has to pin everything on somebody else IMHO.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I hear you, but unlike the Left, the Right is seldom if ever motivated by Envy.
This is not about coveting the wealth of others, it's about defending our civilization and culture, and even our physical existence, against the people who would gleefully burn everything down in a fit of self-indulgence.

I'll believe that when the right fights off the left and stays on their side of the fence. I'm not holding my breath because it'll probably come up with some claim for EVERY lane especially with it's seemengly obsession establishing New Jerusalem or New Rome. I'm not holding my breath in any case.

 

[Aldarion]

I'll believe that when the right fights off the left and stays on their side of the fence.

The right is in bad straits right now precisely because that is all the Right had ever done, with few exceptions. Left attacks, Right defends, and so little by little the Overton window is being pushed towards complete insanity.

Modern-day Right is nothing more than warmed-over Left, and the attitude you describe is the reason for that.